[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34738-34794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13611]
[[Page 34737]]
Vol. 78
Monday,
No. 111
June 10, 2013
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State
of Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34738]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0026, FRL-9820-4]
Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Wyoming on
January 12, 2011, that addresses regional haze. This SIP revision was
submitted to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``the Act'') and our rules that require states to prevent any future
and remedy any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in
mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is taking this action
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
EPA is also proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
address the deficiencies identified in our proposed partial disapproval
of Wyoming's regional haze SIP. In lieu of our proposed FIP, or a
portion thereof, we will propose approval of a SIP revision as
expeditiously as practicable if the State submits such a revision and
the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP. We will also review
and take action on any regional haze SIP submitted by the state to
determine whether such SIP is approvable, regardless of whether or not
its terms match those of the FIP. We encourage the State to submit a
SIP revision to replace the FIP, either before or after our final
action.
DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received at the address below
on or before August 9, 2013. Public Hearing: A public hearing for this
proposal is scheduled to be held on Monday, June 24, 2013, at the
Hershchler Building, Room 1699, 122 W. 25th St., Cheyenne, Wyoming
82002. The public hearing will be held from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., and
again from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2012-0026, by one of the following methods:
http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0026. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA, without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I. General Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly-available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m.
to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6144,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
ii. The initials AFRC mean or refer to air-fuel ratio controls.
iii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
iv. The initials CAMx mean or refer to Comprehensive Air Quality
Model.
v. The initials CMAQ mean or refer to Community Multi-Scale Air
Quality modeling system.
vi. The initials CEMS mean or refer to continuous emission
monitoring systems.
vii. The initials EC mean or refer to elemental carbon.
viii. The initials EGUs mean or refer to Electric Generating
Units.
ix. The initials EGR mean or refer to exhaust gas recirculation.
x. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
xi. The initials ESP mean or refer to electrostatic
precipitator.
xii. The initials FGC mean or refer to flue gas conditioning.
xiii. The initials FGD mean or refer to flue gas
desulfurization.
xiv. The initials FGR mean or refer to external flue gas
recirculation.
[[Page 34739]]
xv. The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
xvi. The initials FLMs mean or refer to Federal Land Managers.
xvii. The initials FS mean or refer to the U.S. Forest Service.
xviii. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.
xix. The initials IWAQM mean or refer to Interagency Workgroup
on Air Quality Modeling.
xx. The initials LEC mean or refer to low-emission combustion.
xxi. The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX
burner.
xxii. The initials LTS mean or refer to the long-term strategy.
xxiii. The initials MW mean or refer to megawatts.
xxiv. The initials NH3 mean or refer to ammonia.
xxv. The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
xxvi. The initials NPS mean or refer to National Park Service.
xxvii. The initials OC mean or refer to organic carbon.
xxviii. The initials OFA mean or refer to overfire air.
xxix. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.
xxx. The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.
xxxi. The initials PSAT mean or refer to Particle Source
Apportionment Technology.
xxxii. The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of
Signification Deterioration.
xxxiii. The initials RAVI mean or refer to Reasonably
Attributable Visibility Impairment.
xxxiv. The initials RHR mean or refer to the Regional Haze Rule.
xxxv. The initials RMC mean or refer to the Regional Modeling
Center at the University of California Riverside.
xxxvi. The initials RPGs mean or refer to Reasonable Progress
Goals.
xxxvii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to regional planning
organizations.
xxxviii. The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic
reduction.
xxxix. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
xl. The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction.
xli. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
xlii. The initials SOFA mean or refer to separated overfire air.
xliii. The initials TSD mean or refer to Technical Support
Document.
xliv. The initials ULNB mean or refer to ultra-low
NOX burners.
xlv. The initials URP mean or refer to Uniform Rate of Progress.
xlvi. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic
compounds.
xlvii. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations.
xlviii. The initials WEP mean or refer to Weighted Emissions
Potential.
xlix. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional
Air Partnership.
