[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51620-51648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19793]
[[Page 51619]]
Vol. 77
Friday,
No. 165
August 24, 2012
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 49
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best
Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo
Nation; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 165 / Friday, August 24, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 51620]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 49
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683; FRL-9715-9]
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best
Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo
Nation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating a
source-specific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) requiring the Four
Corners Power Plant (FCPP), a coal-fired power plant located on the
Navajo Nation near Farmington, New Mexico, to achieve emissions
reductions required by the Clean Air Act's (CAA) Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) provision. In this final action, EPA is
requiring FCPP to reduce emissions of oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) and is setting emission limits for particulate matter
(PM) based on emission rates already achieved at FCPP. These pollutants
contribute to visibility impairment in the numerous mandatory Class I
Federal areas surrounding FCPP. For NOX emissions, EPA is
requiring FCPP to meet a plant-wide emission limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu on
a rolling 30-day heat input-weighted average. This represents an 80
percent reduction from the current NOX emission rate and is
expected to provide significant improvement in visibility. EPA is also
finalizing an alternative emission control strategy that gives the
owners of FCPP the option to close Units 1-3 and install controls on
Units 4 and 5 to each meet an emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu, based
on a rolling average of 30 successive boiler operating days. For PM,
EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 at FCPP to meet an emission limit of
0.015 lb/MMBtu, and retaining the existing 20 percent opacity limit.
These PM limits are achievable through the proper operation of the
existing baghouses. EPA is also requiring FCPP to comply with a 20
percent opacity limit on its coal and material handling operations.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on October 23, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9, (415) 972-
3958, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has established a docket for this action
under Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683. The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
and in hard copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g. copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly
available in either location (e.g. Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copies.
Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'', and ``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background of the Final Rule
II. Summary of Final Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) Provisions
III. Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters
A. Comments on Factor One--Cost of Controls
1. Comments on the Analysis of the Cost of SCR at FCPP
2. Comments on Top-Down Analysis Versus Incremental Cost
Effectiveness
B. Comments on Factor Two--Economic, Energy, and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts
1. Comments on Economic Impacts
a. General Comments on Economic Impacts
b. Comments on EPA's Economic Analysis
2. Comments on Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts
C. Comments on Factor Three--Existing Controls at FCPP
D. Comments on Factor Four--Remaining Useful Life at FCPP
E. Comments on Factor Five--Anticipated Visibility Improvements
F. Comments on BART Determinations
1. Comments on the Proposed BART Determination for
NOX
2. Comments on the Proposed BART Determination for PM
3. Comments on BART for SO2
4. Other Comments on BART
G. Comments on Arizona Public Service's Alternative and EPA's
Supplemental Proposal
H. Other Comments
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
I. Background of the Final Rule
FCPP is a privately owned and operated coal-fired power plant
located on the Navajo Nation Indian Reservation near Farmington, New
Mexico. Based on lease agreements signed in 1960, FCPP was constructed
and has been operating on real property held in trust by the Federal
government for the Navajo Nation. The facility consists of five coal-
fired electric utility steam generating units with a total capacity of
2060 megawatts (MW). Units 1, 2, and 3 at FCPP are owned entirely by
Arizona Public Service (APS) which serves as the facility operator, and
are rated to 170 MW (Units 1 and 2) and 220 MW (Unit 3). Units 4 and 5
are each rated to a capacity of 750 MW, and are co-owned by six
entities: Southern California Edison \1\ (48 percent), APS (15
percent), Public Service Company of New Mexico (13 percent), Salt River
Project (SRP) (10 percent), El Paso Electric Company (7 percent), and
Tucson Electric Power (7 percent).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Arizona Public Service is currently seeking regulatory
approvals to purchase Southern California Edison's share of Units 4
and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's proposed BART determination for FCPP, published on October
19, 2010, provided a thorough discussion of the statutory and
regulatory framework for addressing visibility through application of
BART for sources located in Indian country, and of the factual
background for BART determinations at FCPP. 75 FR 64221.
On February 25, 2011, as a result of additional information
provided by stakeholders, EPA published a Supplemental Proposal. FR 76
10530. We briefly summarize the provisions of our Proposal and our
Supplemental Proposal below.
Part C Subpart II of the 1977 CAA establishes a visibility
protection program that sets forth ``as a national goal the prevention
of any future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of
visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.'' 42 U.S.C. 7491A(a)(1). EPA promulgated
regional haze regulations on April 22, 1999. 64 FR 35765. Consistent
with the statutory requirement in 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(a), EPA's 1999
regional haze
[[Page 51621]]
regulations include a provision requiring States to require certain
major stationary sources to procure, install and operate BART. This
provision covers sources ``in existence on August 7, 1977, but which
ha[ve] not been in operation for more than fifteen years as of such
date'' and which emit pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment. EPA has determined
that FCPP is a BART-eligible source (75 FR 64221).
In determining BART, States are required to take into account five
factors identified in the CAA and EPA's regulations. 42 U.S.C.
7491(g)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308. Those factors are: (1) The costs of
compliance, (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, (3) any pollution control equipment in use or in existence
at the source, (4) the remaining useful life of the source, and (5) the
degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated
to result from the use of such technology. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
EPA's guidelines for evaluating BART are set forth in Appendix Y to 40
CFR Part 51.
In 1998, EPA promulgated the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) relating
to implementation of CAA programs in Indian country. See 40 CFR part
49; see also 59 FR 43956 (Aug. 25, 1994) (proposed rule); 63 FR 7254
(Feb. 12, 1998) (final rule); Arizona Public Service Company v. EPA,
211 F.3d 1280 (DC Cir. 2000), cert. den., 532 U.S. 970 (2001)
(upholding the TAR).
In the TAR, EPA determined that it has the discretionary authority
to promulgate ``such federal implementation plan provisions as are
necessary or appropriate to protect air quality'' consistent with CAA
sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) when a Tribe has not submitted or EPA has
not approved a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). 40 CFR 49.11(a).
EPA has previously promulgated FIPs under the TAR to regulate air
pollutants emitted from FCPP. In 1999, EPA proposed a FIP for FCPP.
That FIP proposed to fill the regulatory gap that existed because New
Mexico permits and State Implementation Plan (SIP) rules are not
applicable or enforceable in the Navajo Nation, and the Tribe had not
sought approval of a TIP covering the plant. 64 FR 48731 (Sept. 8,
1999).
Before EPA finalized the 1999 FIP, the operator of FCPP began
negotiations to reduce SO2 emissions from FCPP by making
upgrades to improve the efficiency of its SO2 scrubbers. The
parties to the negotiations requested EPA to make those SO2
reductions enforceable through a source-specific FIP. Therefore, EPA
proposed a new FIP for FCPP in September 2006. 71 FR 53631 (Sept. 12,
2006). In the final FIP, EPA indicated that the new SO2
emissions limits were close to or the equivalent of the emissions
reductions that would have been required in a BART determination. 72 FR
25698 (May 7, 2007). The FIP also required FCPP to comply with a 20
percent opacity limit on both the combustion and fugitive dust
emissions from material handling operations.
APS, the operator of FCPP, and Sierra Club each filed Petitions
seeking judicial review of EPA's promulgation of the 2007 FIP for FCPP
on separate grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
rejected both Petitions. The Court agreed with EPA's request for a
voluntary remand of a single narrow aspect of the 2007 FIP: The opacity
limit for the fugitive dust for the material handling operations. Id.
At 1131.
On October 19, 2010 (75 FR 64221) EPA proposed a second FIP under
40 CFR 49.11(a) finding it is necessary or appropriate to establish
BART requirements for NOX and PM emissions from FCPP, and
proposed specific NOX and PM limits as BART. For
NOX, EPA proposed a plant-wide emission limit of 0.11 lb/
MMBtu, representing an 80 percent reduction from current NOX
emission rates, achievable by installing and operating SCR technology
on Units 1-5. For PM, EPA proposed an emission limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu
for Units 1-3 and 0.015 lb/MMBtu for Units 4 and 5 achievable by
installing and operating any of several equivalent controls on Units 1-
3, and through proper operation of the existing baghouses on Units 4
and 5. EPA also proposed a 10 percent opacity limit from Units 1-5 and
a 20 percent opacity limit to apply to FCPP's material handling
operations to respond to the voluntary remand EPA took on this issue
from the 2007 FIP.
On November 24, 2010, APS, acting on behalf of FCPP's owners,
submitted a letter to EPA offering an alternative to reduce visibility-
impairing pollution. APS proposed to close Units 1-3 by 2014 and
install and operate SCR on Units 4 and 5 to each meet an emission limit
of 0.11 lb/MMBtu by the end of 2018. On February 25, 2011, we published
a Supplemental Proposal (76 FR 10530) with a technical evaluation of
APS' alternative. Our Supplemental Proposal also provides a detailed
summary of the legal background for proposing an alternative emission
control strategy as achieving better progress towards the national
visibility goal (76 FR 10530).
In our Supplemental Proposal, EPA proposed to allow APS the option
to comply with the alternative emission control strategy in lieu of
complying with our October 19, 2010, proposed BART determination. EPA's
alternative emission control strategy involved closure of Units 1-3 by
2014 and installation and operation of add-on post combustion controls
on Units 4 and 5 to each meet a NOX emission limit of 0.098
lb/MMBtu by July 31, 2018. EPA proposed that this alternative emission
control strategy represents reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal, under CAA Section 169A(b)(2), because it would result
in greater visibility improvement in surrounding Class I areas at a
lower cost than our October 19, 2010, BART proposal. The proposal to
require PM and opacity limits on Units 1-5, as well as 20 percent
opacity limits for controlling dust from coal and ash handling and
storage facilities, was unchanged.
II. Summary of Final FIP Provisions
EPA is finding today that it is necessary or appropriate to
promulgate a source-specific FIP requiring FCPP to achieve emissions
reductions required by the CAA's BART provision. Specifically, EPA is
requiring FCPP to meet new emissions limits for NOX and PM.
These pollutants contribute to visibility impairment in the 16
mandatory Class I Federal areas surrounding FCPP. For NOX
emissions, EPA is finalizing a BART determination as well as an
optional alternative to BART. FCPP can choose which emissions control
strategy to follow and must notify EPA of its choice by July 1, 2013.
Our final BART determination requires FCPP to meet a plant-wide heat
input-weighted emission limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu on a rolling 30-calendar
day average which represents an 80 percent reduction from current
NOX emission rates. This NOX limit is achievable
by installing and operating add-on post-combustion controls on Units 1-
5. Installation and operation of the new NOX controls on one
750 MW unit must be within 4 years of October 23, 2012. NOX
controls on the remaining units must be installed and operated within 5
years of October 23, 2012.
Alternatively, FCPP may choose to comply with an alternative
emission control strategy for NOX in lieu of complying with
EPA's final BART determination for NOX. This alternative
emission control strategy requires permanent closure of Units 1-3 by
January 1, 2014, and installation and operation of add-on post
combustion controls on Units 4 and 5 to meet a NOX emission
limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu each, based on a rolling average of 30
[[Page 51622]]
successive boiler operating days, by July 31, 2018.
For PM, EPA is requiring Units 4 and 5 to meet a BART emission
limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu within 60 days after restart following the
scheduled major outages for Units 4 and 5 in 2013 and 2014. This
emission limit is achievable through the proper operation of the
existing baghouses. EPA is determining that it is not necessary or
appropriate to finalize our proposed PM BART determination for Units 1-
3 or our proposed opacity limit of 10 percent on Units 1-5. FCPP must
continue to meet the existing 20 percent opacity limit on Units 1-5.
To address our voluntary remand of the material handling
requirements from the 2007 FIP, EPA is finalizing our proposal to
require FCPP to comply with a 20 percent opacity limit on its material
handling operations, including coal handling.
In our final rule, EPA has made several revisions to the proposed
rule and Supplemental Proposal based on comments we received during the
public comment period. These revisions include: revising the compliance
date under BART from within 3 to 5 years \2\ of the effective date of
the final rule to within 4 to 5 years \3\ of the effective date;
revising the interim limits to only include an interim limit for one
750 MW unit rather than all units to match the revised compliance
timeframes; adding 6 months to the notification dates to EPA on APS's
plans to implement BART or the BART Alternative; revising the averaging
time for the NOX limit under the BART Alternative from a 30-
day average to a rolling average of 30 successive boiler operating
days; retaining the existing opacity limit of 20 percent instead of
setting a new 10 percent opacity limit on Units 1-5; determining that
it is not necessary or appropriate at this time to finalize a BART
determination for PM for Units 1-3; and revising the effective date of
the PM emission limit for Units 4 and 5 to the next schedule major
outage rather than following installation of new post-combustion
NOX controls. We include the rationale for these revisions
in our responses to comments. All comments we received are included in
the docket and EPA has summarized and responded to all comments in a
separate Response to Comments (RTC) document that is also included in
the docket for this final rulemaking. In this Federal Register notice,
EPA is including a summary of the major comments we received and a
summary of our responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We proposed to require phased installation of add-on
NOX controls on at least 560 MW of generation within 3
years of the effective date of the final rule, on at least 1310 MW
of generation within 4 years of the effective date, and plant-wide
within 5 years of the effective date.
\3\ We are finalizing the rule to require phased installation of
add-on NOX controls on at least 750 MW of generation
within 4 years of the effective date and on the remaining units
within 5 years of the effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Summary of Major Issues Raised by Commenters
Our October 19, 2010, proposal included a 60-day public comment
period that ended on December 20, 2010. On November 12, 2010, EPA
published a notice of public hearings to be held in the Four Corners
area on December 7-9, 2010 (75 FR 69374). On December 8, 2010, EPA
published in the Federal Register a notice that EPA received an
alternative proposal from APS and would be extending the public comment
period to March 18, 2011, and postponing the previously scheduled
public hearings in order to evaluate that alternative proposal (75 FR
76331). Notices of public hearings and rescheduled hearings were
published in three newspapers near the Four Corners Power Plant \4\.
Our supplemental proposal on February 25, 2011, subsequently extended
the public comment period until May 2, 2011, and announced four public
hearings on the proposed BART determination and supplemental proposal
in the Four Corners area on March 29, 30, and 31, 2011. In all, 90 oral
testimonies were presented at the public hearings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Notices of scheduled public hearings were published in the
Farmington Daily Times and the Durango Herald on November 3, 2010
and February 17, 2011, and the Navajo Times on November 4, 2010 and
February 17, 2011. Notices of the extended public comment period and
postponement of the December public hearings were published in the
Farmington Daily Times and the Durango Herald on November 24, 2010
and in the Navajo Times on December 2, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received nearly 13,000 written comments. Of these, over 12,800
comments came from private citizens who submitted substantially similar
comments. We received an additional 110 unique written comments (not
including duplicates, requests for extension of the public comment
period, or requests for additional hearings). We do not consider or
address letters or comments unrelated to the rulemaking in this notice
or in our response to comments document. The unique comments can be
broken down by general type as follows: 78 from private citizens, eight
from environmental advocacy groups, four from the owners of FCPP, five
from state/local government entities, four from public interest
advocacy groups, two from tribes, four from utility industry
associations, three from federal agencies, one from a U.S. Senator, and
one from the operator of the Navajo Mine.
A. Comments on Factor One--Cost of Controls
We received a number of comments on our approach for estimating the
cost of SCR at FCCP, the incremental cost effectiveness of controls,
and on our top-down approach for evaluating controls.
1. Comments on the Analysis of the Cost of SCR at FCPP
Comment: Some of the owners of FCPP and a utility industry
association stated that in analyzing the cost of SCR at FCPP, EPA
improperly reworked and reduced the SCR cost estimates submitted for
FCPP by eliminating line item costs that are not explicitly included in
the EPA Control Cost Manual (citing 75 FR 64227). Commenters noted that
APS' estimate was prepared by B&V, an engineering firm with extensive
experience with the installation and operation of pollution control
equipment and that the prices used in the cost analysis were based on
quotes from equipment vendors that reflected current pricing.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA improperly
reworked and reduced the SCR cost estimates. EPA used a hybrid approach
for our cost analysis that relied primarily on the highest of several
cost estimates provided by APS, but also followed the BART Guidelines
that state ``[i]n order to maintain and improve consistency, cost
estimates should be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where
possible'',\5\ to determine whether APS included cost estimates for
services or equipment associated with SCR that were either not needed
(e.g., mitigation for increased sulfuric acid emissions or catalyst
disposal), or not allowed under the EPA Control Cost Manual (e.g.,
legal fees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The OAQPS Control Cost Manual is now called the EPA Control
Cost Manual. The EPA Control Cost Manual is available from the
following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttncatc1/products.html#cccinfo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our cost analysis relied primarily on the highest cost estimates
submitted by APS. EPA accepted all site-specific costs provided by APS
for cost categories (e.g., purchased equipment, installation) that are
typically included in a cost estimate conducted in accordance with the
EPA Control Cost Manual, and only excluded line item costs that are not
explicitly included in the EPA Control Cost Manual or in a limited
number of cases where EPA determined alternative
[[Page 51623]]
costs were more appropriate (e.g., costs of catalysts, interest rates).
We note that EPA's cost estimate presented in the Technical Support
Document (TSD)\6\ ($718 million total for Units 1-5) is only 18 percent
lower than the highest B&V cost estimate and less than 0.6 percent
lower than the lowest and most recent B&V cost estimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See ``TSD Proposal--Technical Support Document 10-6-10'',
Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our detailed, line-by-line analysis \7\ was included in the docket
for our proposed rulemaking and provided an explanation for why we
retained, modified, or rejected each line item in the SCR cost estimate
for each of the five units at FCPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See ``TSD ref [40] Four Corners SCR Cost Analysis (EPA) 8-
26-10'', Document No. EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683-0033.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP asserted that EPA's estimate of
the average cost effectiveness of SCR at FCPP is significantly higher
than the level ($1,600 per ton of NOX removed) that EPA
determined was not cost effective in the 2005 BART rules for
presumptive BART limits. The commenter asserted that there is no basis
for EPA to depart from its own rules by concluding that SCR is BART for
FCPP when this technology is many times more expensive than the costs
EPA rejected as presumptive BART in the 2005 BART rules. The commenter
noted that its cost analysis estimated that the average cost
effectiveness of combustion controls for the five units at FCPP would
range from $524 to $1,735 per ton of NOX removed, while the
average cost effectiveness of SCR would range from $4,215 to $5,283 per
ton. The commenter also noted that EPA's estimate of average cost
effectiveness for SCR at FCPP ranged from $2,515 to $3,163 per ton. The
commenter stated that, at the low end, only the estimate of the average
cost effectiveness of combustion controls is in line with EPA's
estimates of cost-effective controls for presumptive BART limits, while
the estimate of average cost effectiveness of SCR is significantly
higher.
Response: EPA disagrees with this comment. Although the commenters
argue that the BART guidelines established a threshold for cost
effectiveness against which future BART determinations must be
compared, the BART Guidelines did not establish a cost effectiveness
threshold for all BART determinations. In developing the presumptive
NOX limits for BART in 2005, EPA did not set the cost
effectiveness values estimated for combustion controls as the threshold
for determining whether a given control technology was or was not cost
effective. The BART Guidelines do not set a numerical definition for
``cost effective'', and the analysis of presumptive limits uses cost
effectiveness as a means to broadly compare control technologies, not
as threshold for rejecting controls for an individual unit or facility
that exceed the average cost effectiveness of combustion controls.
Additionally, a comparison of the average cost effectiveness
estimates in the 2005 BART guidelines against EPA's cost effectiveness
estimates in 2010 for FCPP is not an ``apples to apples'' comparison.
The technical support documentation for the 2005 BART guidelines
indicate that cost effectiveness of controls was not determined based
on site-specific cost estimates developed for each BART-eligible
facility; rather, cost estimates for existing facilities were
determined using assumptions for capital and annual costs per kilowatt
(kW) \8\ or kilowatt-hour (kW-hr), and then scaled according to boiler
size at the existing facilities. The supporting information for the
2005 BART Guidelines estimated SCR costs \9\ for FCPP Units 4 and 5
that are comparable to SCR cost estimates generated by the National
Park Service (NPS) in 2009 using the EPA Control Cost Manual.\10\ The
same commenters have previously dismissed the NPS SCR cost estimates
based on the EPA Control Cost Manual because it does not include site-
specific costs.\11\ In short, the commenter's recommendation to use
generalized cost estimates from the 2005 BART Guidelines as a bright
line threshold for comparison with site-specific 2010 cost estimates is
inconsistent with its own criticisms of the EPA Control Cost Manual.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In the 2005 BART presumptive limit analysis, EPA estimated
capital costs at all facilities nationwide assuming that SCR costs
were $100/kW, and then scaling by the size of the facility (kW).
\9\ The 2005 BART guidelines estimated SCR capital costs at FCPP
to be $64 million and total annual costs to be $11 million. Cost
effectiveness calculations rely on total annual costs and annual
NOX reductions from the control technology.
\10\ In the ANPRM, in addition to reporting APS' cost estimates
and EPA's revisions to APS' cost estimates, for reference, EPA also
reported cost estimates developed by NPS using the EPA Control Cost
Manual and provided to EPA during consultations with the FLMs prior
to our ANPRM. NPS estimated SCR capital costs to be $53 million and
total annual costs to be $10 million. See Table 9 in the October
2010 TSD for the proposed BART determination for FCPP. In its
comments on the ANPR, NPS revised its cost estimates for SCR on
Units 4 and 5 to $114 million (capital cost) and $18 million (total
annual cost)--see Table 12 in the TSD for the proposed BART
determination.
\11\ APS and other entities provided comments to EPA on the NPS
cost estimates reported in the ANPRM, see document titled ``Comments
on ANPRM 09 0598 APS Comments and Exhibits'' document ID number EPA-
R09-OAR-2009-0598-0195.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining that a different level of control than the
presumptive limit was warranted as BART for FCPP, EPA evaluated the
five statutory factors in our assessment for FCPP. This evaluation was
detailed in the Technical Support Document for our proposed BART
determination and included an analysis of cost effectiveness, energy
and non-air quality impacts of controls, existing controls at the
facility, the remaining useful life of the facility, and the visibility
improvement reasonably anticipated to result from controls. Therefore,
EPA has not improperly disregarded the BART guidelines in our analysis
for FCPP.
Comment: A number of commenters stated that EPA's BART analysis for
FCPP was inconsistent with its own regulations in that it failed to
consider control costs as a function of visibility improvement. These
commenters typically stated that EPA's BART determination for FCPP must
consider the cost effectiveness of control technology options in terms
of dollars per deciview-improved.
Response: The BART Guidelines require that cost effectiveness be
calculated in terms of annualized dollars per ton of pollutant removed,
or $/ton.\12\ The commenters are correct in that the BART Guidelines
list the $/deciview ratio as an additional cost effectiveness metric
that can be employed along with $/ton for use in a BART evaluation.
However, the use of this metric further implies that additional
thresholds or notions of acceptability, separate from the $/ton metric,
would need to be developed for BART determinations. We have not used
this metric for BART purposes at FCPP because (1) it is unnecessary in
judging the cost effectiveness of BART, (2) it complicates the BART
analysis, and (3) it is difficult to judge. In particular, the $/
deciview metric has not been widely used and is not well-understood as
a comparative tool. In our experience, $/deciview values tend to be
very large because the metric is based on impacts at one Class I area
on one day and does not take into account the number of affected Class
I areas or the number of days of improvement that result from
controlling emissions. In addition, the use of the $/deciview suggests
a level of precision in the CALPUFF model that may not be warranted. As
a result, the $/deciview can be misleading. We conclude that it is
sufficient to analyze the cost
[[Page 51624]]
effectiveness of potential BART controls for FCPP using $/ton, in
conjunction with an assessment of the modeled visibility benefits of
the BART control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 70 FR 39167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA considered cost of controls, including the total capital costs,
annual costs, and $/ton of NOX pollution reduced in our
proposed BART determination. Additionally, in response to comments
received on our proposal, EPA included calculations and consideration
of incremental cost effectiveness (see Section 3.2 of the Response to
Comments document in the docket for this final rulemaking). EPA
considered visibility impacts, including the degree of impairment, the
number of Class I areas affected by FCPP, the deciview improvement
resulting from controls, and the percent change in improvement. EPA
determined that these metrics are sufficient in completing our five-
factor analysis for FCPP.
Comment: One commenter stated that BART must be determined in the
context of reasonable progress rather than in isolation and that the
cost effectiveness metric used by EPA (i.e., $/ton of NOX
reduced) does not satisfy the statutory requirement to consider the
cost to comply with the Regional Haze program because it does not
include compliance costs related to requirements for reasonable
progress.
Response: Congress identified BART as a key measure for ensuring
reasonable progress. We disagree that BART must be determined in the
context of reasonable progress. If anything, reasonable progress
depends on BART. Because the Class I areas affected by emissions from
FCPP are not achieving the glidepath, it is important that states,
tribes, and EPA require reasonable measures to be implemented to ensure
that progress is made towards the national visibility goal.
The BART guidelines specify that the cost of controls be estimated
by identifying the emission units being controlled, defining the design
parameters for emission controls, and developing a cost estimate based
on those design parameters using the EPA Control Cost Manual while
taking into account any site-specific design or other conditions that
affect the cost of a particular BART control option. The BART
guidelines do not require the costs of compliance under BART to
consider costs that may be associated with reasonable progress.
Comment: The Navajo Nation commented that EPA should analyze the
affordability of controls under the supplemental proposal by performing
a detailed analysis, rather than an approximation, of the cost of
compliance for installing SCR on Units 4 and 5, including a
consideration of the impacts of closing Units 1-3.
Response: EPA disagrees that we should perform a detailed cost
analysis of the alternative emission control strategy put forth in the
Supplemental Proposal. The Regional Haze Rule, in assessing an
alternative measure in lieu of BART (40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)) requires
several elements in the alternative plan (e.g., a demonstration that
the alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART, and
that reductions are surplus to the baseline date of the SIP), but does
not require an analysis of the cost of the alternative plan.
Similarly, an affordability analysis of the alternative emission
control strategy is not required under the Regional Haze Rule; however,
at the request of the Navajo Nation, pursuant to EPA's customary
practice of engaging in extensive and meaningful consultation with
tribes, EPA commissioned a study to estimate potential adverse impacts
to the Navajo Nation of APS's option to close Units 1-3 and will
provide the report to the Navajo Nation by letter as a follow-up to our
consultation.
2. Comments on Top-Down Analysis Versus Incremental Cost Effectiveness
Comment: A number of commenters note that EPA's proposed BART
analysis was inconsistent with its own regulations in that it used a
top-down analytic approach and failed to conduct an incremental cost
evaluation. Commenters indicated that in using the top-down analysis,
EPA failed to carry out the five-factor analysis for each of the
technically feasible retrofit technologies as required by the BART
Guidelines (citing 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section I.F.2.c),
including combustion control technology which the BART Guidelines
identify as presumptive BART.
Response: EPA disagrees with these comments. In the preamble to the
final BART guidelines, EPA discusses two options presented in the 2001
proposal and 2004 reproposal of the guidelines for evaluating ranked
control technology options (See discussion at 70 FR 39130). Under the
first option, States would use a sequential process for conducting the
analysis, beginning with a complete evaluation of the most stringent
control option. The process described is a top-down approach analogous
to the analysis we used in our proposed BART determination for FCPP. If
the analysis shows no outstanding issues regarding cost or energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts, the analysis is concluded and
the top level of technically feasible controls is identified as the
``best system of continuous emission reduction''. Therefore, in
conducting our BART determination for FCPP, EPA's top-down approach for
assessing the five factors was consistent with the discretion allowed
under the BART guidelines. EPA additionally notes that the TSD for our
proposed rulemaking included analyses of the costs, non-air impacts,
and visibility improvements associated with combustion controls at
FCPP, but that there is no requirement for a five-factor analysis on
all potentially available control options if the top down approach is
used and the top level of technically feasible controls is selected (70
FR 39130).
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP asserted that the BART rules
require an incremental cost analysis and provided an analysis comparing
the costs of combustion controls to the costs of SCR. According to the
commenter's analysis, the incremental cost effectiveness of moving from
combustion controls to SCR ranges from $6,553 to $8,605 per ton of
NOX reduced for the five units at FCPP. This commenter and
another FCPP owner asserted that this ``extraordinarily high''
incremental cost highlights the fact that combustion controls, not SCR,
satisfy the cost effectiveness test applied by EPA in adopting the
presumptive BART limits in the BART rules.
Response: EPA agrees that the BART Guidelines recommend
consideration of both average and incremental cost effectiveness,
however, EPA disagrees with the commenter that the incremental cost
effectiveness should be a comparison between combustion controls and
SCR for this particular facility. As discussed at length in the TSD for
our proposed BART determination for FCPP, Region 9 has determined that
combustion controls (burner modifications and overfire air, including
ROFA) will not be effective at significantly reducing emissions at Four
Corners without potential operational difficulties due to inherent
design and physical limitations of the boilers. Therefore, in
estimating incremental cost, it is inappropriate and misleading to
include combustion controls in the analysis for this particular
facility. To respond to this comment, EPA conducted an incremental cost
effectiveness analysis and included it in our docket for this final
rulemaking.\13\ Based on our incremental cost analysis, EPA has
determined that the incremental cost of SCR compared to
[[Page 51625]]
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), the next most stringent
option ($2,500 per ton to $3,300 per ton), is reasonable and does not
support the commenter's conclusion that SCR is not BART for FCPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See ``Incremental cost.xlsx'' in the docket for this final
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA estimated the total capital cost of BART for NOX to
be $718 million and total annual costs (annualized capital costs plus
additional operating costs) to be $93 million per year. This final BART
determination is expected to reduce emissions of NOX by 80
percent, from 43,000 tons per year to 8,500 tons per year, resulting in
a facility-wide average cost effectiveness of about $2,700 per ton of
NOX removed. EPA anticipates that this investment will
reduce the visibility impairment caused by FCPP by an average of 57
percent at 16 Class I areas within 300 km of the facility. A detailed
summary of the cost and visibility benefits were provided in the
Technical Support Document for the proposed rulemaking. As discussed in
our Supplemental Proposal, although APS did not provide a cost estimate
for the BART Alternative and the RHR does not require an evaluation of
costs associated with a BART Alternative, if APS chooses to implement
the Alternative, EPA anticipates those costs to be approximately 39
percent lower than the cost of BART. The BART Alternative is expected
to reduce emissions of NOX by 87 percent, from 43,000 tons
per year to 5,600 tons per year, resulting in a facility-wide average
cost effectiveness of roughly $1,600 per ton of NOX
removed.\14\ EPA anticipates that implementation of the BART
Alternative will reduce visibility impairment caused by FCPP by an
average of 72 percent at 16 Class I areas within 300 km of the
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ EPA estimates facility-wide average cost effectiveness of
the BART Alternative to be lower than BART because under the BART
Alternative, Units 1-3 can be closed instead of retrofitted with new
air pollution controls. On a per unit basis, the cost effectiveness
of Units 4 and 5 is not expected to differ between BART or the BART
Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Comments on Factor Two--Economic, Energy, and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts
We received a number of comments on the economic impacts and on the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts.
1. Comments on Economic Impacts
a. General Comments on Economic Impacts
Comment: Several commenters stated that EPA's analysis of
historical and expected costs of electricity from FCPP neglect to
include public health costs related to air pollution and the negative
impacts to tourism resulting from loss of visibility. The commenters
concluded that the cost effectiveness metric used to determine BART
must account for health costs related to poor air quality.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that the cost
effectiveness of BART must account for public health costs associated
with poor air quality. Neither Section 169A of the CAA, nor the BART
Guidelines, require the BART analysis to include or quantify benefits
to health or tourism. Moreover, an analysis of health and tourism
benefits is unlikely to alter the outcome of our BART determination,
which already requires the most stringent control technology available
for NOX.
Comment: The Navajo Nation, one federal agency, and two of the
owners of FCPP stated that EPA must consider the collateral adverse
effects on the Navajo Nation and the surrounding communities of its
BART determination. The commenters provided background on the
substantial interest that the Navajo Nation has in the continued
operation of FCPP. The commenters indicated that FCPP and its coal
supplier, the Navajo Mine operated by BHP Billiton (BHP), together
provide income to the Navajo Nation that contributes substantially to
the Nation's economic viability and its sustainability as an
independent sovereign nation. The commenters added that this resource
extraction-based economy is the result of a conscious effort of the
United States dating from the 1950s to develop the Nation's coal
resources. According to the commenter, if FCPP and the Navajo Mine were
to close as the result of the imposition of cost-prohibitive emission
controls, the resulting revenue and job losses would be significant for
the Navajo Nation.
Response: EPA agrees with commenters that the operation of FCPP and
the Navajo Mine contribute significantly to the economy of the Navajo
Nation and the Four Corners Region.
It is not EPA's intention to cause FCPP to shut down, nor is it
within our regulatory authority under the Regional Haze Rule to require
shutdown or redesign of the source as BART. As expressed in comments
from the Navajo Nation to our Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking,\15\ EPA understands that the Navajo Nation's primary
concern regarding the BART determination is the potential for FCPP
closure. Therefore, as discussed in our proposed BART determination,
EPA conducted an affordability analysis not typically included in a
BART five-factor analysis in order to assess whether requiring SCR on
all five units at FCPP would cause the power plant to close.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Comment letter from President Joe Shirley, Jr. dated March
1, 2010 in the docket for the ANPR: EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0583-0209.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The model was designed to determine which future alternative
results in lower power costs: (a) Power produced at FCPP after
installation of SCR or, (b) replacing the power from FCPP with the
appropriate amount of wholesale power purchases. As discussed in the
TSD for our proposed BART determination, the model results suggested
that even if the owners of FCPP installed and operated SCR on all five
units, the facility could still produce power at a lower cost than the
cost to purchase replacement wholesale power on the open market. Thus,
EPA concluded in our proposed BART determination that requiring SCR as
BART on all five units would not likely result in plant closure. No
information was provided by the commenter to change this conclusion in
the proposal.
Comment: The Navajo Nation asserted that EPA failed to consult with
the Nation prior to publishing the supplemental proposal and failed in
its trust responsibility to consider the economic impacts of closing
Units 1-3. A federal agency commenter noted that EPA's current analysis
focuses primarily on increased costs to rate payers and the companies'
profitability, and stated that the analysis needs to incorporate the
loss in revenue, jobs, and royalties resulting from the closure of
Units 1-3 under the supplemental proposal.
Response: A timeline of correspondence and consultation with the
Navajo Nation and other tribes for EPA actions on FCPP and Navajo
Generating Station is included in the docket for the final
rulemaking.\16\ EPA notes that the Regional Administrator of EPA Region
9 called President Joe Shirley on February 9, 2011 to inform him of
EPA's Supplemental Proposal. However, government-to-government
consultation with the Navajo Nation on FCPP did not occur until May 19,
2011, with additional consultation occurring on June 13, 2012, prior to
issuing our final rulemaking. The Navajo Nation raised concerns about
the potential adverse impacts of the BART Alternative and requested
that EPA conduct an analysis to estimate those impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See document titled: ``Timeline of all tribal consultations
on BART.docx'' in the docket for this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Regional Haze Rule does not require a cost analysis of
a BART alternative, at the request of the Navajo Nation, as part of
EPA's customary
[[Page 51626]]
practice of engaging in extensive and meaningful consultation with
tribes and tribal authorities with regard to relevant Agency actions,
EPA did commission an analysis to estimate potential adverse impacts on
the Navajo Nation, with respect to coal- and power plant-related
revenues, of the optional BART Alternative to retire Units 1-3. The
report will be provided to President Shelly by letter as a follow-up to
our consultation with the Navajo Nation.
Comment: One owner of FCPP stated that EPA's proposal to require
SCR at FCPP presents significant challenges and risks with regard to
its resource planning. The commenter pointed out that implementation of
the BART proposal would require the commenter to make a significant
capital investment in FCPP, which could only be recovered through long-
term operation of the plant. According to the commenter, this would
have the effect of locking FCPP into the commenter's generation
portfolio for a considerable period or risk stranding those
investments.
Response: EPA appreciates the perspectives shared in this comment,
but we disagree that our five-factor BART analysis should consider the
potential loss of an owner's flexibility to respond to possible future
economic or regulatory scenarios. EPA cannot give substantial
consideration in our BART analysis to external factors that are of
uncertain magnitude and that may or may not occur. EPA further notes
that the RHR allows for the development of BART alternatives that
achieve greater reasonable progress than BART and EPA appreciates the
fact that the owners of FCPP put forth an alternative that gives them
more flexibility and results in greater emission reductions at FCPP.
b. Comments on EPA's Economic Analysis
Comment: One public interest advocacy group concurred with the
EPA's analysis that the potential increase to APS rate payers as a
result of SCR is expected to be less than 5 percent, as described in
the TSD. The commenter stated that EPA's estimates are reasonable and
that the average increase in the cost of generation at FCPP as a result
of SCR implementation would be 22 percent, or $0.0074 per kWh, as
stated in the TSD.
One of the owners of FCPP stated that installation of BART controls
would increase its average residential customer monthly bills by $5.10
(3.8 percent) and larger industrial customer monthly bills by $17,400
(6.4 percent). The commenter also indicated that installing SCR and
baghouses on Units 1-3 would increase the cost of electricity
production on a $/MWh basis by more than 50 percent which, in
conjunction with other market and regulatory uncertainties, may make
the units uneconomical. The commenter also raised concerns related to
the economic viability of Units 4 and 5 if SCR were installed on those
units.
Another of the owners of FCPP, who also owns part of San Juan
Generating Station and Navajo Generating Station, indicated that if SCR
was required on all three power plants, its customers would face a rate
increase of 4 to 6 percent, which would be significant because the
local economy is fragile and has endured an 8 percent rate increase
(not adjusted for inflation) since 1992.
Response: EPA agrees with the first commenter that based upon our
analysis the potential increase to APS rate payers as a result of SCR
is expected to be less than 5 percent. EPA cannot assess the estimated
residential and industrial rate increase claimed by the second and
third commenters with our economic analysis because the commenters did
not provide information for us to evaluate their conclusions. However,
EPA notes that the installation of baghouses on Units 1-3 is no longer
relevant because EPA has determined that it is not necessary or
appropriate at this time to set new PM limits for Units 1-3. This is
because the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule, which sets a
filterable PM limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu, is now final \17\ and EPA is
finalizing in this rulemaking the option to allow APS to comply with
either BART or the BART alternative, which involves closure of Units 1-
3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See 77 FR 9304, February 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP expressed concern that EPA's
analysis focuses on the effects on APS and Southern California Edison
ratepayers, and not on the other owners of FCPP. This commenter's
specific concerns include that the use of a ``return on rate''-based
methodology would not apply to organizations of the commenter's type (a
publicly owned utility) because it is not an investor-owned utility. In
addition, the commenter stated that the EPA analysis did not attempt to
determine the impact of different assumptions, such as an uncertainty
with the future price of coal, on the conclusions of the analysis.
Specifically, the ``small difference'' that EPA estimates between FCPP
with SCR installed and the cost of purchasing power to replace FCPP
generation suggests that a small change in an underlying assumption
(return on rate, coal price, carbon pricing, etc.) could result in
model results that show SCR to be a higher cost option than purchasing
power. The commenter also raised the concern that EPA's analysis did
not examine different ``payback periods,'' but instead relied on a
payback period of 25 years, which may be inappropriate because the
useful life of the plant is far from certain. The commenter said that
EPA should recognize that there is a real risk that one or more owners
may decide not to invest in SCR, which would force the shutdown of FCPP
unless another owner could be found in a timely manner. The commenter
also said that shutdown of FCPP would have significant adverse
consequences on the Navajo Nation.
Response: The commenter is correct that EPA calculated rate impacts
for only two of the four investor-owned utilities that own FCPP and
excluded others, including an owner that operates as a publicly owned
utility. The analysis estimating the increase in electricity generation
costs is applicable to all owners of FCPP, but the rate impact analysis
provided in the model was not intended to capture the rate impacts of
all owners. APS and Southern California Edison (SCE) were selected
because their combined ownership shares account for nearly 75 percent
of the plant's output. In addition to our expectation that the
utilities with the largest ownership share in FCPP would generally
experience greater ratepayer impacts from capital expenditure projects
like SCR installation, we also assumed that ratepayers of investor-
owned utilities would likely experience larger impacts than public
power customers due to the fundamental difference between their
respective approaches to setting rates. Specifically, rates for public
power utilities, in contrast to investor-owned utilities, do not
include recovery for a margin above cost allowed as part of a regulated
rate of return. Thus, all other variables being equal, one would expect
the same capital investment to result in a larger rate impact for
customers of investor-owned utilities than for customers of public
power entities. Therefore, EPA continues to believe that our analysis
of ratepayer impacts for only APS and SCE are appropriately
conservative to demonstrate worst-case impacts to ratepayers of all six
owners.