l. The words Wyoming and State mean the State of Wyoming.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. EPA's Prior Action
III. Overview of Proposed Actions
IV. SIP and FIP Background
V. Background
A. Regional Haze
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
VI. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
E. Long-Term Strategy
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, and Uniform Rate of
Progress
C. BART Determinations
1. BART-Eligible Sources
2. Sources Subject-to-BART
a. Modeling Methodology
b. Contribution Threshold
c. Sources Identified by Wyoming as Subject-to-BART
3. BART Determinations and Federally Enforceable Limits
a. Costs of Compliance
b. Visibility Improvement Modeling
c. Summary of BART Determinations and Federally Enforceable
Limits
i. FMC Westvaco--Units NS-1A and NS-1B
ii. General Chemical Green River--Boilers C and D
iii. Basin Electric Laramie River Station--Units 1-3
iv. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston--Units 3 and 4
v. PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1-4
vi. PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1-3
vii. PacifiCorp Wyodak--Unit 1
D. Reasonable Progress Requirements
1. Visibility Impairing Pollutants and Sources
2. Four-Factor Analyses
a. Stationary Sources
b. Summary of Reasonable Progress Determinations and Limits
i. Oil and Gas Area Sources
ii. Mountain Cement Company Laramie Plant--Kiln
3. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Long Term Strategy
1. Emission Inventories
2. Consultation and Emissions Reductions for Other States' Class
I Areas
3. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy Requirements
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
c. Smoke Management
d. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance
e. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
f. Enforceability of Wyoming's Measures
g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
4. Our Conclusions on Wyoming's Long-Term Strategy
F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Rule Requirements
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan
Requirements
H. Consultation With FLMs
I. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports
VIII. Federal Implementation Plan
A. Disapproval of the State's NOX BART Determinations
and Federal Implementation Plan for NOX BART
Determinations and Limits
1. Disapproval of the State's Basin Electric Laramie River Units
1-3 NOX BART Determination and FIP To Address
NOX BART
2. Disapproval of the State's PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3
and Unit 4 NOX BART Determination and FIP To Address
NOX BART
3. Proposals in the Alternative for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units
1 and 2 NOX BART
4. Disapproval of the State's PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1and 2
NOX BART Determination and FIP to Address NOX
BART
5. Disapproval of the State's PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1
NOX BART Determination and FIP to Address NOX
BART
B. Disapproval of the State's NOX Reasonable Progress
Determinations and Federal Implementation Plan for NOX
Reasonable Progress Determinations and Limits
1. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston--Units 1 and 2
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Federal Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
E. Federal Implementation Plan for the Long-Term Strategy
F. Federal Implementation Plan for Coordination of RAVI and
Regional Haze Long-Term Strategy
IX. EPA's Proposed Action
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then
[[Page 34740]]
identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific
information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version
of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the
comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.
II. EPA's Prior Action
We signed a notice of proposed rulemaking on May 15, 2012, and it
was published in the Federal Register on June 4, 2012 (77 FR 33022).
In our proposal, we proposed to disapprove the following:
The State's nitrogen oxides (NOX) best
available retrofit technology (BART) determinations for PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp
Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and
3.
The State's NOX reasonable progress
determination for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
The State's Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs).
The State's monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
Portions of the State's long-term strategy (LTS) that rely
on or reflect aspects of the regional haze SIP that we are
disapproving.
The State's SIP because it does not contain the necessary
provisions to meet the requirements for the coordination of the review
of the reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) and the
regional haze LTS.
We proposed to approve the remaining aspects of the State's January
12, 2011 SIP submittal. We also sought comment on two alternative
proposals related to the State's NOX BART determination for
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.
We proposed the promulgation of a FIP to address the deficiencies
in the Wyoming regional haze SIP that we identified in the proposal.
The proposed FIP included the following elements:
NOX BART determinations and limits for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Station
Units 1, 2, and 3.
NOX reasonable progress determination and
limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
RPGs consistent with the SIP limits proposed for approval
and the proposed FIP limits.
Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applicable to all BART and reasonable progress sources for which there
is a SIP or FIP emissions limit.
LTS elements pertaining to emission limits and compliance
schedules for the proposed BART and reasonable progress FIP emission
limits.
Provisions to ensure the coordination of the RAVI and
regional haze LTS.
In lieu of our proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we stated that
we would propose approval of a SIP revision if the State submits such a
revision and the revision matches the terms of our proposed FIP. We
encouraged the State to submit a SIP revision to replace the FIP,
either before or after our final action.
We requested comments on all aspects of our proposed action and
provided a 60-day comment period, with the comment period closing on
August 3, 2012. We also held two public hearings. The public hearings
were held on June 26, 2012, in Cheyenne, Wyoming and June 28, 2012, in
Rock Springs, Wyoming.
The Conservation Organizations \1\ and the National Park Service
submitted comments during the public comment period pertaining to,
among other things, the cost analyses that the State relied upon in its
SIP and that EPA subsequently relied on to make its proposed rulemaking
decision. The commenters asserted that the State overestimated the
costs for some control technologies and underestimated the costs for
other control technologies. Based on our review of these comments and
upon further review of the State's cost and visibility analyses, we
determined that the State's analyses are flawed in several respects and
are therefore inconsistent with the BART Guidelines and statutory
requirements, as discussed further in this notice. As a result, EPA
conducted its own cost analyses for the BART and reasonable progress
electric generating units (EGUs), and also revised its modeling of the
visibility improvement for these sources in order to be comparable to
the revised costs analyses as explained in section V.II.C.3. The
revised costs and visibility modeling are explained in further detail
in section VII.C.3. Because we have developed new cost and visibility
improvement modeling analyses, we are re-proposing action on Wyoming's
SIP in order to give the public the opportunity to comment on our
updated cost and visibility analyses and our proposed determinations
based on this new information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Conservation Organizations refers to comments submitted
on behalf of Powder River Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor
Council, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Sierra Club, National Parks
Conservation Association, and WildEarth Guardians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Overview of Proposed Actions
EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a
regional haze SIP submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12,
2011. Specifically, we are proposing to disapprove the following:
The State's NOX BART determinations for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and
2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1,
2, and 3.
The State's NOX reasonable progress
determinations for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
Wyoming's RPGs.
The State's monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
Portions of the State's LTS that rely on or reflect other
aspects of the regional haze SIP.
The provisions necessary to meet the requirements for the
coordination of the review of the RAVI and the regional haze LTS.
We are proposing to approve the remaining aspects of the State's
January 12, 2011SIP submittal. However, we are also seeking comment on
an alternative proposal, related to the State's NOX BART
determinations, for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, that would
[[Page 34741]]
involve disapproval and the promulgation of a FIP.
We are proposing the promulgation of a FIP to address the
deficiencies in the Wyoming regional haze SIP that we have identified
in this notice. The proposed FIP includes the following elements:
NOX BART determinations and limits for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and
2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1,
2, and 3.
NOX reasonable progress determinations and
limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
RPGs consistent with the SIP limits proposed for approval
and the proposed FIP limits.
Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applicable to all BART and reasonable progress sources for which there
is a SIP or FIP emissions limit.
LTS elements pertaining to emission limits and compliance
schedules for the proposed BART and reasonable progress FIP emission
limits.
Provisions to ensure the coordination of the RAVI and
regional haze LTS.
In lieu of our proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we will propose
approval of a SIP revision as expeditiously as practicable if the State
submits such a revision and the revision matches the terms of our
proposed FIP. We will also review and take action on any regional haze
SIP submitted by the state to determine whether such SIP is approvable,
regardless of whether or not its terms match those of the FIP. We
encourage the State to submit a SIP revision to replace the FIP, either
before or after our final action.
IV. SIP and FIP Background
The CAA requires each state to develop plans to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility. CAA sections
110(a), 169A, and 169B. The plans developed by a state are referred to
as SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and SIP revisions to us for
approval. Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by EPA and citizens under
the CAA, also known as being federally enforceable. If a state fails to
make a required SIP submittal or if we find that a state's required
submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP
to fill this regulatory gap. CAA section 110(c)(1). As discussed
elsewhere in this notice, we are proposing to disapprove aspects of
Wyoming's regional haze SIP. We are proposing a FIP to address the
deficiencies in Wyoming's regional haze SIP.
V. Background
A. Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and
soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2), NOX, and in some cases, ammonia
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle
precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one
can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and
mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as
acid deposition and eutrophication.
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE)
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual range \2\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and
international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western
United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-thirds of
the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution.
In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the
visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR
35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \3\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980,
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment.'' 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C.
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate
into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300-309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in section III of this preamble. The
requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the
District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires
states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ EPA's regional haze regulations require subsequent updates
to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few states submitted a regional haze SIP prior to the December 17,
2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states
(including Wyoming), the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands,
had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. 74
FR 2392. Once EPA
[[Page 34742]]
has found that a state has failed to make a required submission, EPA is
required to promulgate a FIP within two years unless the state submits
a SIP and the Agency approves it within the two-year period. CAA Sec.