EPA agrees with the commenter that there are many company-specific
factors and a wide range of assumptions that would affect a given
owner's decision to make further substantial investments (such as SCR)
at FCPP. Although many of those factors were outside the focus of the
modeling because they were either unrelated to BART or were related to
regulatory uncertainties in the
[[Page 51627]]
future, we included a qualitative discussion in Appendix B to the TSD
regarding decision variables that EPA assumed each owner must consider
before making capital expenditures. Additionally, EPA notes that the
use of low, medium and high future projected prices for the Palo Verde
Index in Appendix B to the TSD for the proposed rulemaking represents a
sensitivity analysis for the market comparison.
With respect to the comment on the ``payback period'', the economic
analysis for the proposed BART determination did not identify ``payback
periods''. Rather, the commenter appears to be referring to the 25-year
period used in the discounted cash flow model. EPA does not disagree
with the commenter's stated concern that a shorter plant life, and thus
shorter discounting periods, would yield different economic results.
However, EPA disagrees with commenters that a shorter useful life
should be considered in the economic analysis because there is no
enforceable obligation on APS to cease operations on a given (earlier)
date.
2. Comments on Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts
Comment: One private citizen stated that no consideration was given
to the effect of removing FCPP generation from the grid. According to
the commenter, the events of February 2, 2011, show there are times
when gas-fired generation cannot replace coal-fired generation because
there is not enough gas transportation capacity.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that we should consider
the effect of removing FCPP generation from the grid. As stated
elsewhere, it is not EPA's intention, nor is it within our regulatory
authority, to require closure or require a redefinition of the source,
in order to comply with the BART requirement of the Regional Haze Rule.
Furthermore, the owners of FCPP did not provide evidence that the
installation of SCR would cause FCPP to close.
EPA also notes that APS proposed to purchase the shares of Units 4
and 5 currently owned by Southern California Edison in order to close
Units 1-3 (of which APS is sole owner) and install SCR on Units 4 and 5
as an alternative to BART. APS has received approval from the Arizona
Corporation Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission
to purchase Southern California Edison's share of Units 4 and 5. APS is
also seeking approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to
implement its proposal.\18\ Decisions on investing in pollution
controls or shutting down units are made by the owners in conjunction
with their oversight boards or public utility commissions. These
oversight bodies are also responsible for assuring the adequacy of
electrical generating capacity, whether from coal, gas or nuclear fuels
or renewable sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ On March 22, 2012, the California Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) approved the sale of SCE's ownership share in FCPP
to APS. On April 18, 2012, the Arizona Corporation Commission voted
to allow APS to purchase SCE's ownership share in FCPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Thirty-seven private citizens commented that FCPP causes
significant threats to public health due to its effects on air quality.
In addition, a number of environmental and public interest advocacy
groups provided comments on health and ecosystem impacts of the
pollutants emitted by FCPP.
Regarding health impacts, the commenter noted that the same
pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment also harm public
health--the fine particulates that cause regional haze can cause
decreased lung function, aggravate asthma, and result in premature
death in people with heart or lung disease. The commenter added that
NOX and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) can also be
precursors to ground-level ozone, which is associated with respiratory
diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased lung function. According to the
commenter, ozone concentrations in parks in the Four Corners region
approach the current health standards, and likely violate anticipated
lower standards.
The same commenter also contended that consideration of non-air
quality impacts extends to impacts on wildlife and habitat as well as
natural and cultural heritage. According to the commenter, haze-causing
emissions also harm terrestrial and aquatic plants and animals, soil
health, and water bodies by contributing to acid rain, ozone formation,
and nitrogen deposition.
With these health and environmental considerations in mind, in
addition to visibility and economic considerations discussed in other
sections of this document, the commenter urged the EPA to finalize more
stringent BART determinations for FCPP.
The commenter noted that FCPP is a significant source of mercury
emissions and provided information on the health and ecosystem effects
of mercury, as well as on the deposition of mercury and the levels of
mercury found in the Four Corners area. In addition, the commenter
stated that FCPP emits more than 16 million tons per year (tpy) of
CO2, and that such emissions contribute significantly to
climate change which is likely to result in increasing temperatures and
increase drought in the Southwest. The commenter noted that the
supplemental proposal would reduce emissions of both mercury and
CO2.
One environmental advocacy group stated that a formal Health Impact
Assessment should be conducted by independent experts before EPA's
final decision to answer such questions as whether shutting down Units
1-3 is sufficient to protect local health, and what health impacts
would result from delaying pollution controls on Units 4 and 5 until
2018.
Response: EPA agrees that there are potential benefits to health
and the environment from reducing emissions of NOX. However,
quantifying health benefits is not within the scope of the BART five
factor analysis required under the CAA (Sec. 169A(g)). The BART
Guidelines provide additional information on how to analyze ``non-air
quality environmental impacts, and focuses on adverse environmental
impacts associated with control technologies, i.e., generation of solid
or hazardous wastes and discharges of polluted water, that have the
potential to affect the selection or elimination of a control
alternative'' (see 70 FR 39169). Thus, although the BART Guidelines do
state that relative environmental impacts (both positive and negative)
of alternatives can be compared with each other, they state that ``if
you propose to adopt the most stringent alternative, then it is not
necessary to perform this analysis of environmental impacts for the
entire list of technologies''. EPA agrees with commenters that
controlling pollutant emissions may have co-benefits for reducing ozone
production and acid deposition. EPA does not interpret the BART
Guidelines to require quantification of human health or environmental
co-benefits in determining BART, particularly if the most stringent
BART option is finalized. Similarly, EPA does not interpret the BART
guidelines to require human health or environmental assessments of
alternative compliance strategies as long as we have determined that
the alternative strategy achieves better progress towards the national
visibility goal.
Comment: The commenter stated that human exposure to environmental
hazards is an important factor in assessing impacts of FCPP. The
commenter encouraged EPA to pursue health studies in collaboration with
the Navajo Nation to study local risks
[[Page 51628]]
associated with exposure to criteria pollutants, indoor air pollutants,
and other contributing air pollutants, from which improved public
health and effective rulemakings under the CAA may be achieved.
Response: Assessing human exposure and quantifying health benefits
are outside the scope of the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.
EPA sets National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to establish
levels of air quality that are protective of public health, including
the health of sensitive populations, for a number of pollutants
including particulate matter. These ``sensitive'' populations include
asthmatics, children, and the elderly. At this time the Navajo Nation
is not identified as out of attainment with any of the NAAQS. However,
EPA recognizes that there are significant concerns about risk and
exposure to air pollutants on the Navajo Nation and EPA will continue
discussions with the Navajo Nation and will involve other federal
agencies, as appropriate, to help address these concerns.
C. Comments on Factor Three--Existing Controls at FCPP
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP agreed with EPA's summary of the
existing controls at the plant, but noted that the proposed FIP is only
the most recent action in a long line of regulatory and voluntary
efforts to reduce emissions of pollutants that impact visibility,
including SO2, NOX, and PM emissions. The
commenter asserted that FCPP has a strong history of retrofitting
pollution controls and recounted the facility's history of installing
these controls and reducing emissions.
Response: EPA agrees that there have been numerous installations of
pollution controls over the several decades that FCPP has been in
operation. The most recent voluntary effort by FCPP increased the
SO2 removal from its long-term level of 72 percent removal
to 88 percent removal. This was accomplished before the end of 2004 and
became effective as a regulatory requirement in June 2007. The
improvement in SO2 removal has resulted in a decrease of
over 22,000 tons of SO2 per year since that time.
D. Comments on Factor Four--Remaining Useful Life at FCPP
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP noted that the BART rules state
that the normal amortization period (20 years for NOX
control devices) is appropriate to use as the remaining useful life if
the plant's ``remaining useful life will clearly exceed'' that
amortization period (citing 70 FR 39169). The commenter asserted,
however, that as a result of substantial uncertainty related to
multiple factors, it is not at all clear that the plant's remaining
useful life is at least 20 years.
Moreover, according to the commenter, one factor that should not be
allowed to shorten the useful life under the BART rules is the choice
of BART itself--EPA cannot use a 20-year amortization period to justify
a specified technology (e.g., SCR) if the application of the technology
would be so costly as to make the facility uneconomical and shorten its
useful life (citing 70 FR 39164, 39171).
The commenter made a number of arguments related to the possibility
of a shorter useful life at FCPP that are briefly summarized here. The
excessive cost of SCR will dramatically increase the energy costs of
the plant, potentially making it uneconomical. The proposed ``phase-in
schedule'' for SCR may force closure of units because APS will not have
certainty by the compliance deadline that the lease will be extended or
that Southern California Edison's ownership share will have been
successfully transitioned. Emerging environmental laws and regulations
present cost and operational uncertainty that may shorten FCPP's useful
life (including new GHG laws and regulations, MATS, new ash-handling
requirements, and new requirements for cooling water intake
structures).
Response: EPA disagrees that we must consider a shorter useful life
because of uncertainty related to the factors cited by the commenter.
It is inappropriate to consider a useful life shorter than 20 years
based solely on uncertainty or the possibility of shut down. EPA
further notes that in its cost analysis on behalf of APS, B&V stated
``the remaining useful life of Units 1 through 5 was at least 20
years''.\19\ Unless there is an enforceable obligation for APS to cease
operations or unless APS convincingly demonstrates that controls
(rather than uncertainty associated with future requirements) will
cause facility closure, the default 20 year amortization period
represents the appropriate period for the remaining useful life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See B&V Engineering Analysis for Units 1-5 at FCPP dated
December 2007. Document number 0011 in docket for proposed
rulemaking: EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA agrees that our proposed ``phase-in'' schedule for installation
of add-on post-combustion NOX controls on Unit 1-3 for BART,
which was added in the supplemental proposal, may have allowed less
than two years for engineering and installation from the date by which
APS intends to make its decision on continuing operation or shutting
the units down by 2014. EPA is finalizing a modified schedule for the
installation of add-on post combustion controls from what was
originally proposed (phased-in installation of controls within three to
five years of effective date) by requiring one of the 750 MW units to
comply with the BART emission limit within 4 years of the effective
date of this final rule and the remaining units (Units 1-3 and either
Unit 4 or 5) within 5 years of the effective date of this final rule.
Comment: One industry commenter stated that EPA, rather than
evaluate APS' supplemental proposal as an alternative emission control
strategy, should instead ``re-determine'' BART for each of the five
units at FCPP based on the APS-proposed shutdown scenario for Units 1-
3, i.e., reducing the remaining useful life of Units 1-3 to 2014 and
then using the short remaining life of those units to determine that
BART for Units 1-3 is no additional control. The commenter concluded
that a ``better-than-BART'' control strategy does not seem to be
necessary for determining the appropriate requirements for FCPP under
the APS-proposed shutdown scenario; instead, a BART determination for
each unit with appropriate weighting of the statutory factors appears
to present a logical and less-burdensome means of applying section
169A(b)(2) of the CAA to FCPP.
Response: EPA disagrees that APS' supplemental proposal should be
evaluated in terms of a BART re-determination rather than in terms of
its current status as a ``better-than-BART'' alternative measure. The
2006 Regional Haze Rule (71 FR 60612) established the procedures
described in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3) for scenarios involving
programs that may make greater reasonable progress than source-by-
source BART. These provisions were specifically included to allow for
the flexibility to consider alternative measures such as the one
proposed by APS, and EPA considers it the most appropriate method for
evaluating APS' supplemental proposal.
Comment: One industry commenter discussed the ``remaining useful
life'' statutory factor, noting that under the BART Guidelines
remaining useful life is ignored in the majority of BART determinations
(citing 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.4.k), which the
commenter asserted is inappropriate. According to the commenter,
Congress designated the remaining useful life of the source as an
important consideration because it did not want to impose the burdens
of control technology retrofits on sources
[[Page 51629]]
that were more than 15 years old at the time the statute was enacted.
Given that it is now 34 years after the BART requirements were enacted,
the commenter stated that the ``remaining useful life'' statutory
factor should weigh heavily in BART determinations for older sources
such as FCPP, instead of being ignored.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that we ignored the
``remaining useful life'' statutory factor in our BART decision. EPA
considered this factor in our BART analysis (see pages 42-43 of the TSD
for our proposed BART determination). As discussed in the TSD, the
remaining useful life of an Electric Generating Unit (EGU) subject to
BART is determined by the utility. EPA cannot arbitrarily decide that
an EGU has less useful life when it is not within our BART rulemaking
authority to require closure of an EGU. If a utility used a shorter
useful life than one that would allow the full amortization of any
necessary pollution controls, EPA would take that into account in the
cost analysis, provided that there was an enforceable obligation for
the facility to cease operation by that time.
E. Comments on Factor Five--Anticipated Visibility Improvements
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP presented information on
visibility conditions on the Colorado Plateau and the role of
NOX emissions in Western visibility impairment. The
commenter noted that SO2 and NOX emissions have
been decreasing in recent years. The commenter also presented
information that purported to show that whether averaged over the
haziest 20 percent of days, the clearest 20 percent of days, or all
days, power plant NOX emissions contribute less than 1.5
percent to the light extinction at Mesa Verde National Park.
Another commenter questioned EPA's assertion that NOX
and PM from FCPP are significant contributors to visibility impairment
in the numerous mandatory Class I areas surrounding FCPP (citing 75 FR
64221), stating that coal-fired power plants, including FCPP, are
relatively small contributors to regional haze in the surrounding Class
I Areas.
Response: EPA modeling of FCPP showed visibility impacts ranging
from 1.2 to 6.0 deciviews (dv), depending on the Class I area, with the
sum of impacts at all sixteen Class I areas totaling 43 dv. This is a
significant contribution to visibility impairment. Even if an
individual source category appears small to some commenters, the many
segments of the emissions inventory together cause significant
visibility impairment and must be addressed in order to make progress
towards the national goal of remedying visibility impairment from
manmade pollution. Section 169A of the CAA requires BART determinations
on BART-eligible EGUs regardless of trends or ambient visibility
conditions. Application of BART is one means by which we can ensure
that downward emission and visibility impairment trends continue. EPA
identifies stationary sources as an important category to evaluate in a
BART analysis.
Comment: Three of the owners of FCPP, the Navajo Nation, and two
utility industry associations argued that EPA's use of Interagency
Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase II default background
ammonia values is not appropriate. They argued the following points:
(1) Actual field measurements show lower ammonia concentrations than
used by EPA; (2) EPA is mistaken in its assumption that background
ammonia concentrations along the path of the plant's plume determine
nitrate concentrations and their contribution to haze at the receptor
site; (3) EPA's ``corroborating'' approach of ``back-calculating''
ammonia is flawed because it erroneously assumes that the ammonia
associated with measured sulfate and nitrate would all be available to
react with FCPP emissions, whereas in reality those measurements
reflect emissions from many sources; (4) EPA's analysis of nitrate
predictions as a check on the ammonia values used is also flawed
because it erroneously assumes that the resulting measured nitrate
levels are solely due to FCPP emissions; (5) comparable analysis using
the EPA ammonia value shows substantial and ``physically impossible''
over-predictions of nitrate. The commenters conclude that the use of
IWAQM values invalidates EPA's BART modeling and the BART determination
that relied on the modeling.
Another utility industry association stated that several
measurement programs on the Colorado Plateau show that actual ammonia
values in Class I areas near FCPP are significantly lower than the
IWAQM default value, indicating that these values typically range from
0.1 to 0.6 ppb. The commenter noted that ammonia concentrations are
lowest during the cold season when the visibility impacts of
NOX emissions are the highest. Accordingly, the commenter
asserted that using a single ammonia value throughout the year is not
scientifically valid and should be replaced with seasonally variable
values.
The Navajo Nation expressed concern regarding discrepancies between
EPA and APS modeling inputs, given the commenter's understanding that
APS obtained advance EPA approval for its modeling protocols. Some
commenters stated that EPA had earlier agreed to lower ammonia
concentrations, and so should not be using the higher IWAQM value now.
In contrast, one public interest advocacy group concurred with
EPA's back-calculation method for ammonia background levels (citing the
TSD, page 60). The commenter added that the requests to EPA from other
commenters for additional ammonia monitoring data are unrealistic in
today's budget environment.
Response: EPA disagrees with commenter objections to the background
ammonia concentrations used in our modeling. Our use of the 1 ppb IWAQM
Phase II default background ammonia value is appropriate. Most of the
objections have already been discussed in EPA's TSD for the proposal;
and several of them concern the ``back-calculation'' method that we
used only as corroboration for using the 1 ppb results we principally
relied on. Also, even if the lower ammonia concentrations urged by some
commenters were accepted, EPA's sensitivity modeling results provided
in the TSD for our proposed BART determination showed the visibility
benefits would still support EPA's BART determination. EPA also
provided the results of modeling runs that used the lower ammonia
background concentrations recommended by some commenters (see TSD Table
37). The visibility benefits of the NOX controls for BART
are substantial under all ammonia scenarios, including the lower
background ammonia concentrations recommended by commenters. For 12
Class I areas, modeling even with those lower background concentrations
showed improvements of 0.5 dv or more, an amount recognized in the BART
Guidelines as significant (e.g. at 70 FR 39120).
The lack of ammonia and ammonium measurements in the Class I areas
of concern requires that EPA estimate background ammonia concentrations
by some method, considering available data and approaches. As discussed
in the BART proposal and its accompanying TSD, EPA understands that
there is no single accepted method for estimating the background
concentration of ammonia, and that any method will have advantages and
disadvantages. The lack of consensus on a method was a factor in EPA's
decision to rely on the 1 part per billion (ppb)
[[Page 51630]]
default value in IWAQM, as was the fact that IWAQM is the only
available guidance on this issue. In summary, there is insufficient
monitoring information available to use a different value, or to
support any seasonally varying values and, as described below, these
values are reasonable to use in this analysis.
On the first issue, field measurements cited by the commenters were
not performed in the Four Corners area, nor at the Class I areas near
FCPP, so they do not give appropriate ammonia background concentrations
for modeling of FCPP. In addition, the studies provide only gaseous
ammonia (NH3) and not ammonium (NH4) that has
reacted with SO2 or NOX emissions. For purposes
of assessing FCPP impacts relative to natural background, per the BART
Guidelines, both ammonia and ammonium should be assumed to be available
to interact with emissions from FCPP. The ammonia-only measurements
cited by the commenters underestimate the available ammonia. Finally,
as discussed in the TSD, field measurements in the Four Corners area
showed ammonia measurements ranging from 1.0 ppb to 1.5 ppb, and
sometimes as high as 3.5 ppb.\20\ This provides some additional support
for the 1 ppb used by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Mark E. Sather et al., 2008. ``Baseline ambient gaseous
ammonia concentrations in the Four Corners area and eastern
Oklahoma, USA''. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 2008, 10,
1319-1325, DOI: 10.1039/b807984f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the second issue, in using a 1 ppb background EPA did not rely
on an assumption about the importance of background ammonia along the
path of the plume, as claimed by the commenters. The 1 ppb background
is a representative value for areas in the west under existing EPA
guidance, in the IWAQM document. The commenters' objection is based on
the rapidity of the nitrate-nitric acid equilibrium, which they state
implies that ammonium nitrate can only be estimated using ammonia
measurements right at the Class I area, and not the ammonia that occurs
earlier along the plume's path to the area. EPA's TSD for the proposed
rulemaking did state (TSD p.62) that the Federal Land Managers partly
relied on this assumption as one of the rationales for the back-
calculation method, discussed below; EPA also expressed support for the
idea that the method can be viewed as a 24-hour temporal integration,
not just a spatial integration over the plume path, and that this
aspect can be viewed as desirable for the 24-hour average visibility
estimate that CALPUFF provides (TSD pp.71-72). This plausibility
argument applies despite the rapid nitrate-nitric acid equilibrium
cited by the commenters, and in any case was not relied on by EPA in
using the 1 ppb default ammonia background.
As the commenters stated under the third issue, EPA used a back-
calculation ammonia estimation method as an alternative means of
corroboration for the 1 ppb IWAQM method, which is more fully explained
in the TSD for the proposed rulemaking. Essentially, it uses measured
particulate ammonium sulfate and nitrate to estimate the amount of
ammonia that must have been present to form those ammonia compounds.
The commenters object that the method assumes that all the calculated
ammonia is available to interact with the FCPP plume as background
ammonia. However, this assumption is reasonable for the single-source
CALPUFF modeling performed under the BART Guidelines. It estimates
ammonia concentrations that would be monitored at the Class I area if
only this single source existed; it includes ammonia that is currently
in the form of ammonium because of interaction with other sources'
emissions. It remains true that some portion of the calculated ammonia
would in reality not be available for FCPP, because it arrives at the
monitor from a different direction than FCPP's pollutant plume; on the
other hand, the data would also include directions contributing below-
average ammonia, reducing that effect.
In addition, the back-calculated ammonia is based on measurements
only of particulate ammonium, the form associated with measured sulfate
and nitrate; it does not include any gaseous ammonia that may also be
present. In this sense, the back-calculated ammonia is a lower bound on
the ammonia that may be available to interact with source emissions;
that is, the method may underestimate ammonia concentrations. This
possible underestimation tends to offset possible overestimation
discussed above.
EPA does not claim that the back-calculation method is dispositive;
it incorporates various assumptions and imperfections that make clear
it is only an estimate. However, it is based on real measured data at
Class I areas, and has some counterbalancing tendencies for over- and
under-estimation. After weighing various lines of argument about the
back-calculation method, EPA disagrees with the commenters who
recommended that it be rejected altogether. The method provides a
useful estimate of ammonia for BART modeling, by providing
concentrations representative of the high values that would be observed
at the Class I areas in the absence of other sources. The back-
calculation method, therefore, is used to corroborate that it is
appropriate to use the 1 ppb IWAQM default for background ammonia
concentrations.
In the fourth issue raised by commenters, the commenters claim that
the assumption of full availability to FCPP of the back-calculated
ammonia invalidates EPA's comparison of monitored nitrate levels with
those modeled using the back-calculated ammonia (TSD p.73). As just
discussed for the third issue, EPA disagrees that the assumption is
invalid for corroboration of single-source BART assessment modeling.
For single-source BART modeling, on balance, it is reasonable to assume
all the ammonia is available to the source, given the counterbalancing
tendencies for over- and underestimation inherent in the back-
calculation method discussed above. In any case, this method mainly
provided corroboration for the results from using the 1 ppb ammonia
default.
The fifth issue about ``physically impossible'' nitrate over-
predictions does not account for the fact that any model evaluation is
expected to have under- and over-predictions, depending on the
meteorological conditions and the geographic location modeled, as well
as on the location of the monitor used for comparison. The commenter's
apparent requirement for no over-predictions whatsoever would require a
model with the converse problem, a bias toward underprediction. While
consistent over-prediction in a full model performance evaluation would
indeed raise concerns over its validity, as EPA stated, our nitrate
comparison was not intended as a model performance evaluation, but
rather as a ``rough check'' for the back-calculation corroboratory
method (TSD p.73). EPA found that the modeled and monitored values, for
both the maximum values and the 98th percentiles, were generally in
agreement.
Finally, contrary to the commenter's assertion, EPA did not receive
a modeling protocol in advance of modeling by APS's contractor. EPA
disagrees with commenters that EPA committed to use the same ammonia
concentrations used by APS's contractor in our own modeling analysis
for our BART determination.
Comment: Three of the owners of FCPP and a utility industry
association asserted that CALPUFF version 5.8 used in EPA's BART
analysis is outdated. Because of enhancements to the model's chemistry,
the commenters asserted that CALPUFF version 6.4 represents the best
application that is currently available. A number of the commenters
[[Page 51631]]
mentioned a December 2010 meeting between the CALPUFF developer and the
FLMs where the FLMs reportedly supported an expedited review and
approval of CALPUFF version 6.4.
Another owner of FCPP stated that the version of CALPUFF used by
EPA has a tendency to over-predict nitrate concentrations, which is
compounded by EPA's use of what the commenter stated are overestimated
ammonia background values. The commenter asserted that this combination
of errors results in a significant over-prediction of visibility
improvements for more stringent NOX BART control options.
Further, the commenter stated that this disproportionately affects the
incremental visibility benefits predicted for SCR over Low
NOX Burners (LNB) compared to LNB over baseline.
In contrast, one federal agency was generally supportive of the
modeling methods employed by EPA with the regulatory approved version
5.8 of the CALPUFF modeling system.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that any new CALPUFF
version should be used for the BART determination. EPA relied on
version 5.8 of CALPUFF because it is the EPA-approved version in
accordance with the Guideline on Air Quality Models (``GAQM'', 40 CFR
51, Appendix W, section 6.2.1.e); EPA updated the specific version to
be used for regulatory purposes on June 29, 2007, including minor
revisions as of that date; the approved CALPUFF modeling system
includes CALPUFF version 5.8, level 070623, and CALMET version 5.8
level 070623. CALPUFF version 5.8 has been thoroughly tested and
evaluated, and has been shown to perform consistent with the version
from the time of the initial 2003 promulgation, in the analytical
situations CALPUFF has been approved for. Any other version would be
considered an ``alternative model'', subject to the provisions of GAQM
section 3.2.2(b), requiring full model documentation, peer-review, and
performance evaluation. No such information for the later CALPUFF
versions that meet the requirements of section 3.2.2(b) has been
submitted to or approved by EPA. Experience has shown that when the
full evaluation procedure is not followed, errors that are not
immediately apparent can be introduced along with new model features.
For example, changes introduced to CALMET to improve simulation of
over-water convective mixing heights caused their periodic collapse to
zero, even over land, so that CALPUFF concentration estimates were no
longer reliable.
In addition, the latest version of CALPUFF, 6.4, incorporates a
detailed treatment of chemistry. EPA's promulgation of CALPUFF (68 FR
18440, April 15, 2003) as a ``preferred'' model approved it for use in
analyses of Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment
consumption and for complex wind situations, neither of which involve
chemical transformations. For visibility impact analyses, which do
involve chemical transformations, CALPUFF is considered a ``screening''
model, rather than a ``preferred'' model; this ``screening'' status is
also described in the preamble to the BART Guidelines (at 70 FR 39123,
July 6, 2005). The change to CALPUFF 6.4 is not a simple model update
to address bug fixes, but a significant change in the model science
that requires its own rulemaking with public notice and comment.
Furthermore, it should be noted that the U.S. Forest Service and
EPA review of CALPUFF version 6.4 results for a limited set of BART
applications showed that differences in its results from those of
version 5.8 are driven by two input assumptions and not associated with
the chemistry changes in 6.4. Use of the so-called ``full'' ammonia
limiting method and finer horizontal grid resolution are the primary
drivers in the predicted differences in modeled visibility impacts
between the model versions. These input assumptions have been
previously reviewed by EPA and the FLMs and have been rejected based on
lack of documentation, inadequate peer review, and lack of technical
justification and validation.
EPA intends to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the latest
CALPUFF version along with other ``chemistry'' air quality models in
consultation with the Federal Land Managers, including a full
statistical performance evaluation, verification of its scientific
basis, determination of whether the underlying science has been
incorporated into the modeling system correctly, and evaluation of the
effect on the regulatory framework for its use, including in New Source
Review permitting. CALPUFF version 5.8 has already gone through this
comprehensive evaluation process and remains the EPA-approved version,
and is thus the appropriate version for EPA's BART determination for
FCPP.
Comment: Some commenters argued against the visibility metrics that
EPA introduced in the BART proposal. One commenter noted that none of
the metrics (percent improvement in dv impacts, cumulative changes in
dv, and dv impacts scaled by the geographic area of the affected Class
I area) is addressed in the BART rules, and posited that their
introduction into the BART process is intended to inflate the estimated
visibility benefits of the control options at FCPP. Regarding the
percent improvement metric, the commenter stated that these values
(unlike values of the haze index in dv) have no consistent relationship
to the human perception of haze changes and no consistent relationship
to changes in ambient visibility-impairing particle concentrations.
Similarly, one of the owners of FCPP stated that cumulative change
in dv is not an appropriate metric to describe visibility improvement
and should be withdrawn. This commenter made a number of points which
are briefly described here. The peak impact from a source occurs at
different times in different Class I areas because a facility's
emissions cannot result in peak concentrations in all directions at
once. Thus, this metric really does not represent a cumulative regional
impact of the source (and hence the benefit of controls); rather it
simply produces a mathematical summation of the peak impacts occurring
at different times at various Class I areas. It is inappropriate to add
improvements over all Class I areas. A 0.5 dv improvement in one Class
I area and a 0.5 dv improvement in another area does not result in a 1
dv improvement--the improvement is a 0.5 dv improvement, which occurs
in two different locations. Any one observer would experience only a
0.5 dv improvement; he or she can only experience the visibility
improvement in the Class I area being visited.
Conversely, one environmental advocacy group commenter supported
the use of a cumulative impact analysis. The commenter asserted that
the cumulative impact of a source's emissions on visibility, as well as
the cumulative benefit of emission reductions, is a necessary
consideration as part of the fifth step in the BART analysis,
particularly in cases such as FCPP where the source causes or
contributes to visibility impairment at a significant number of Class I
areas. The commenter stated that failing to account for a source's
cumulative impairment and the cumulative pollution control benefit
would result in a failure to acknowledge the regional approach to
reducing haze.
Response: EPA believes that it is important to consider the
visibility impact on multiple Class I areas. The goal of the visibility
program is to remedy visibility impairment at all Class I areas. CAA
169A(a)(1). One approach to account for the benefits to
[[Page 51632]]
all affected Class I areas is the cumulative ``total dv'' metric. EPA
relied on the modeled impacts and benefits at each Class I area
individually, the number of Class I areas affected, and also
considered, but did not rely on, the sum of visibility impacts and
benefits across all 16 Class I areas.
Comment: Two commenters questioned EPA's use of 0.5 dv as the
threshold of a humanly perceptible change in visibility (citing 75 FR
64228). One commenter added that the establishment of a specific
deciview threshold as a ``bright line'' to define whether a certain
control will be imposed as BART is contrary to the intent of the BART
rules and the objectives of the Regional Haze program, which require
EPA to consider the cost of each control option in relation to the
associated visibility benefit.
One of the owners of FCPP expressed the belief that application of
SCR at FCPP would result in no perceptible visibility improvement and
therefore cannot be BART.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that the visibility
benefit from the proposed BART controls is too small to warrant
requiring the controls; in addition, EPA is not using a perceptibility
threshold in this BART determination. EPA agrees that thresholds should
not be considered a ``bright line'' in making BART decisions. In the
BART Guidelines, EPA described 1 dv as the threshold for an impact that
``causes'' visibility impairment, and 0.5 dv as a threshold for an
impact that ``contributes'' to visibility impairment, for determining
whether a source is subject to BART, though States were accorded
discretion to use different thresholds (70 FR 39118, July 6, 2005; also
39120-39121). These thresholds do not apply to BART determinations for
sources that have been found subject to BART; States or EPA could
consider visibility impacts less than 0.5 dv to warrant BART controls.
To the extent that the comment is questioning the BART eligibility of
FCPP, EPA has already established that FCPP is BART eligible and the
commenter did not provide evidence to the contrary.
Even if the commenters are correct that 0.5 dv change is not
perceptible, EPA noted that ``[e]ven though the visibility improvement
from an individual source may not be perceptible, it should still be
considered in setting BART because the contribution to haze may be
significant relative to other source contributions in the Class I area.
Thus, we disagree that the degree of improvement should be contingent
upon perceptibility. Failing to consider less-than-perceptible
contributions to visibility impairment would ignore the CAA's intent to
have BART requirements apply to sources that contribute to, as well as
cause, such impairment.'' (70 FR 39129) That is, impacts smaller than
0.5 dv do contribute to impairment. Conversely, an improvement of 0.5
dv or even less contributes to improvement in visibility impairment. As
stated in the proposal, the modeled improvements in visibility are
large enough to warrant requiring the proposed BART controls. While the
actual improvements may be larger, from 0.6 to 2.8 dv, even as small an
improvement as 0.5 dv is a contribution toward improving visibility,
especially when the benefits at multiple Class I areas are considered.
In conjunction with improvements from other sources, this will help and
is necessary for progress toward the CAA goal of remedying manmade
visibility impairment.
Comment: One environmental advocacy group commenter stated that EPA
underestimated visibility improvement from installing NOX
controls because it overestimated the production of sulfuric acid by
the SCR and underestimated the amount of sulfuric acid removed
downstream of the SCR. The commenter cited reports attached to the
comments to argue that sulfuric acid does not limit SCR NOX
control efficiency. The reports also state that modeling shows that
greater NOX removal rates are not offset by sulfuric acid
emissions but instead yield greater visibility improvements than those
proposed by EPA. The commenter states that this would result in a
significant visibility benefit from increasing the SCR NOX
efficiency from 80 percent to 90 percent and therefore concludes that a
higher level of NOX control than 80 percent should be
determined BART.
Response: EPA disagrees that we overstated the production of
sulfuric acid from the SCR catalyst and underestimated the amount of
sulfuric acid removed downstream of the SCR. In the TSD for our
proposed BART determination, we estimated sulfuric acid emissions using
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) methodology and provided
detailed explanations for all of the assumptions we applied (see TSD p.
55-59, 64-65, and 68). While we fully acknowledge and understand that
the generalized EPRI methodology does not precisely represent true
sulfuric acid emissions for a given facility, this method is a commonly
used calculation methodology for estimating sulfuric acid emissions
under a future operating scenario involving SCR.
EPA assumed in our BART proposal that a 3+1 system (four layers of
catalyst) would achieve 80 percent NOX removal. Greater
reduction efficiencies would likely require an additional layer of
catalyst, which models indicate would increase sulfuric acid emissions.
Based on the SO2 to SO3 conversion rate guarantee
we received from Hitachi for its CX series catalyst (ultra-low
conversion) of 0.167 percent per layer, the use of an additional
catalyst layer would equal five layers of catalyst and a 0.835 percent
conversion rate. EPA is not aware of SCR systems that use five layers
of catalyst, and the addition of a fifth layer would also affect the
cost and operation of the unit.
Although EPA agrees that the modeling referenced by the commenter
indicates greater visibility improvement from an SCR system achieving
90 percent removal compared to 80 percent removal despite higher
sulfuric acid emissions,\21\ EPA does not agree that this requires EPA
to determine that a greater level of control is required as BART. The
level of control recommended by the commenter is equivalent to those
required as the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for new
facilities. As discussed in responses to other comments, the Regional
Haze Rule requires a case-by-case BART determination, which need not be
equivalent to BACT for new facilities. As discussed in our proposed
BART determination and in our Supplemental proposal, given the boiler
size and configuration at FCPP that limit use of combustion controls,
and other considerations related to ash content of coal, EPA is
finalizing its determination that 80 percent control is appropriate as
BART for FCPP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ EPA notes that the baghouses on Units 4 and 5 are assumed
to provide a significant amount of control of sulfuric acid
emissions, therefore, such slight increases in sulfuric acid
emissions would not be expected on units that are not equipped with
baghouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Comments on BART Determinations
1. Comments on the Proposed BART Determination for NOX
Comment: A number of commenters, including owners of FCPP, the
Navajo Nation, and a utility industry association, assert that EPA's
BART analysis was inconsistent with its own regulations in that it did
not give proper weight to the ``presumptive BART'' limits for
NOX that it established for EGUs through notice-and-comment
rulemaking (generally citing 70 FR 39104, July 6, 2005). The commenters
noted that these presumptive BART limits are based on the use of
[[Page 51633]]
combustion controls, and that EPA had considered and rejected
establishing presumptive BART limits based on SCR. A brief summary of
these comments follows.
In establishing presumptive BART limits for NOX
emissions from EGUs, EPA concluded that combustion control-based
presumptive limits ``are extremely likely to be appropriate for all
greater than 750 MW power plants subject to BART'' (a category that
includes FCPP), that they are ``highly cost-effective controls,'' and
that they ``would result in significant improvements in visibility and
help to ensure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal
(citing 70 FR 39131). Additionally, EPA has made clear that ``the
presumptions represent a reasonable estimate of a stringent case BART *
* *'' (citing 71 FR 60612, 60619, Oct. 13, 2006).
Commenters argue that EPA was not correct in stating in the
proposed BART determination for FCPP that in setting presumptive BART
limits, it ``did not consider the question of what more stringent
control technologies might be appropriately determined to be BART''
(citing 75 FR 64226). Rather, EPA's 2005 rules were clear that the
Agency had considered--and rejected--establishing presumptive BART
limits based on SCR (citing 70 FR 39136). Thus, EPA established through
rulemaking that SCR is not an appropriate basis for presumptive BART
limits and that combustion controls should generally be deemed BART.
Commenters also argue that a BART analysis must begin with and take
into account the presumptive BART limits and EPA's rationale for
setting them. If a source is able to meet the limit through the
application of combustion controls, there should be an exceedingly
strong presumption that such controls constitute BART.
Commenters state that EPA's analytical approach disregarded the
presumptive limits entirely. By using a top-down approach in which it
started its analysis by evaluating SCR and then determined that SCR is
BART for FCPP, EPA never undertook an assessment of combustion
controls.
Commenters further argue that in its BART analysis, APS
demonstrated that each unit at FCPP can meet the presumptive BART
limits through the application of advanced combustion control
technologies.
Under the BART rules, a deviation from presumptive BART, either
upwards or downwards, is authorized if an alternative control level is
justified based on ``careful consideration of the statutory factors''
(citing 70 FR 39131). Commenters argue that EPA did not carefully
consider the BART factors and then conclude that an alternative to
presumptive BART limits is appropriate. Instead, commenters state that
EPA dismissed the presumptive BART limits before even considering the
BART factors.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertions that we did
not give sufficient weight to presumptive BART NOX limits,
or that the BART determination for FCPP was performed in a manner
inconsistent with the RHR.
As noted in other responses in this document, the presumptive
NOX limits established in the BART Guidelines are determined
to be cost effective and appropriate for most units. The establishment
of presumptive BART limits, and the corresponding technology upon which
those limits are based, does not preclude States or EPA from setting
limits that differ from those presumptions. Indeed, the five statutory
factors enumerated in the BART Guidelines provide the mechanism for
establishing different requirements. We note the RHR states:
States, as a general matter, must require owners and operators
of greater than 750 MW power plants to meet these BART emission
limits. We are establishing these requirements based on the
consideration of certain factors discussed below. Although we
believe that these requirements are extremely likely to be
appropriate for all greater than 750 MW power plants subject to
BART, a State may establish different requirements if the State can
demonstrate that an alternative determination is justified based on
a consideration of the five statutory factors.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 70 FR 39131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RHR also states:
If, upon examination of an individual EGU, a State determines
that a different emission limit is appropriate based upon its
analysis of the five factors, then the State may apply a more or
less stringent limit.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 70 FR 39132.
Therefore, the presumptive emission limits in the BART Guidelines
are rebuttable.\24\ The presumptive emission limits apply to power
plants with a total generating capacity of 750 MW or greater insofar as
these sources are required to adopt emission limits at least as
stringent as the presumptive limits, unless after considering the five
statutory factors, the State determines that the presumptive emission
limits are not appropriate. Moreover, the RHR and BART Guidelines do
not exempt States from a five factor BART analysis, and that BART
analysis may result in a determination of BART emission limits that are
more or less stringent than the presumptive emission limits for subject
to BART sources. The RHR states:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 71 FR 60619.
For each source subject to BART, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A)
requires that States identify the level of control representing BART
after considering the factors set out in CAA section 169A(g), as
follows:
States must identify the best system of continuous emission
control technology for each source subject to BART taking into
account the technology available, the costs of compliance, the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any
pollution control equipment in use at the source, the remaining
useful life of the source, and the degree of visibility improvement
that may be expected from available control technology.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 70 FR 39158.
EPA's site-specific five-factor analysis performed for FCPP
demonstrates that, in considering the expected remaining useful life of
FCPP and the existing controls, SCR is cost effective, results in the
most visibility improvement of all feasible control technologies, and
does not cause energy or non-air quality environmental impacts that
warrant its elimination as the top control option. As a result,
regardless of the appropriateness of SCR as a control technology for
most units on a national scale, or the extent to which EPA considered
SCR in establishing the presumptive limits, the site-specific five-
factor analysis performed for FCPP justifies a different NOX
BART limit than the presumptive NOX BART limit.
EPA disagrees with commenters' assertions that we disregarded
presumptive NOX BART limits. Although we do not rely upon
the numerical values of the presumptive NOX limits listed in
the BART Guidelines, the technological basis for presumptive
NOX BART limits, such as the use of combustion control
technology, boiler type, and coal type, were considered in the site-
specific five-factor analysis. Combustion control technology was
specifically considered as a potential retrofit technology, and costs
and visibility improvements associated with combustion controls were
calculated and included in the TSD in order to provide a comparison to
other NOX control technologies.
In addition, EPA disagrees that the rule directs authorities to
consider non-combustion control technology only when presumptive limits
cannot be met using combustion control technology. While a BART
determination deviating from presumptive BART must be supported by the
results of the five-factor analysis, the rule does not restrict the
ability of States (or in this case, EPA) to initiate a five-factor
analysis.
[[Page 51634]]
Comment: Two of the owners of FCPP and the Navajo Nation asserted
that advanced combustion controls constitute BART for FCPP because such
controls will result in meaningful emission reductions and will
contribute to reasonable progress toward visibility improvement.
One of these commenters noted that EPA has ``determined that
combustion controls are not likely to be effective control technologies
at FCPP'' (citing 75 FR 64226). The commenter asserted that EPA's
determination is based on superficial analysis and is mistaken. This
commenter cited its comments which contain a detailed analysis of the
use of LNB and OFA on FCPP's units. According to the commenter, this
analysis confirms that the use of advanced combustion controls on the
five units at FCPP will reduce plant-wide NOX emissions by
34 percent and, for those units that are subject to presumptive BART
limits, the reductions more than satisfy the presumptive limits in the
BART rules.
Two of the commenters added that considering that neither SCR nor
advanced combustion controls will produce humanly perceptible
visibility improvements in the nearby Class I areas, control
technologies that result in limits that meet presumptive BART should be
determined BART and that these reductions will contribute to reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal.
The Navajo Nation stated that a phased approach to emissions
controls at FCPP, beginning with combustion controls, is fully
consistent with both the CAA and the RHR, and is the approach that the
EPA should take as a prudent trustee of the Navajo Nation.
This commenter added that the BART component of the CAA and RHR was
meant to provide for a measured response to emissions from aging power
plants; thus, requiring the most expensive controls is inconsistent
with the law and regulations governing the BART process. The commenter
also asserted that requiring a power plant over which EPA has exclusive
jurisdiction to bear a greater regulatory burden than similarly
situated plants regulated by the States is contrary to the purposes of
the Act, the RHR, and to the economic interests of the Navajo Nation.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that advanced combustion
controls on all five units at FCPP will reduce plant-wide
NOX emissions by 34 percent. APS has provided conflicting
information regarding whether or not advanced combustion controls will
be effective at significantly reducing NOX emissions at
FCPP. As outlined in the TSD for our 2010 BART proposal, we have
concluded that combustion controls will not be effective at
significantly reducing NOX emissions at FCPP.
EPA disagrees that installation of SCR will not result in humanly
perceptible impacts. As noted above, EPA's visibility modeling of the
impacts of SCR installation at FCPP indicates visibility improvements
at the sixteen nearby Class I areas ranging from 0.9 to 2.5 dv.
EPA agrees with certain aspects of comments from the Navajo Nation
regarding a phased implementation strategy to attaining national
visibility goals. In 40 CFR 51.308(f), States are required to revise
their regional haze implementation plans every ten years, which is a
process that involves evaluating their ability to attain reasonable
progress goals and potentially updating their long-term strategy for
regional haze. The periodic revision requirement described in 40 CFR
51.308(f), however, does not extend to the implementation plan for BART
requirements. The phased approach described by the Navajo Nation has
certain benefits, and a phased approach is incorporated into the
alternative emission control strategy.
Comment: Two federal agencies and two groups of environmental
advocacy groups assert that the NOX emission limit for the
units at FCPP should be 0.05 lb/MMBtu based on the capabilities of SCR.
The federal agency commenters stated that, given that BART is meant to
achieve the best possible emissions reductions, EPA should not base its
emission limits on the ``minimum reduction expected from SCR, estimated
by Hitachi Power Systems America'' (citing the TSD for our proposed
rulemaking) because real-world application of SCR indicates that lower
NOX emission limits are routinely reached. Regarding the
emission limits for Units 4 and 5, the commenters noted that of the 20
cell burners with SCR in 2010, 12 had lower NOX limits than
proposed by EPA for FCPP, with 3 EGUs at less than 0.06 lb/MMBtu. Based
on this information, the original APS BART analysis of SCR at 0.06 lb/
MMBtu (annual and 24-hour average), and the ``common knowledge'' that
SCR can achieve at least 90 percent reduction, the commenters concluded
that the installation of SCR at FCPP is capable of reducing annual
NOX emissions by 90 percent to 0.05 lb/MMBtu on an annual
average basis.
One of the federal agency commenters specifically refuted EPA's
rationale in the supplemental proposal for its 80 percent SCR
efficiency estimate. The main points are summarized below.
EPA took into account the degradation of the SCR catalyst over its
lifetime and calculated the emission limit to reflect the capability of
the catalyst just prior to its replacement on a 3-year cycle.
Commenters assert this issue is not a technical limitation on SCR, but
is simply a cost item to be accounted for in the proper design and
operation of the SCR.
EPA stated that pursuing NOX control efficiencies of
greater than 80 percent on Units 4 and 5 is limited by formation of
H2SO4 from the SCR catalyst because the
additional layers of catalyst needed to increase NOX control
efficiency would increase emissions of H2SO4,
most affecting nearby Mesa Verde National Park. The commenter gave
several reasons why this argument is incorrect.
EPA stated that the high ash content (approximately 25 percent) of
the coal burned at FCPP may adversely affect the capability of SCR to
reach the highest end of the control efficiency range without the use
of additional layers of catalyst or more frequent catalyst replacement.
According to the commenter, this is not consistent with previous EPA
proposals for SCR emissions limits at facilities that use coal with
similar ash content. Unless the FCCP ash contains some unusual catalyst
poison, the 25 percent ash content is not a technical feasibility issue
that would affect SCR effectiveness, but is a matter of proper SCR
design, operation, and maintenance.
This federal agency commenter also asserted that NOX
BART for Units 1-3 should be 0.05 lb/MMBtu on an annual basis. The
commenter noted that unsuccessful attempts to reduce NOX
emissions at FCPP with combustion controls occurred over a decade ago
when this technology was not as fully developed as now, and pointed out
that APS'S BART analysis concluded that such controls are technically
feasible and would reduce NOX emissions significantly.
The commenter evaluated Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) data for
2000--2009 and found 33 dry-bottom, wall-fired boilers with
NOX emissions rates similar to FCPP Units 1-3 (0.6--0.8 lb/
MMBtu) that had been reduced to 0.4 lb/MMBtu or less by application of
modern combustion controls. The commenter asserted that because the
typical approach is to first reduce NOX emissions by
combustion controls before adding SCR, these real-world CAMD data
support the belief that using combustion controls and SCR could
[[Page 51635]]
reduce NOX at FCPP Units 1-3 to 0.05 lb/MMBtu on an annual
basis.
The commenter asserted that modern SCRs are routinely designed and
operated to achieve 90 percent NOX control and that based on
this well-accepted industry standard, NOX control of at
least 90 percent is BART.
The commenter also contended that LNB and OFA are feasible for all
five units at FCPP. The commenter rejected EPA's statement that it
would be difficult to retrofit Units 4 and 5 with modern LNB technology
(citing 76 FR 10534) and pointed out that the operator of FCPP has
stated that the combination of LNB and OFA is technically feasible for
these units. The commenter indicated that the use of LNB/OFA on Units
1-5 would reduce NOX emissions by 27 to 46 percent, making
SCR with a removal efficiency of 90 percent sufficient to satisfy a
0.05 lb/MMBtu NOX limit.
The commenter stated that a 0.05 lb/MMBtu limit is consistent with
EPA's determinations elsewhere, such as for the San Juan Generating
Station (proposed limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average) and
for Desert Rock (final permit limit of 0.035 lbs/MMBtu, 365-day rolling
average). According to the commenter, an EPA-issued permit containing a
lower NOX limit creates a presumption of technical
feasibility for purposes of BART. Commenters also argued that emission
limits should be based on a 30-boiler operating day rolling average.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that
emission limits associated with BART must meet the lowest emission rate
achieved with that technology at any coal-fired power plant. The
Regional Haze Regulations at 40 CFR Sec. 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A) state
that:
The determination of BART must be based on an analysis of the
best system of continuous emission control technology available and
associated emission reductions achievable for each BART-eligible
source that is subject to BART * * *
Additionally, the BART Guidelines state that: ``[i]n assessing the
capability of the control alternative, latitude exists to consider
special circumstances pertinent to the specific source under review, or
regarding the prior application of the control alternative'', (70 FR
39166) and that ``[t]o complete the BART process, you must establish
enforceable emission limits that reflect the BART requirements * * *''
(70 FR 39172). The five-factor BART analysis described in the
Guidelines is a case-by-case analysis that considers site specific
factors in assessing the best technology for continuous emission
controls. After a technology is determined as BART, the BART Guidelines
require establishment of an emission limit that reflects the BART
requirements, but does not specify that the emission limit must
represent the maximum level of control achieved by the technology
selected as BART. The BART Guidelines and the Regional Haze Rule do not
preclude selection of the maximum level of control achieved by a given
technology as BART, however, the emission limit set to reflect BART
must be achievable by the specific source and should be determined
based on consideration of site-specific factors. Therefore, limits set
as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) during Prevention of
Significant Determination (PSD) review (e.g., Desert Rock) may provide
relevant information, but should not be construed to automatically
represent the most appropriate BART limits representative of a given
technology for every facility.
While some commenters asserted that combustion controls would be
feasible upstream of SCR to further reduce NOX emissions to
meet a limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, in its comment letter, the National Park
Service (NPS) agreed with EPA that the addition of combustion controls
may ``not (be) worth the small incremental reduction in NOX
emissions''. As discussed in the TSD for our proposed BART
determination, because additional combustion controls at FCPP would not
achieve significant reductions in NOX and may cause
operability issues for the boilers, EPA determined that SCR, without
the addition of new combustion controls, is BART for FCPP.
Several environmental organizations argued that a 30-day rolling
average emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu should be determined BART for
FCPP and provided supporting documentation.\26\ EPA disagrees that an
emission limit set in association with a BART determination must
represent the lowest achieved emission rate from the best performing
unit using that technology. EPA notes that, after further examination
\27\ of the commenters' supporting documentation, the maximum 30-day
calendar average emission rates for the 17 top performing units
exhibited significant variability (0.056--1.1 lb/MMBtu), even though
the annual average emission rates listed are all below 0.07 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See items (2 and 3) in collection of documents titled
``Public Comment--8 Environmental Groups (Barth)--Letter 5-2-11''.
Document Number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0182.
\27\ See the Response to Comments, Section 8.1 in the docket for
this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its comments, the National Park Service provided examples of 3
cell burner boilers currently equipped with SCR: Cardinal Units 1 and 2
and Belews Creek Unit 1. Based on NOX data from the Clean
Air Markets Division (CAMD), EPA notes that over 2009-2011,
NOX emissions from Cardinal Unit 1 showed an increasing
trend. Cardinal Unit 2 shows a similar pattern as Unit 1, with an
increasing trend in minimum and maximum 30-day calendar averages.
Belews Creek 1 also showed a similar pattern of generally increasing
minimum and maximum 30-day calendar average emission rates. Although
commenters are correct in stating that the best performing units can
achieve 30-day rolling emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu or lower, CAMD
data show significant variability in emission rates, both over time for
a given unit, and between the best performing units. Some of this
variability may be related to catalyst aging, or may be related to the
participation of these units in trading programs (therefore these units
operate without an absolute limit on individual boilers). Regardless of
the cause of this variability, EPA notes that significant variability
over a 30-day average, even among the best performing units, does
exist, and EPA disagrees that an emission limit set in association with
a BART determination must represent the lowest rate achieved on 30-day
rolling average basis from the best performing unit using that
technology.
EPA examined the most recent Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)
emission rate data for 12 cell burner boilers currently operating with
SCR over 2009-June 2011.\28\ In order to determine what might be an
appropriate percent reduction to represent all cell burner boilers
currently using SCR, we calculated the average percent reduction from
the highest emission rate achieved over all 12 units. The percent
reduction achieved from the monthly calendar average emission rate over
2009-June 2011 from the 12 units ranged from 48 to 90 percent, with an
average value of 78 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See the Response to Comments Section 8.1 in the docket for
this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters claim that emissions of sulfuric acid mist and the high
ash content of coal used by FCPP, and considerations of catalyst life
are not barriers to achieving higher NOX reduction
efficiencies than proposed by EPA. EPA disagrees with comments that our
statement regarding the impact of additional layers of catalyst on
increasing sulfuric acid emissions is unsupported. EPA understands from
our
[[Page 51636]]
correspondence with Hitachi Power Systems America that each layer of
catalyst used results in an incremental increase in the conversion rate
of SO2 to SO3. The EPRI method used for
calculating sulfuric acid requires the input of a SCR catalyst
oxidation rate. This oxidation rate varies depending on catalyst type
and number of layers used. For the ultra low SO2 to
SO3 oxidation catalysts offered by Hitachi, each layer
contributed roughly 0.167 percent conversion, with three layers
totaling 0.5 percent. The use of an additional layer, such as in a 3+1
system, would thus increase the conversion rate to nearly 0.7 percent
when all four catalyst layers are in operation. Further NOX
reductions achieved from the addition of a 5th layer of catalyst would
likely exacerbate pluggage and back-pressure concerns related to the
ash content of the coal and may affect cost and operation of the unit.
Commenters have not submitted information to refute this.
The ash content of coal has an important effect on the
effectiveness of SCR because high ash content in coal can cause
pluggage and catalyst erosion and thus reduce available catalyst area
and activity for NOX reduction. Commenters point to San Juan
Generating Station (SJGS) and Desert Rock as facilities with lower SCR-
based NOX emission limits that use high ash content coal.
EPA Region 6 recently finalized a FIP for SJGS with a limit of 0.05 lb/
MMBtu, representing an 83 percent reduction in NOX
emissions. The emission limit EPA Region 6 set for SJGS is lower than
the limit we set for FCPP because SJGS uses a different boiler type
than FCPP and modern combustion controls have already been installed
and have reduced NOX emissions at SJGS by 29-33 percent.\29\
EPA has determined that because Units 4 and 5 at FCPP are cell burner
boilers, modern combustion controls would not significantly reduce
NOX emissions from FCPP. Even though the emission limit
differs, the reduction efficiency from the installation and operation
of SCR at FCPP and SJGS are generally consistent, particularly when
considering the similarly high ash content of coal (greater than 20
percent) used at both facilities. In 2008, EPA Region 9 issued a pre-
construction Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to
allow construction of a new coal-fired power plant on the Navajo
Nation, known as the Desert Rock Energy Facility (Desert Rock).\30\ If
constructed, Desert Rock would have used the same coal as FCPP from the
BHP Navajo Mine and the final PSD permit set a NOX limit of
0.05 lb/MMBtu (on a rolling 365-day average). Commenters argue that if
Desert Rock was required to meet a limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu using the
same coal as FCPP, the ash content should not hinder FCPP from
achieving similarly low NOX emission rates. EPA notes that
if constructed, Desert Rock would have been a new, state-of-the-art
facility specifically designed with boiler characteristics, combustion
controls, and post-combustion controls to meet the Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) requirements for numerous criteria and non-
criteria pollutants. FCPP is an existing, over 40-year-old power plant.
The Regional Haze Rule requires a case-by-case BART (best available
retrofit technology) determination, which need not be equivalent to
BACT for new facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See page 4-3 of report titled ``PNM BART Report for SJGS--
final to PNM--June 18, 2007.pdf'' in the docket for this final
rulemaking. Pre-consent decree emission rates on Units 1-4 at SJGS
ranged from 0.42-0.45 lb/MMBtu. Post-consent decree emission limits
for those units were 0.30 lb/MMBtu.
\30\ Desert Rock has not been constructed. EPA requested a
voluntary remand of the Desert Rock PSD permit in 2009 to
incorporate new applicable requirements. The developers of Desert
Rock have not yet submitted a revised PSD application to EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the significant 30-calendar day average variability
exhibited by the top performing units cited by commenters, and the
variability in 30-calendar day average and the 2009-June 2011 30-
calendar day average percent NOX reduction of 78 percent
exhibited by 12 cell burner boilers equipped with SCR, EPA continues to
affirm that a limit representing an 80 percent reduction in
NOX emissions reflects what is achievable using the
technology determined as BART for FCPP.
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP stated a willingness to support
a NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu for Units 4 and 5
under the alternative proposal, but only in the context of an
alternative emission reduction strategy that includes resolution of the
related issues.
The Navajo Nation similarly endorsed the proposed 80 percent
reduction in NOX emissions from Units 4 and 5, with a limit
of 0.098 lb/MMBtu, under the supplemental proposal, based on the site-
specific parameters at FCPP.
Response: EPA agrees that the appropriate limit for Units 4 and 5
under the alternative strategy is 0.098 lb/MMMtu (based on a rolling
average of 30 successive boiler operating days). The final rule
reflects this limit.
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP opposed EPA's proposal to
``phase in'' NOX controls at FCPP under a traditional BART
FIP, commencing 3 years from the date the FIP becomes effective. The
commenter asserted that this proposal does not afford adequate time to
properly design, engineer, and construct the controls before the
compliance deadline.
Response: EPA partially agrees with this comment. We revised the
BART compliance date for one 750 MW unit to within 4 years from the
effective date of this final rule. The remaining 750 MW unit and Units
1-3 must meet a compliance date of within 5 years of the effective date
of the final rule. The revised compliance time within 4 and 5 years
allows time for design, engineer, and construct controls.
Comment: One environmental advocacy group stated that the proposed
plant-wide BART limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu across all five FCPP units
violates Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice. Specifically,
the commenter asserted that given the significant differences in
pollution control systems among FCPP's five units, allowing a plant-
wide average could create pollution ``hotspots'' with respect to co-
pollutants. As an example, the commenter noted that while Units 4 and 5
have baghouses, Units 1-3 use less efficient venturi scrubbers for
control of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury. The
commenter asserted that the plant-wide average limit for NOX
would allow increased emissions from Units 1-3 in the event of a
temporary outage or reduced output from one or both of the larger
units. The commenter stated that while this may not increase the total
NOX emissions from the plant, it would increase the amount
of mercury and other toxic co-pollutants emitted into the surrounding
community, which is a low-income community of color.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that a plant-wide BART
limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu across all five FCPP units violates Executive
Order 12898 on environmental justice. This final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income population because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations in the
area including any minority or low-income population.
The commenter is correct that in the event of a temporary outage or
reduced output from Unit 4 or 5 the operator could continue to operate
FCPP units 1-3 under the original BART proposal provided that they
maintain compliance with the plant-wide emission limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu
for NOX. In order to maintain compliance with the plant-wide
emission limit, Units 1-3 would have to operate at a lesser capacity
than
[[Page 51637]]
they would normally operate if Unit 4 and 5 were functioning because
units 1-3 have higher NOX emission rates than Units 4 and 5.
The NOX emission rates from Units 1-3 with SCR, based on 80
percent control of current emission rates would be 0.16, 0.13, and 0.12
lb/MMBtu respectively which are higher than the proposed plant-wide
emission limit. Therefore, to maintain compliance with the plant-wide
NOX emission limit (which is based upon a 30-calendar day
rolling average), Units 1-3 would have to operate at a reduced capacity
in any 30-day period in which Units 4 and 5 are operating a reduced
capacity, so as to maintain the balance among the five units. This
reduced capacity would result in an overall lower rate of emission for
mercury and other co-pollutants from Units 1-3. Therefore, there would
be no increased emissions of mercury or other co-pollutants and no
``hot-spots'' or disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income population.
2. Comments on the Proposed BART Determination for PM
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP asserted that the existing
controls at FCPP constitute BART for PM emissions. The commenter
contended that the impact of PM controls on the visibility in the
neighboring Class I areas would be ``vanishingly small'' while the cost
would be ``exorbitant'' (resulting in cost effectiveness ranging from
$51,500-$148,659 per ton reduced and from $1.4 billion-$3.7 billion per
dv improvement).
The Navajo Nation stated that EPA acknowledged the high incremental
cost of new PM controls on Units 1-3 (citing 75 FR 64230), yet
justified the cost effectiveness of baghouses by comparison with
similar retrofit projects in EPA Region 9. This commenter asserted that
EPA failed to properly evaluate the costs associated with installation
of baghouses using site-specific parameters, thereby deviating from the
BART Guidelines. The commenter asserted that continued operation of
venturi scrubbers to meet emission limits of 0.03 lb/MMBtu and an
opacity limit of 20 percent satisfies BART for Units 1-3.
The Navajo Nation expressed support for the supplemental proposal
to require a PM emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu and 10 percent opacity
limit on Units 4 and 5. The commenter presumed that FCPP can readily
meet these standards prior to installation of SCR since the limits can
be achieved with the existing baghouses.
Regarding the EPA's proposed 10 percent opacity standard for each
unit, two of the owners of FCPP stated that the EPA has not specified
any costs or predicted any improvement in visibility that would result
from such limits. The commenters asserted that without such basis, the
EPA cannot justify the proposed opacity limits.
Response: As stated in our proposed BART determination for PM, the
existing venturi scrubbers on Units 1-3 at FCPP do not constitute BART.
In our proposed BART determination for FCPP, EPA proposed a PM emission
limit for Units 1-3 that can be achieved through the installation of
any of four different PM control options. At the time of our BART
proposal, the MATS Rule for electric utility steam generating units had
not yet been proposed, nor had APS suggested its alternative emission
control strategy to close Units 1-3 in lieu of complying with BART for
NOX. Because the final MATS rule has been issued \31\ and
sets filterable PM and mercury limits that would be applicable to the
units at FCPP, and because EPA is finalizing this rule to allow APS to
either comply with the alternative emission control strategy or BART
for NOX, EPA is determining that it is not necessary or
appropriate at this time to finalize our proposal to set new PM limits
for Units 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See 77 FR 9304, February 16, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding our proposed BART determination for PM for Units 4 and 5,
we are finalizing the proposed 0.015 lb/MMBtu emission limit based upon
the proper operation of the existing baghouses. However, we have
determined based on the comments we received from the operator of FCPP
that it is not necessary or appropriate to take final action on the
proposed 10 percent opacity limit. We have determined that imposing a
10 percent opacity limit will not provide greater assurance that Units
4 and 5 at FCPP are meeting the PM emission limit of 0.015. We have
determined previously that a 20 percent opacity limit is sufficient to
ensure the PM emission limit is being continuously met. The 10 percent
opacity limit was generally supported by the Navajo Nation and
environmental groups. EPA has promulgated some recent rules for
electric generating units that have retained a 20 percent opacity
standard rather than reducing that limit to 10 percent. Specifically,
EPA's revised the New Source Performance Standard for large electric
generating units at 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart Da, to lower the PM
emission limit for new units to 0.09 lb/MMBtu for gross energy output
or 0.097 lb/MMBtu for net energy output. For existing units that
reconstruct or modify, Subpart Da establishes an emissions limit of
0.015 lb/MMBtu. For both standards, EPA retained a 20 percent opacity
standard as being sufficient to ensure compliance with either the 0.090
(0.097) lb/MMBtu or 0.015 lb/MMBtu PM emission limit. EPA's MATS rule,
which was finalized just a few months ago, also retained a 20 percent
opacity standard as being sufficient to ensure compliance with the PM
emission limit that will be required for electric generating units
subject to that rule.
The importance of the opacity limit is that a certain percentage
opacity is an instantaneous demonstration that a unit is in compliance
with its PM emission limit. If a unit does not install and operate a PM
continuous emissions monitor, then EPA ensures compliance with the PM
emission limit by requiring an episodic source test. For the periods
between episodic source testing, EPA can reasonably assure continuous
compliance with the PM emission limit by observing that the unit's
stack emissions do not exceed a set opacity. EPA's recent rulemakings
have determined that 20 percent opacity is sufficient to ensure
compliance with a PM emission limit lower than the emission limit we
have determined is BART for Units 4 and 5. Accordingly, EPA is
determining the 20 percent opacity limit that we promulgated in our
2007 FIP for FCPP as being adequate to ensure continuous compliance
with the PM BART limit or 0.015 lb/MMBtu. EPA concludes that this
change is a logical outgrowth of the comments received on the proposal.
Comment: One commenter indicated that EPA has proposed a BART limit
only for PM, which appears to be only filterable particulate matter.
The commenter asserted that the BART guidelines specify that BART
should be evaluated and defined for both PM10 and
PM2.5 (citing 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.A) and,
consequently, that EPA must evaluate and define BART limits for both
PM10 and PM2.5. The commenter also asserted that
as part of the PM2.5 BART determination, EPA must impose
emission limits on condensable particulate matter, which is typically
in the size range of 2.5 micrometers or smaller. Thus, the commenter
stated that in addition to a filterable PM BART limit, EPA should
impose a BART limit on total PM2.5.
One public interest advocacy group supported EPA's proposal and
supplemental proposal to require a PM limit and a 10 percent opacity
limit on Units 4 and 5. The commenter indicated
[[Page 51638]]
that these limits should become effective prior to SCR installation,
regardless of whether the BART or alternative emission control plan is
implemented.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters' recommendation that
the condensable fraction must be included in the PM BART limits. EPA
has previously outlined our rationale for why an
H2SO4 limit is not appropriate at this time (it
will be addressed through the pre-construction permitting process if
needed) and EPA expects that H2SO4 will be the
main component of condensable PM that would be expected from a coal-
fired EGU with an SCR.
EPA agrees with commenters that PM limits on Units 4 and 5 should
become effective prior to SCR installation, as Units 4 and 5 generally
already meet the 0.015 lb/MMBtu limit.\32\ EPA is finalizing a
compliance date for PM emission limits on Units 4 and 5 to be within 6
months after restart following the next scheduled major outages in 2013
and 2014. As discussed previously, EPA has determined that finalizing
the proposed opacity limit of 10 percent on Units 4 and 5 is not
necessary or appropriate at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ See document titled: ``TSD ref. [2-3, 95] FCPP--BART--
Scenarios--Emissions--EPA--Proposal.xlsx'' in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking at EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683-0017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Comments on BART for SO2
Comment: Some commenters stated that SO2 BART should be
required for FCPP, while one commenter simply noted that FCPP is
subject to BART for SO2. One federal agency commenter stated
that FCPP is subject to BART for SO2. The commenter stated
that Units 4 and 5 should be able to meet a limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu on
an annual average basis by upgrading the existing scrubbers.
One set of environmental advocacy groups discussed the Regional
Haze rules, the TAR, and the SO2 emissions from FCPP and
concluded that EPA is under a legal obligation to conduct a BART
analysis for SO2 emissions from FCPP and, to the extent EPA
has failed to make a finding that it is ``necessary or appropriate'' to
regulate SO2 emissions from the FCPP, such a failure is
arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by the administrative record.
According to the commenter, EPA argues that FCPP's current
SO2 emissions limits are ``close to or equivalent'' to the
limit that would be established under BART. The commenter asserted that
this conclusion is arbitrary and capricious because EPA has failed to
undertake any scientific or technical analysis to support its
conclusion.
A public interest advocacy group stated that the SO2
limits need to be tightened for FCPP to further reduce visibility
impairment and to reduce the acidification of rainfall caused by the
formation of H2SO4. The commenter stated that
because the damaging effects of H2SO4 in
precipitation on ancestral Puebloan sandstone dwellings and pictographs
are not fully understood, it is disappointing for the FCPP proposals
not to address SO2.
Response: EPA finalized a FIP in May 2007 that required significant
SO2 emissions reductions from FCPP and established
continuous SO2 emissions limits for FCPP. See 72 FR 25698
(May 7, 2007). The 2007 FIP required FCPP to increase the removal
efficiency of its SO2 emissions controls from 72 percent to
88 percent, resulting in an SO2 emissions reduction of
approximately 22,000 tons per year. EPA had proposed this FIP in
September 2006. The 2006 proposed FIP stated that ``EPA believes that
the SO2 controls proposed today for FCPP are close to or the
equivalent of a regional haze BART determination of SO2.
This takes into consideration the early reductions this action will
achieve and the modification to the existing SO2
scrubbers.'' 72 FR 25700. In finalizing that rulemaking in the 2007
FIP, EPA stated that it was exercising its authority pursuant to
Section 49.11 of the TAR to implement measures that are necessary or
appropriate to protect air quality in Indian country. Id. EPA
determined that the SO2 emissions reductions would be
federally enforceable as soon as the 2007 FIP was finalized, which
would be potentially five years before EPA could achieve enforceable
SO2 emissions reductions through making a BART
determination. See id. EPA also considered the Navajo Nation's request
for EPA to establish enforceable SO2 emissions reductions
immediately that, in the opinion of the Navajo Nation, ``appear[] to be
equivalent to BART.'' Id. Therefore, EPA's determination on this issue
in finalizing the 2007 FIP was ``that it is neither necessary nor
appropriate at this time to undertake a BART determination for
SO2 from FCPP given the timing of the substantial
SO2 reductions resulting from this FIP.'' Id. In addition,
we stated that ``given that the SO2 controls for FCPP
immediately achieve significant reductions in SO2 comparable
to what could ultimately be achieved through a formal BART
determination, EPA believes that it will not be necessary or
appropriate to develop a regional haze plan to address SO2
for the Navajo Nation in the near term.'' Id. 25700-701. Both APS, as
operator of FCPP, and Sierra Club sought judicial review of our 2007
FIP.
The comments on this action essentially repackage the comments we
received and provided a response for on the 2007 FIP. The comments have
not presented any new facts or legal considerations that have arisen or
changed since we responded to comments requesting a BART determination
for SO2 in 2007.
4. Other Comments on BART
Comment: One group of environmental advocacy groups stated that as
an alternative to a condensable PM2.5 limit, EPA could set
limits on the pollutants which form condensable PM2.5, such
as sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) and ammonia, as EPA
proposed as part of the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS) BART
rulemaking (citing 76 FR 503-4, January 5, 2011). If EPA adopts this
approach, the commenter urged EPA to set an emission limit for
H2SO4 no higher than the limit of 1.06 x
10-4 lb/MMBtu for each unit as proposed for SJGS based on
the use of low reactivity catalyst and the most current information
from the Electric Power Research Institute. If CEMS are unavailable for
this pollutant, the commenter urged EPA to require stack test
monitoring for H2SO4 on a more frequent basis
than annual monitoring.
The commenter also requested that EPA set emission limits for
ammonia at a rate no higher than the 2.0 parts per million as proposed
at SJGS, to be monitored with CEMs.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that Region 9 should set
the same emission limits for ammonia and sulfuric acid as Region 6 in
its proposed BART determination for SJGS.
In its January 5, 2011 proposed rulemaking for SJGS, Region 6
proposed an ammonia slip limit of 2.0 ppmvd on an hourly average and
requested comment on a range from 2.0 ppmvd to 6.0 ppmvd. In its final
BART rulemaking (76 FR 52388, August 22, 2011), Region 6 determined
that an emission limit and monitoring were not warranted for ammonia
and did not finalize its BART determination for SJSG with the proposed
2.0 ppmvd ammonia limit.
In its proposal for SJGS, Region 6 proposed an emission limit for
sulfuric acid of 1.06 x 10-4 lb/MMBtu on an hourly average,
and requested comment on a range from 1.06 x 10-4 to 7.87 x
10-4 lb/MMBtu. In its final rulemaking, Region 6 finalized
an emission limit for sulfuric acid of 2.6 x 10-4 lb/MMBtu
to minimize its contribution to visibility impairment. Region 6
calculated this emission limit using an estimation
[[Page 51639]]
methodology from EPRI, assuming the use of an ultra-low activity
catalyst (0.5 percent total conversion of SO2 to
SO3), zero ammonia slip, no sorbent injection, and EPRI-
recommended values for removal by existing downstream control
equipment.
Actual measurements of baseline sulfuric acid emissions have not
yet been determined at FCPP and the calculation of projected sulfuric
acid emissions after installation and operation of SCR using the EPRI
methodology is dependent on future decisions made by the facility on
the type of SCR catalyst and number of layers used, as well as numerous
assumptions about loss to downstream components, such as air preheaters
and baghouses, the true values of which are currently not yet defined
or known for FCPP. Furthermore, EPA Region 9 is the permitting
authority for preconstruction permits on the Navajo Nation, and an
increase in sulfuric acid emissions from the installation of SCR may
trigger major modification PSD permit requirements at a low threshold
of 7 tpy (see 40 CFR 52.21) or Tribal minor new source review (NSR)
permit requirements at a threshold of 2 tpy (see 40 CFR Part 49 Subpart
C). Preconstruction permitting review may also be triggered from
significant emissions increases of PM2.5 from SCR
installation at FCPP. If one of these pollutant triggers PSD, the
permitting authority must provide an Additional Impact Analysis under
the PSD program. The PSD program also requires the permitting authority
to determine BACT for pollutants that triggered PSD. A similar control
technology review may also be required at the discretion of the
permitting authority under the Tribal Minor NSR program. For these
reasons, Region 9 has determined that for FCPP, emission limits and
monitoring requirements for sulfuric acid are more appropriately
reviewed in the preconstruction permitting process.
Comment: Citing the BART Guidelines at 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y,
section V, one environmental advocacy group stated that BART emission
limits and compliance schedules must be based on ``boiler operating
day.''
The commenter asserted that the ``very high'' proposed BART
emission limits suggest that EPA set these limits to encompass spikes
that occur during startups and shutdowns. The commenter asserted that
setting and enforcing limits based on boiler operating day would
necessarily exclude spikes that occur before and after outages, such as
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. According to the commenter, such
periods should be subject to separate limits set at the pre-SCR
uncontrolled level to encourage good work practice standards during
these periods while allowing the SCR and other emission control
technologies to be operated at an efficient and continuous capacity in
compliance with BART.
Response: EPA agrees that the NOX limit under the
alternative emission control strategy should be set for 30 successive
boiler operating days and that a ``boiler operating day'' should be
defined as any day in which the boiler fires fossil fuel. Because the
NOX emission limit under the alternative emission control
strategy already includes periods of startup and shutdown, separate
limits are not required. The final rule reflects this approach.
For the original proposed BART determination, EPA does not find it
necessary to define boiler operating day because the BART limit is a
heat input-weighted plant-wide limit. Only operating hours for any of
the five units would be included. When a unit is not operating, those
hours are not included in the plant-wide 30-day average. Additionally,
the heat input-weighted plant-wide limit also includes periods of
startup and shutdown; therefore, separate limits are not required.
Comment: One environmental advocacy group stated that EPA should
require FCPP to install all control equipment within 3 years of the
date of a final FIP, as EPA did at SJGS. The commenter stated that
there is ample data to support the contention that all this emission
control technology can be installed and operational within 3 years or
less.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that Region 9 should set a
3-year compliance timeframe because Region 6 proposed a 3-year
compliance timeframe for SJGS. In its proposed rulemaking for SJGS,\33\
Region 6 proposed a 3-year timeframe for SJGS to comply with the
proposed limits but requested comment on a compliance range of 3-5
years. In its final rulemaking,\34\ Region 6 finalized a compliance
timeframe of 5 years and determined that because of site congestion at
SJGS, a longer timeframe than average (37-43 months) to install SCR on
the 4 units at SJGS would be required. The final BART determination for
FCPP requires retrofit of five existing units at FCPP. In the final
rule for FCPP, Region 9 is requiring installation and operation of SCR
controls for one 750 MW unit within 4 years of the effective date, and
the remaining 750 MW unit and Units 1-3 within 5 years of the effective
date. Based on all of the factors that will be involved in the design,
purchase and operation of the SCR controls, Region 9 considers this
schedule to be appropriate and expeditious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See 76 FR 491, January 5, 2011.
\34\ See 76 FR 52388, August 22, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Comments on APS's Alternative and EPA's Supplemental Proposal
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP pointed out that the November
2010 APS proposal included two critical components: (1) A proposal to
close Units 1-3 and install SCRs on Units 4 and 5; and (2) EPA's
contemporaneous agreement that these activities resolve any liability
FCPP may have under regional haze BART, Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment Best Available Retrofit Technology (RAVI BART),
NSR, and New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). The commenter asserted
that EPA's supplemental proposal addresses only half of APS'S
proposal--the half that achieves better than BART emission reductions,
plant-wide reductions of all other emissions, and greater visibility
improvement at nearby Class I areas--but ignores the other half of the
APS proposal--the half that provides APS and the FCPP co-owners with
needed regulatory certainty. Unless there is a contemporaneous
resolution of these key issues with EPA, the commenter cannot and does
not support EPA's supplemental proposal.
Response: EPA understands that the owners of FCPP were seeking to
resolve any potential regulatory noncompliance issues simultaneously.
However, EPA must use different mechanisms for promulgating rules and
resolving enforcement issues. The comment requests resolution of
potential past non-compliance with NSR and NSPS requirements. Potential
past non-compliance can be resolved through entering into a Consent
Decree containing a judicially approved release from liability. Such a
Consent Decree under the CAA must be approved by the United States
Department of Justice and must also be lodged in a United States
District Court where the public is allowed to comment on it. Consent
Decrees must be entered by the United States District Court for a
release of liability of potential past non-compliance to be effective.
Accordingly, this rulemaking action cannot effectuate any release of
liability for potential past non-compliance with NSR or NSPS.
EPA is aware that several environmental groups have petitioned the
Department of Interior to make a
[[Page 51640]]
finding that impairment at Class I areas is reasonably attributable to
FCPP.\35\ The NPS, on behalf of Department of Interior, has declined to
make such a finding based on EPA's work in this rulemaking.\36\ The
environmental groups also filed a Complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia \37\ contending that the
Department of Interior was unreasonably delaying making a finding of
reasonable attribution from FCPP. On June 30, 2011, the Court dismissed
the Complaint \38\ holding that the NPS's letters refusing to make the
finding of reasonable attribution constituted denying the Petitioners'
request for a RAVI finding. Therefore, there are no pending petitions
with the Department of Interior requesting a finding that visibility
impairment at any Class I areas is reasonably attributable to FCPP. In
any event, a BART determination under RAVI would likely be the same as
under this BART determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See National Parks Conservation Association, et al.,
Petition to United States Department of Interior, United States
Department of Agriculture, and United States Forest Service,
February 16, 2010, in the docket for this rulemaking.
\36\ See letter from Will Shafroth, Department of Interior to
Stephanie Kodish, NPCA, March 8, 2011 in the docket for this
proposed rulemaking.
\37\ See National Parks Conservation Association, et al.,
Petition to United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, January 20, 2011, in the docket for this final rulemaking.
\38\ See National Parks Conservation Association, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of Interior and United
States Department of Agriculture, Defendants. Civil Action No. 11-
130 (GK). United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
June 30, 2011, 794 F. Supp. 2d 39; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70170; 74
ERC (BNA) 1015. In the docket for this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One of the owners of FCPP stated that it is imperative to
note that its support of the supplemental proposal (if other potential
liabilities are resolved as discussed above) is based solely on the
rationale that this achieves a result better than the proposed BART
FIP, and that this ``better than BART'' outcome is a result of the
closure of Units 1, 2, and 3. The commenter stressed that in no case--
either in the original BART FIP proposal or in the supplemental
proposal--does the commenter support any determination that SCR
constitutes BART for FCPP. A second FCPP owner stated that its
acceptance of the supplemental proposal upon resolution of the other
potential issues would be a voluntary action based on its own business
interests; the commenter does not support any BART determination that
calls for installation of SCR at FCPP.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenters that SCR is not BART.
Based on our five-factor analysis, as described in the TSD for our
proposed BART determination, SCR is cost effective and results in the
greatest anticipated improvement in visibility. One of the owners of
FCPP notes that the ``better-than-BART'' outcome is a result of the
closure of Units 1, 2, and 3. However, the closure of Units 1-3 alone
does not result in greater emission reductions than EPA's proposed BART
determination, and represents only a roughly 30 percent reduction from
baseline emissions. The closure of Units 1-3, in combination with SCR
on Units 4 and 5, results in the ``better-than-BART'' outcome.
The voluntary nature of the alternative emission control strategy
does not negate EPA's BART determination because (1) EPA must first
determine what BART is in order to fulfill the requirements of the
alternative program to BART as prescribed in the Regional Haze Rule,
and (2) EPA cannot require the full or partial closure of a facility as
a BART alternative, therefore the alternative emission control strategy
remains an optional business choice of the owners of FCPP to implement
in lieu of BART, if they see fit.
Comment: One environmental advocacy group and one federal agency
asserted that the supplemental proposal is not better than BART for
NOX. Generally, commenters argue that based on the extended
compliance timeframe for the alternative emission control strategy, the
use of an artificially inflated baseline, the potential increase in
output from Units 4 and 5, and assuming that SCR can achieve 0.05 lb/
MMBtu of NOX on an annual basis, the BART alternative fails
to achieve greater cumulative NOX reductions than would
installation of BART (SCR) on all five units.
Response: EPA disagrees with the comment that the alternative
emission control strategy is not better than BART, but agrees that a
reexamination of baseline emissions and projected capacity factors in
the future is warranted. As reported in the TSD for our proposed BART
determination, facility-wide NOX emissions over 2001-2009
ranged from 40,331 to 47,300 tpy. While the baseline emissions provided
by APS and used by EPA in our Supplemental Proposal was within the
range of annual NOX emissions, in response to these
comments, we conducted an additional analysis to compare the
alternative emission control strategy against our final BART
determination for NOX using the 2001-2010 average as the
baseline emission rate and an assumed capacity factor of 81 percent
\39\ for Units 4 and 5 under the alternative emission control
strategy.\40\ This analysis shows that in 2014 and 2015, the
alternative emission control strategy results in lower NOX
emissions than BART due to the closure of Units 1-3 at the end of 2013.
In 2016, 2017, and 2018, BART results in lower emissions than the
alternative, and in 2019 and beyond, the alternative emission control
strategy (5,556 tpy), with phased-in controls on Units 4 and 5 by the
end of 2018, results in lower emissions than BART (8,479 tpy). In
total, the BART Alternative results lower emissions from FCPP over more
calendar years (2014-2015, and 2019 and beyond) than does BART (2016-
2018). Even if APS operated Units 4 and 5 at 100 percent capacity, EPA
calculates that emissions under the alternative emission control
scenario in 2019 and beyond to be 6,859 tpy, which is still lower than
under BART (8,479 tpy). On a cumulative basis, i.e., the sum total of
NOX emissions over 2011 to 2064, the BART Alternative also
results in lower emissions than BART, both at an 81 percent capacity
factor and at 100 percent capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ In testimony to the ACC, Mark Schiavoni of APS testified
that he anticipates capacity factors over 2015-2030 to range from
75-81 percent for Units 4 and 5. See document titled ``Schiavoni
Testimony--TRANSCRIPT.pdf'' in the docket for this final rulemaking.
\40\ See document titled ``BART vs Alternative.xlsx'' in the
docket for this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters argue that if the BART emission limit were lower, the
alternative would not be better than BART. For example, if EPA required
an emission limit representing a 90 percent reduction in NOX
emissions, annual NOX emissions would be lower than 5,000
tpy. However, as discussed in responses to similar comments, EPA has
determined that an 80 percent reduction in NOX emissions is
BART for FCPP. It is inappropriate to compare the alternative emission
control strategy against a target for BART that commenters would like
to see based on maximum emission reductions achieved without
consideration of site-specific characteristics of FCPP that EPA has
determined are not appropriate for FCPP.
Commenters further argue that by offering FCPP a BART compliance
deadline of July 2018, EPA is illegally extending a mandatory deadline
under the CAA, and that installation of SCR at Units 4 and 5 can easily
be accomplished within 2 years. EPA disagrees and notes that the
compliance timeframe for EPA's BART determination requiring SCR
[[Page 51641]]
installation on all 5 units is within 5 years of the effective date of
the final rule, consistent with the maximum time allowed under the CAA
Sec. 169A(g)(4) in the definition of ``as expeditiously as
practicable''. The commenter is confusing requirements under BART and
requirements under the alternative to BART. EPA is not extending the
BART compliance deadline beyond a 5-year period. Rather, EPA is
allowing additional time to implement the alternative emission control
strategy, as allowed under the provisions of the RHR for the
implementation of ``other alternative measure rather than to require
sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART'' (See
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)). In our Supplemental Proposal, EPA cited the
requirement (under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii)) that ``all necessary
emission reductions take place during the period of the first long-term
strategy for regional haze''.
EPA disagrees with commenters that reductions under the alternative
to BART violates 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). The requirement simply
states the reductions take place during the period of the first long
term strategy and does not specifically prescribe that those reductions
must take place at the beginning, middle, or end of the period of the
first long-term strategy.
H. Other Comments
Comment: Forty-five private citizens and several private citizens
who submitted written comments at a public hearing explicitly stated
that they support EPA's efforts to clean up FCPP. Many of these
commenters asked for the strictest regulations. Another private citizen
implied that EPA should act to clean up emissions from FCPP and noted
that cleaner air will result in a cleaner Colorado snow pack, which
will result in cleaner water in the Colorado River.
Twelve private citizens and a few private citizens who submitted
written comments at a public hearing stated that FCPP should be de-
commissioned. Several of these commenters asserted that the plant
should only be shut down if it cannot cease emitting pollutants, while
others stated the plant should be shut down immediately.
Nine private citizens and some of the private citizens who
submitted written comments at a public hearing stated that renewable
energy sources can be used in place of coal-fired power plants.
Response: EPA acknowledges the comments supportive of our proposals
but disagrees with commenters that suggest that FCPP should be de-
commissioned or shut down immediately.
In addition to other CAA programs, EPA assesses air quality with
respect to NAAQS. The Four Corners area is designated attainment for
each of the NAAQS.\41\ This means that the air quality in the Four
Corners area is meeting the national health-based standards set by EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Please see http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/maps/maps_top.html for EPA Region IX air quality designations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this action, EPA finds that under 40 CFR 49.11, it is necessary
or appropriate to achieve emissions reductions of NOX from
FCPP required by the CAA's Regional Haze program. NOX is a
significant contributor to visibility impairment in the numerous
mandatory Class I Federal areas surrounding FCPP. The emission
reductions finalized will help achieve the goals of the Regional Haze
Rule. The Regional Haze Rule however does not require nor does it
authorize EPA to de-commission or shut down facilities to achieve the
goals of the rule.
EPA agrees with commenters who stated that renewable energy sources
can be used in place of coal-fired power plants. However, the Regional
Haze Rule does not require that coal-fired facilities use or switch to
renewable energy sources to meet the goals of the rule.
Comment: The Navajo Nation pointed out that as a federal agency,
EPA has a trust responsibility to the Navajo Nation that requires it to
give special consideration to the Nation's best interests in any
action.\42\ Because of the significant economic interest of the Navajo
Nation in FCPP the commenter asserted that the BART proposal clearly
implicates the Nation's tribal trust interests. The commenter further
contended that since EPA is adopting a FIP for BART in lieu of a TIP by
the Navajo Nation, the EPA is essentially ``standing in the shoes'' of
the Nation for purposes of making the BART determination and should,
therefore, defer to tribal views when making environmental policy
decisions and give the same weight to the BART factors that the Navajo
Nation would in determining BART for FCPP; that is, to the extent that
the Nation recommends a particular control technology as BART for power
plants located on the Nation's lands, EPA should give substantial
weight to that recommendation as part of its decision-making process.
(The commenter asserted that advanced combustion controls, rather than
SCR, properly represent BART for FCPP.) Thus, the commenter stated that
as the Nation's trustee and ``stand-in'' for the BART determination for
FCPP, the EPA should not select a more stringent BART than the
commenter stated is required by the Regional Haze Rule to achieve
``reasonable progress'' where doing so would likely have substantial
adverse impacts on the Navajo Nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ To support this assertion, the commenter cited Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000; EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribes, section IV
``Guiding Principles,'' May 4, 2011 (EPA Tribal Policy); and the
1984 EPA Indian Policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The commenter also stated that EPA has a duty to undertake
government-to-government consultations with the Navajo Nation, and that
EPA must coordinate with the Navajo Nation in its relationship with,
and reliance on, other federal agencies. The commenter pointed out that
EPA relies on data provided by the NPS, another federal trustee of the
Nation, but has not coordinated consultation between NPS and the Navajo
Nation on this rulemaking. The commenter indicated that the May 2011
EPA Tribal Policy recognizes that such coordination is required under
Executive Order 13175 and asserted that EPA should coordinate
consultation with the U.S. Forest Service (who provided data used in
the proposed rulemaking) as well as various Department of the Interior
(DOI) agencies that have an interest in this rulemaking, including NPS,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and potentially
the Bureaus of Land Management and Reclamation. The commenter added
that consultation with Department of Energy (DOE) may be important in
regard to including FCPP in a study that DOE is proposing to carry out
for NGS, which also is located on the Navajo reservation and uses
Navajo coal.
Response: It is EPA's policy (EPA Policy on Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribes, May 4, 2011, (EPA Tribal Consultation
Policy)) \43\ to consult on a government-to-government basis with
federally recognized tribal governments when EPA actions and decisions
may affect tribal interests. Consultation is a process of meaningful
communication and coordination between EPA and tribal officials prior
to EPA taking actions or implementing decisions that may affect tribes.
One of the primary goals of the EPA Tribal Policy is to fully implement
both Executive Order 13175 and the 1984 Indian Policy, with the
ultimate
[[Page 51642]]
goal of assuring tribal concerns and interests are considered whenever
EPA's actions may affect tribes by strengthening the consultation,
coordination, and partnership between tribal governments and EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See ``EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes'', May 4, 2011, in the docket for this final
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this action, EPA consulted with Navajo Nation in accordance
with the Executive Order and EPA's Indian Policies on numerous
occasions. A record of all consultations with tribes is included in the
Docket for this final rulemaking.\44\ As stated in the 2011 EPA Tribal
Consultation Policy, as a process, consultation includes several
methods of interaction that may occur at different levels.\45\ EPA
consulted with the Navajo Nation at various times throughout the
process at various levels of government, including in-person meetings
with the President of the Navajo Nation on May 19, 2011, and June 13,
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See document ``Timeline of all Tribal Consultations on
BART.docx'' in the docket for this final rulemaking.
\45\ See ``EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes'', May 4, 2011, in the docket for this final
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA acknowledges the significant interest of the Navajo Nation in
FCPP. Based on the results from the original analysis for the proposed
BART determination, EPA concluded that the installation and operation
of SCR on all five units at FCPP would not adversely affect the
competitiveness of FCPP's cost to generate electricity compared to the
cost to purchase electricity on the open market. Thus, EPA infers that
a BART determination requiring SCR on all five units, in itself, should
not force the closure of FCPP. EPA notes that we do not expect adverse
impacts to the Navajo Nation if FCPP continues operating all units and
complies with BART. However, potential adverse impacts to the Navajo
Nation may result if the owners of FCPP choose to implement the
optional BART Alternative. At the request of the Navajo Nation during
consultation, EPA commissioned a study to examine potential adverse
impacts to Navajo Nation from the BART Alternative. The results of this
analysis were discussed with President Shelly during a consultation
meeting on July 13, 2012 and will be provided to President Shelly by
letter as a follow-up to our consultation.
EPA agrees that we are acting to implement the BART requirements
for a facility located on the Navajo Reservation in circumstances in
which the Tribe has not applied, or been approved, to administer the
applicable CAA program. EPA is mindful of the Navajo Nation's views and
recommendations, particularly where there is a potential substantial
adverse economic impact to the Navajo Nation. We disagree however that
the Agency must ``defer to tribal views when making environmental
policy decisions''. EPA is carrying out the requirements of the CAA and
the Regional Haze Rule pursuant to our authority to implement these
requirements in the absence of an EPA-approved program. EPA notes that
the CAA and the TAR provide mechanisms for eligible Indian tribes to
seek approval of tribal programs should they wish to administer CAA
requirements.
For this action EPA carefully considered the unique location of
FCPP with respect to proximate Class I areas as well as its economic
importance to Navajo Nation. We conducted a detailed analysis of
available emission control technologies against the five-factors
specified in the BART Guidelines. EPA also conducted extensive air
modeling (included in the Supplemental Proposal). Additionally, we have
considered the numerous comments we received on our proposals. In
making our final decision we have had to balance the findings of our
analysis along with the interests of various stakeholders, our unique
government-to-government relationship with tribes, and our
responsibility to carry out the requirements of the CAA and Regional
Haze Rule to achieve reasonable progress towards visibility
improvements.
This final FIP strikes a reasonable balance between reducing
emissions to improve visibility while allowing for the facility to
implement those reductions in a manner that is consistent with its
continued operation and economic viability.
EPA has received information and comments from numerous federal
agencies for this rulemaking and considered these in our final decision
(all information and comments are included in the docket). EPA plans to
coordinate with the Department of Interior or other federal agencies,
as appropriate, in any future tribal consultations related to BART for
FCPP or the Navajo Generating Station, the other coal-fired power plant
located in Navajo Nation.
EPA acknowledges that the Department of Interior has contracted
with the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) of the Department of
Energy to examine renewable energy options for the Navajo Generating
Station, which is also located on the Navajo Nation and uses coal from
the Kayenta Mine, located on Navajo and Hopi land. Information on the
NREL study is available from DOI \46\ and will be included in the
docket for EPA's upcoming proposed rulemaking for NGS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ http://www.doi.gov/navajo-gss/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: One public interest advocacy group, the Navajo Nation, and
one environmental advocacy group supported establishment of a 20
percent opacity limit for material handling. The public interest
advocacy group stated that the FCPP site is subject to numerous dust-
storm events originating in northwestern Arizona, and the additional
fugitive dust that could be picked up by these strong winds at the FCPP
property added to the incoming dust from the west makes breathing and
outdoor activity miserable on from 4 to 12 days per year for residents
of Montezuma County, CO and San Juan County, NM.
One of the owners of FCPP noted that in addition to the proposed
BART requirements, EPA proposed separate fugitive dust control
requirements and a 20 percent opacity limitation for certain material
handling operations, which are unrelated to the CAA visibility program.
The commenter laid out the history of EPA's past attempt to apply
fugitive dust controls to FCPP. The commenter argued that the proposed
requirements are arbitrary and should not be finalized because the
facts upon which EPA relies are inadequate to support the conclusion
that fugitive dust control requirements are ``necessary or
appropriate'' to protect air quality at FCPP.
Response: EPA acknowledges support for establishing a 20 percent
opacity limit for material handling and a Dust Control Plan at FCPP.
EPA has finalized both these requirements. EPA notes that the Dust
Control Plan shall include a description of the dust suppression
methods for controlling dust from site activities including coal
handling and storage facilities, ash handling, storage, and landfills,
and road sweeping activities. The 20 percent opacity standard will
apply to any crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, belt
conveyor, or truck loading or unloading operation.
EPA agrees with the commenter that the fugitive dust and 20 percent
opacity limit are unrelated to the CAA visibility program. EPA also
agrees with the history laid out by the commenter on fugitive dust
controls at FCPP. EPA included these dust control requirements in the
previous FIP finalized in 2007 because EPA considered them necessary or
appropriate under the TAR to assure that dust from this facility does
not
[[Page 51643]]
contribute to possible violations of the NAAQS for PM10. The
commenter is correct that EPA withdrew the 2007 FIP requirements on
dust when APS appealed the rule. EPA had not adequately documented in
the record for the 2007 FIP our basis for establishing the 20 percent
opacity regulation. For the 2007 FIP, EPA chose not to defend our
position based on the record for that rulemaking and instead chose to
address the issue in a subsequent FIP action, such as this one.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the fugitive dust and opacity
requirements are arbitrary or that our argument is inadequate to
support our conclusion that fugitive dust control requirements are
necessary or appropriate to protect air quality at FCPP.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ For example, see document titled ``Four Corners Power Plant
Complaint to MSHA'' in the docket for this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's basis for finding that it is necessary or appropriate for
FCPP to comply with a requirement to limit its material handling
emissions to 20 percent or less is being set forth in this rulemaking.
FCPP receives approximately 10 million tons of coal per year for
combusting in Units 1-5. This massive quantity of coal moves by
conveyor belt across FCPP's property line through numerous transfer
points before the coal is loaded into the storage silos that feed the
individual combustion units. Each of these transfer points along with
the conveyor belts has the potential for PM emissions. The PM can be
minimized through the use of collection devices or dust suppression
techniques such as covered conveyors or spraying devices at the
transfer points. EPA first promulgated dust control requirements for
new coal handling equipment on January 15, 1976 (41 FR 2232). This rule
affected equipment constructed or modified after the 1970s that
affected facilities built or modified after October 24, 1974. The
purpose of these New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) was:
NSPS implement CAA section 111(b) and are issued for categories
of sources which have been identified as causing, or contributing
significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated
to endanger public health or welfare. The primary purpose of the
NSPS are to help States attain and maintain ambient air quality by
ensuring that the best demonstrated emission control technologies
are installed as the industrial infrastructure is modernized.
See 74 FR 51951 (October 8, 2009).
EPA's basis for finding that it is necessary or appropriate for
FCPP to comply with a requirement to limit its material handling
emissions to 20 percent or less is being set forth in this rulemaking.
EPA has promulgated a 20 percent opacity limit for all new coal
handling operations built after the mid 1970s in the New Source
Performance Standards. This NSPS standard applied to any coal handling
equipment processing more than 200 tons per day of coal. Because FCPP
receives approximately 10 million tons of coal per year for combusting
in Units 1-5, it may be processing more than 27,000 tons per day. This
is more than 100 times the smallest size coal handling operation
subject to the NSPS, and which EPA considered necessary for protecting
public health and welfare. As mentioned before, FCPP's massive quantity
of coal moves by conveyor belt across FCPP's property line, passing
through numerous transfer points before the coal is loaded into the
storage silos that feed the individual pulverizers and combustion
units. Each of these transfer points along with the conveyor belts has
the potential for PM emissions. The PM can be minimized by collection
devices or dust suppression techniques such as covered conveyors or
spraying devices at the transfer points.
FCPP and the BHP Navajo Mine that provides FCPP's coal are within
close proximity to Morgan Lake which is a recreational lake with public
access just beyond the FCPP's property line. Excess dust can blow over
the FCPP property line to Morgan Lake and adjacent properties. EPA and
Navajo Nation EPA receive numerous complaints from Navajo Tribal
members concerning excess dust emissions generated from the ash
landfill FCPP maintains, as well as from the other material handling
and storage operations.
EPA concludes that it is necessary or appropriate to set
enforceable fugitive dust/PM suppression measures to protect ambient
air quality because (1) there is a large potential for dust emissions
from the facility coal and ash operations to be emitted and blow across
the property line, (2) EPA and Navajo Nation EPA have received numerous
complaints concerning excess dust from the ash landfill and other
operations, and (3) these activities are occurring in close proximity
to a public access area.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that the 20 percent opacity limit
is arbitrary and capricious. While EPA acknowledges that New Mexico
does not have a general opacity limit that applies to dust, the other
three Four Corners States do. In Arizona and Colorado a general 20
percent opacity limit applies at all facilities including
``grandfathered'' coal-fired EGUs. In Utah the general opacity limit
for facilities built before the CAA in 1971 is a 40 percent opacity
limit. However, all of Utah's large coal-fired EGUs were constructed
after 1971 and are subject to a 20 percent general opacity limit, i.e.,
the NSPS. Therefore, if FCPP had been built a few years later or a few
miles in a different direction, it would be subject to the NSPS or a
SIP provision limiting its coal material handling and storage
operations to 20 percent opacity.
Because FCPP is located on the Navajo Nation where generally
applicable limits that often are included in SIPs do not exist and
because it was constructed nearly 40 years ago, and because dust
control measures at coal-fired power plants are important for
maintaining the PM10 NAAQS in the areas adjacent to the
power plant properties, EPA finds that it is necessary or appropriate
to impose measures to limit the amount of PM emissions from these
material handling and storage emission sources. EPA recently imposed
similar dust control requirements at the Navajo Generating Station,
which is also on the Navajo Nation. 75 FR 10174.
Comment: One environmental advocacy group stated that the EPA must
consult in accordance with sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) with regards to the proposed FIP because
of the impacts of FCPP on threatened and endangered fish, wildlife, and
plants and their designated critical habitats, which the commenter
discussed at some length. The commenter added that EPA has discretion
under the TAR to limit emissions of mercury, selenium, and other
pollutants that may adversely affect the razorback sucker and Colorado
pikeminnow, and these species' critical habitats. According to the
commenter, this discretion is part of what triggers the Agency's
obligation to consult pursuant to sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
ESA.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter that determining BART
and promulgating this FIP for FCPP necessitates ESA Section 7
consultation. EPA understands that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) is primarily concerned about the effects of mercury and selenium
on endangered fish species in the San Juan River. EPA notes that under
the BART Alternative, mercury and selenium emissions will be reduced
from FCPP due to the closure of Units 1-3. Additionally, EPA's national
MATS rule set new emission limits for mercury that would apply to Units
1-3 at FCPP if those units continue operation. EPA further notes that
the goal of the Regional Haze Rule is to reduce emissions of
visibility-
[[Page 51644]]
impairing pollutants in order to restore visibility to natural
conditions at the mandatory Federal Class I areas, and mercury and
selenium do not affect visibility. Therefore, EPA does not have
authority to regulate emissions of mercury or selenium under BART.
Comment: The coal supplier for FCCP questioned the legality of
EPA's approach to the Regional Haze program at FCPP. According to the
commenter, EPA's BART and better-than-BART proposals are not authorized
because BART is not ``reasonably separable'' from the remainder of a
regional haze implementation plan for the Navajo Nation under the TAR.
The commenter concluded that the minimum amount of reasonable progress
that BART needs to achieve in a given Class I area cannot be determined
until the amount of reasonable progress achieved by other CAA and state
programs is subtracted from that area's reasonable progress goal. The
commenter asserted that the NOX emission reductions that
would be achieved under the supplemental proposal are in excess of the
amount required to achieve the reasonable progress goals in the area.
The commenter added that EPA must consider the reasonable progress
already achieved by past FCPP emission reductions. The commenter
concluded that any necessary reasonable progress remaining to be
achieved by NOX BART at FCPP cannot be determined until the
reasonable progress achieved by prior emissions reductions at FCPP is
considered.
The commenter stated that EPA's BART determination did not properly
weigh the statutory factors. Specifically, the commenter indicated that
individual Class I area visibility improvements from SCR have not been
compared with respect to the statutory factors to visibility
improvements from LNB, and the actual amounts of those improvements
have not been measured against the amounts of improvements needed to
meet reasonable progress goals.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter who questioned the
legality of our approach and that stated that EPA's BART and ``better-
than-BART'' proposals are not authorized because BART is not
``reasonably separable'' from the remainder of a regional haze
implementation plan for the Navajo Nation under the TAR. We also
disagree that our approach to the Regional Haze program impermissibly
isolates BART from the context of the overall reasonable progress goal
in violation of the CAA, and that our proposed BART for FCPP should be
withdrawn.
EPA's authority to promulgate a source-specific FIP in Indian
County is based on CAA sections 301(a) and (d)(4) and section 49.11 of
the TAR provides EPA with broad discretion to promulgate regulations
directly for sources located in Indian country, including on Indian
reservations if we determine such Federal regulations are ``necessary
or appropriate'' and the Tribe has not promulgated a TIP. Specifically,
in 40 CFR 49.11, EPA interpreted CAA section 301(d)(4) to authorize EPA
to promulgate ``such Federal implementation plan provisions as are
necessary or appropriate to protect air quality''. As such, because the
Navajo Nation has not adopted a TIP for Regional Haze, the TAR provides
discretion to EPA to determine which requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule are necessary or appropriate to protect air quality, and to
promulgate just those implementation plan provisions accordingly.
Because two stationary sources on the Navajo Nation meet the BART
eligibility criteria, EPA has determined that it is necessary or
appropriate at this time to evaluate source-specific FIPs to implement
the BART requirement of the RHR for each BART-eligible facility located
on the Navajo Nation. The basis for our determination is discussed in
several prior responses (See, e.g., Sections 2.1, 4.1.2, and 8.1). The
Courts have agreed with EPA that it may implement requirements that are
necessary or appropriate without providing for all aspects of the CAA
programs at a single time. See Arizona Public Service v. EPA, 562 F.3d
1116 (10th Cir. 2009).
EPA disagrees with the comment that BART must be established in
relation to reasonable progress goals. State or Tribal Implementation
Plans for Regional Haze must establish goals that provide for
reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions for
each mandatory Class I Federal area located within its borders (40 CFR
51.308(d)(1). FCPP and NGS are both located within the Navajo Nation
Indian Reservation, and for the reasons outlined above, EPA is
conducting BART determinations for each facility. There are no
mandatory Class I Federal areas as designated by Congress located
within the Navajo Nation.\48\ EPA further notes that the five-factor
analysis outlined in the BART Guidelines, which were promulgated as a
notice and comment rulemaking, does not require consideration of
reasonable progress goals in determining BART for a given facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ EPA notes that Navajo Nation has established its own parks
and monuments, including Monument Valley, Canyon de Chelly, and the
Four Corners Monument, however, these parks are not mandatory Class
I Federal Areas as set by Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also disagrees that the minimum amount of reasonable progress
that BART needs to achieve in a given Class I area cannot be determined
until the amount of reasonable progress achieved by other CAA and state
programs is subtracted from that area's reasonable progress goal.
Neither the CAA nor Regional Haze regulations set any quantitative
presumptive targets for the amount of reasonable progress that must be
achieved. Rather, the regulations allow for flexibility in determining
the amount of reasonable progress towards the ultimate goal of
returning to natural background conditions.
EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must consider the
reasonable progress already achieved by past FCPP emission reductions
and that previously uncontrolled SO2, NOX, and PM
emission rates prior to previous FIPs for FCPP should serve as the
baseline for measuring visibility improvements. In its own five-factor
BART analysis, APS used actual NOX emissions from 2001-2003
as baseline emissions for determining visibility improvement from
NOX controls. NOX emissions from 2001-2003 were
generally consistent with and representative of NOX
emissions over the past ten years. EPA agrees with APS in its use of
actual emissions over a recent time frame, rather than attempting to
rely on previously uncontrolled emissions emission rates from FCPP as a
baseline.
Additionally, nothing in the BART regulations or guidance requires
that EPA consider past emission reductions in determining BART under
the RHR. However, as part of the required five-factor analysis for BART
EPA did evaluate and consider the current pollution control equipment
in use at FCPP.
EPA disagrees with the comment that EPA's BART determination did
not properly weigh the statutory factors. As discussed elsewhere in
this document, the BART Guidelines allow the reviewing authority
(State, Tribe, or EPA) the discretion to determine how to weigh and in
what order to evaluate the statutory factors (cost of compliance, the
energy and non air quality environmental impacts of compliance, any
existing pollution control technology in use at the source, the
remaining useful life of the source, and the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use
of such technology), as long as the reviewing authority justifies its
selection of the ``best'' level of control and explains the CAA factors
[[Page 51645]]
that led the reviewing authority to choose that option over other
control levels (see 70 FR 39170, July 6, 2005). EPA provided a detailed
justification for our BART evaluation process and five-factor analysis
in the TSD for our proposed BART determination.
EPA also disagrees with the comment that individual Class I area
visibility improvements from SCR have not been compared with respect to
the statutory factors to visibility improvements from LNB. In the
preamble to our October 19, 2010, proposed BART determination and in
the accompanying TSD, EPA compared the anticipated visibility
improvement from SCR with the anticipated improvement from combustion
controls (LNB or LNB+OFA) (See 75 FR 64230, Table 3, and TSD Tables 36-
39), and noted that EPA modeled the visibility improvement from SCR to
far exceed the modeled improvement from combustion controls.
IV: Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action will finalize a source-specific FIP for a single
generating source. This type of action is exempt from review under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR
3821, January 21, 2011).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of information'' is
defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * * identical reporting or
recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *'' 44
U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the final FIP applies to a single facility,
Four Corners Power Plant, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this final action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Four
Corners Power Plant is not a small entity and the FIP for Four Corners
Power Plant being finalized today does not impose any compliance
requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc.
v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This rule will impose an enforceable duty on the private sector
owners of FCPP. However, this rule does not contain a Federal mandate
that may result in expenditures of $100 million (in 1996 dollars) or
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year. EPA's estimate for the total annual
cost to install and operate SCR on all five units at FCPP does not
exceed $100 million (in 1996 dollars) in any one year. Thus, this rule
is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This
action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA
because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly
or uniquely affect small governments. This rule will not impose direct
compliance costs on the Navajo Nation, and will not preempt Navajo law.
This final action will reduce the emissions of two pollutants from a
single source, the Four Corners Power Plant.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between
the national government and the States, or in the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This final action requires emission
reductions of NOX at a specific stationary source located in
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has tribal implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by tribal governments, or
EPA consults with tribal officials early in the process of developing
the proposed regulation and develops a tribal summary impact statement.
EPA has concluded that this action will have tribal implications.
However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on
tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal law. This final rule requires
FCPP, a major stationary source located on the Navajo Nation, to reduce
emissions of NOX under the BART requirement of the Regional
Haze Rule. The owners of FCPP submitted a BART Alternative to EPA for
consideration that would provide compliance flexibility to the owners
and result in greater reasonable progress than BART toward the national
visibility goal. This BART Alternative involves closure of Units 1-3 at
FCPP and installation of add-on pollution controls to Units 4 and 5.
EPA issued a Supplemental Proposal to allow the owners of FCPP the
option to implement BART or the BART Alternative. Because the BART
Alternative involves the optional closure of Units 1-3 and an
associated
[[Page 51646]]
decline in the amount of coal mined and combusted, taxes and royalties
paid to the Navajo Nation by the owners of FCPP and BHP Billiton,
operator of the coal mine that supplies FCPP, are expected to decline.
The closure of Units 1-3 is not expected to result in layoffs, but is
expected to result in a reduction in workforce at the mine and power
plant over time through attrition.
EPA consulted with tribal officials early in the process of
developing this regulation to permit them to have meaningful and timely
input into its development. EPA proposed to determine that it was
necessary or appropriate to implement the BART requirement of the
Regional Haze Rule for the Navajo Nation to protect air quality and
improve visibility at the sixteen mandatory Class I Federal areas
surrounding FCPP and the eleven Class I areas surrounding NGS. EPA
first put forth an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on
August 28, 2009 to accept comment on preliminary information provided
by FCPP and NGS and to begin the consultation process with affected
tribes and the Federal Land Managers. EPA has consulted on numerous
occasions with officials of the Navajo Nation in the process of
developing this FIP, including meetings with the President Ben Shelly
of the Navajo Nation and his staff on May 19, 2011, after the close of
the public comment period for our proposed BART determination and
Supplemental Proposal, and on June 13, 2012, prior to our final action.
The agendas for these two consultation meetings are provided in the
docket for this final rulemaking.\49\ A timeline of correspondence and
consultation with tribes on both power plants is included in the docket
for this final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See document number 0222 in docket EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0683
titled ``Agenda May 19, 2011 Meeting; Gov to Gov Consultation with
Navajo Nation'', and document titled: ``2012--0613 Consultation with
Navajo Nation agenda and attendees.pdf'' in the docket for this
final rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several tribes, including the Navajo Nation, submitted comments on
the ANPR, which we considered in developing our proposal and the
accompanying Technical Support Document. The main concern expressed by
the Navajo Nation was that requiring the top NOX control
option, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) as BART would cause FCPP to
close. In developing our proposed BART determination, EPA conducted an
analysis to examine whether requiring SCR on Units 1-5 at FCPP would
cause electricity generation costs to exceed the cost to purchase power
on the wholesale market. Based on our analysis, we determined that
electricity generation costs resulting from installation of SCR would
not make FCPP uneconomical compared to the wholesale power market;
therefore, we concluded that our proposed BART determination was
unlikely to cause FCPP to close.
The Navajo Nation provided comments on our proposed rule and
Supplemental Proposal, in consultation and by letter, which EPA
considered in developing this final rule. The Navajo Nation also
expressed concern about the potential adverse impacts of the BART
Alternative to the Navajo Nation and requested that EPA conduct an
analysis to estimate potential adverse impacts to the Navajo Nation.
Pursuant to EPA's customary practice of engaging in extensive and
meaningful consultation with tribes and tribal authorities with regard
to relevant Agency actions, EPA commissioned an analysis of the
optional BART Alternative to estimate potential adverse impacts to the
Navajo Nation if the owners of FCPP chose to retire Units 1-3. EPA
communicated these potential impacts to the Navajo Nation in our
consultation meeting with President Shelly on June 13, 2012. The report
will be provided to President Shelly by letter as a follow-up to our
consultation with the Navajo Nation.
The Navajo Nation also expressed support for phased-implementation
of controls to provide compliance flexibility to FCPP. The final rule
allows the owners of FCPP to choose between BART or the BART
Alternative and provides timeframes for phased-implementation of
control options.
EPA summarized and responded to comments from the Navajo Nation and
the Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community received on the ANPR in
the Technical Support Document for our proposed rulemaking. Following
our meeting with President Shelly on May 19, 2011, EPA sent a follow up
letter summarizing and responding to the concerns expressed by the
Navajo Nation.\50\ In coordination with this final rulemaking, EPA will
also be sending a letter to President Shelly that summarizes and
responds to the comments raised in his letter to EPA dated June 2,
2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See document 0231 in docket EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0683 titled
``EPA response to Navajo Nation dated 09/06/2011''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it
requires emissions reductions of NOX from a single
stationary source. Because this action only applies to a single source
and is not a rule of general applicability, it is not economically
significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and does not have a
disproportionate effect on children. However, to the extent that the
rule will reduce emissions of NOX, which contributes to
ozone formation, the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's
health by reducing air pollution that causes or exacerbates childhood
asthma and other respiratory issues.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards
(e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures and
business practices) that are developed or adopted by the VCS bodies.
The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to
OMB, with explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the Agency conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable VCS. For the measurements listed below,
there are a number of VCS that appear to have possible use in lieu of
the EPA test
[[Page 51647]]
methods and performance specifications (40 CFR part 60, Appendices A
and B) noted next to the measurement requirements. It would not be
practical to specify these standards in the current rulemaking due to a
lack of sufficient data on equivalency and validation and because some
are still under development. However, EPA's Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards is in the process of reviewing all available VCS
for incorporation by reference into the test methods and performance
specifications of 40 CFR part 60, Appendices A and B. Any VCS so
incorporated in a specified test method or performance specification
would then be available for use in determining the emissions from this
facility. This will be an ongoing process designed to incorporate
suitable VCS as they become available.
Particulate Matter Emissions--EPA Methods 1 though 5;
Opacity--EPA Method 9 and Performance Specification Test 1 for
Opacity Monitoring;
NOX Emissions--Continuous Emissions Monitors.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This rule requires emissions reductions of two
pollutants from a single stationary source, Four Corners Power Plant.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules (1) rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S.C 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding today's action under section 801
because this action is a rule of particular applicability. This rule
finalizes a source-specific FIP for a single generating source.
L. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 23, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: August 6, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 49--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
0
2. Section 49.5512 is amended by adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read
as follows:
Sec. 49.5512 Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Four Corners
Power Plant, Navajo Nation.
* * * * *
(i) Regional Haze Best Available Retrofit Technology limits for
this plant are in addition to the requirements of paragraphs (a)
through (h) of this section. All definitions and testing and monitoring
methods of this section apply to the limits in this paragraph (i)
except as indicated in paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this section.
The interim NOX emission limit in paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of
this section shall be effective 180 days after re-start of the unit
after installation of add-on post-combustion NOX controls
for that unit and until the plant-wide limit goes into effect. The
plant-wide NOX limit shall be effective no later than 5
years after October 23, 2012. The owner or operator may elect to meet
the plant-wide limit early to remove the individual unit limits.
Particulate limits for Units 4 and 5 shall be effective 60 days after
restart following the scheduled major outage for Units 4 and 5 in 2013
and 2014.
(1) Particulate Matter from Units 4 and 5 shall be limited to 0.015
lb/MMBtu for each unit as measured by the average of three test runs
with each run collecting a minimum of 60 dscf of sample gas and with a
duration of at least 120 minutes. Sampling shall be performed according
to 40 CFR Part 60 Appendices A-1 through A-3, Methods 1 through 4 and
Method 5 or Method 5e. The averaging time for any other demonstration
of the particulate matter compliance or exceedance shall be based on a
6-hour average. Particulate testing shall be performed annually as
required by paragraph (e)(3) of this section. This test with 120 minute
test runs may be substituted and used to demonstrate compliance with
the particulate limits in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(2) Plant-wide nitrogen oxide emission limits.
(i) The plant-wide nitrogen oxide limit, expressed as nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), shall be 0.11 lb/MMBtu as averaged over a
rolling 30-calendar day period. NOX emissions for each
calendar day shall be determined by summing the hourly emissions
measured as pounds of NO2 for all operating units. Heat
input for each calendar day shall be determined by adding together all
hourly heat inputs, in millions of Btu, for all operating units. Each
day the rolling 30-calendar day average shall be determined by adding
together that day's and the preceding 29 days' pounds of NO2
and dividing that total pounds of NO2 by the sum of the heat
input during the same 30-day period. The results shall be the rolling
30-calendar day-average pound per million Btu emissions of
NOX.
(ii) The interim NOX limit for the first 750 MW boiler
retrofitted with add-on post-combustion NOX control shall be
0.11 lb/MMBtu, based on a rolling
[[Page 51648]]
average of 30 successive boiler operating days.
(iii) Schedule for add-on post-combustion NOX controls
installation
(A) Within 4 years of the effective date of this rule, FCPP shall
have installed add-on post-combustion NOX controls on at
least 750 MW (net) of generation to meet the interim emission limit in
paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(A) of this section.
(B) Within 5 years of the effective date of this rule, FCPP shall
have installed add-on post-combustion NOX controls on all
2060 MW (net) of generation to meet the plant-wide emission limit for
NOX in paragraph (i)(2)(i) of this section.
(iv) Testing and monitoring shall use the 40 CFR part 75 monitors
and meet the 40 CFR part 75 quality assurance requirements. In addition
to these 40 CFR part 75 requirements, relative accuracy test audits
shall be performed for both the NOX pounds per hour
measurement and the heat input measurement. These shall have relative
accuracies of less than 20 percent. This testing shall be evaluated
each time the 40 CFR part 75 monitors undergo relative accuracy
testing.
(v) If a valid NOX pounds per hour or heat input is not
available for any hour for a unit, that heat input and NOX
pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of the 30 day
plant-wide rolling average.
(vi) Upon the effective date of the plant-wide NOX
average, the owner or operator shall have installed CEMS and COMS
software that complies with the requirements of this section.
(3) In lieu of meeting the NOX requirements of paragraph
(i)(2) of this section, FCPP may choose to permanently shut down Units
1, 2, and 3 by January 1, 2014 and meet the requirements of this
paragraph to control NOX emissions from Units 4 and 5. By
July 31, 2018, Units 4 and 5 shall be retrofitted with add-on post-
combustion NOX controls to reduce NOX emissions.
Units 4 and 5 shall each meet a 0.098 lb/MMBtu emission limit for
NOX expressed as NO2 based on a rolling average
of 30 successive boiler operating days. A ``boiler operating day'' is
defined as any 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following
midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time at the steam
generating unit. Emissions from each unit shall be measured with the 40
CFR part 75 continuous NOX monitor system and expressed in
the units of lb/MMBtu and recorded each hour. A valid hour of
NOX data shall be determined per 40 CFR part 75. For each
boiler operating day, every valid hour of NOX lb/MMBtu
measurement shall be averaged to determine a daily average. Each daily
average shall be averaged with the preceding 29 valid daily averages to
determine the 30 boiler operating day rolling average. The
NOX monitoring system shall meet the data requirements of 40
CFR 60.49Da(e)(2) (at least 90 percent valid hours for all operating
hours over any 30 successive boiler operating days). Emission testing
using 40 CFR part 60 Appendix A Method 7E may be used to supplement any
missing data due to continuous monitor problems. The 40 CFR part 75
requirements for bias adjusting and data substitution do not apply for
adjusting the data for this emission limit.
(4) By January 1, 2013, the owner or operator shall submit a letter
to the Regional Administrator updating EPA of the status of lease
negotiations and regulatory approvals required to comply with paragraph
(i)(3) of this section. By July 1, 2013, the owner or operator shall
notify the Regional Administrator by letter whether it will comply with
paragraph (i)(2) of this section or whether it will comply with
paragraph (i)(3) of this section and shall submit a plan and time table
for compliance with either paragraph (i)(2) or (3) of this section. The
owner or operator shall amend and submit this amended plan to the
Regional Administrator as changes occur.
(5) The owner or operator shall follow the requirements of 40 CFR
part 71 for submitting an application for permit revision to update its
Part 71 operating permit after it achieves compliance with paragraph
(i)(2) or (3) of this section.
(j) Dust. Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain the
existing dust suppression methods for controlling dust from the coal
handling and ash handling and storage facilities. Within ninety (90)
days after promulgation of this paragraph, the owner or operator shall
develop a dust control plan and submit the plan to the Regional
Administrator. The owner or operator shall comply with the plan once
the plan is submitted to the Regional Administrator. The owner or
operator shall amend the plan as requested or needed. The plan shall
include a description of the dust suppression methods for controlling
dust from the coal handling and storage facilities, ash handling,
storage, and landfills, and road sweeping activities. Within 18 months
of promulgation of this paragraph each owner or operator shall not emit
dust with opacity greater than 20 percent from any crusher, grinding
mill, screening operation, belt conveyor, or truck loading or unloading
operation.
[FR Doc. 2012-19793 Filed 8-23-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P