110(c)(1).
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and
various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem
of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop
strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the
effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to
better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas
across the country, and then pursued the development of regional
strategies to reduce emissions of pollutants that lead to regional
haze.
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative
effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal
agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated
with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality
issues in the western United States. WRAP member state governments
include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak,
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of
San Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall.
VI. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
The following is a summary of the requirements of the RHR. See 40
CFR 51.308 for further detail regarding the requirements of the rule.
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail
below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit
for expressing visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 39118. This visibility
metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of
common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions,
from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in
deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate
light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction
using a logarithmic function. The deciview is a more useful measure for
tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself
because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in
visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change
in visibility at one deciview.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about
the dv. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim
visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking
changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures
that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of
preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused
by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that
cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no
longer impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired
(``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of
their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate
of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based
on those estimates. We have provided guidance to states regarding how
to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-005, available
at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/Regional Haze_
envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance''); and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the
Regional Haze Rule, (September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-004, available at
http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf,
(hereinafter referred to as our ``2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
[[Page 34743]]
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze
SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I
area for each (approximately) 10-year implementation period. See 40 CFR
51.308(d), (f). The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates
of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that
provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural visibility
conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10-year
period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same period. Id.
In establishing RPGs, states are required to consider the following
factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary
for compliance; (3) the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any
potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how
these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and
worst days for each applicable Class I area. In setting the RPGs,
states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of
progress'' (URP) or the ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year
period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural
conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress, which states
are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they
expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I
areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with potentially
``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission
sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the state's
Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining whether a
state's goals for visibility improvement provide for reasonable
progress toward natural visibility conditions, EPA is required to
evaluate the demonstrations developed by the state pursuant to
paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iii).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state.
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject-
to-BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for
each applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In making a BART determination for
a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a total generating
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach
set forth in the BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not
required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations
for other types of sources. Regardless of source size or type, a state
must meet the requirements of the CAA and our regulations for selection
of BART, and the state's BART analysis and determination must be
reasonable in light of the overarching purpose of the regional haze
program.
The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be
logically broken down into three steps: First, states identify those
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth
in 40 CFR 51.301;\8\ second, states determine which of such sources
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a
source which fits this description is ``subject to BART''); and third,
for each source subject-to-BART, states then identify the best
available type and level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1.
In their SIPs, states must identify the sources that are subject-
to-BART and document their BART control determination analyses for such
sources. In making their BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the
CAA requires that states consider the following factors when evaluating
potential control technologies: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any
existing pollution control technology in use 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.
A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject-to-BART. Once a
state
[[Page 34744]]
has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed
and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
five years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. CAA
section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is
required by the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must
also include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. See
CAA section 110(a). As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement
an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative
program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal than would BART.
E. Long-Term Strategy
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10- to 15-year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires
that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the
compilation of all control measures a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable
RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected
by emissions from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP,
all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). The
RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but
additional consultations between states may be required to sufficiently
address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two
states belong to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their long-term strategy, including
stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken
into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to
ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address
RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities;
(3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the
RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes;
(6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and
(7) the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes
in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed
by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment
As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS
for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic
review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years
until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing
regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a
coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state
must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze
SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating
progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule
for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's
LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
RPGs will be met.
The SIP must also provide for the following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10
years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core
requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The
requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject-to-BART must continue to comply
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
G. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to
holding any
[[Page 34745]]
public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
state's visibility protection program, including development and review
of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in Class I areas.
VII. EPA's Evaluation of Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP
A. Affected Class I Areas
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d), the State identified seven mandatory
Class I areas in Wyoming: Grand Teton National Park, Yellowstone
National Park, Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness, North
Absaroka Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, and Washakie Wilderness.
B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, and Uniform Rate of
Progress
As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2), Wyoming provided baseline
visibility, natural visibility, and the URP for each Class I area in
the State. Natural background visibility, as defined in our 2003
Natural Visibility Guidance, is estimated by calculating the expected
light extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of
fine particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of
humidity. This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a
formula for estimating light extinction from the estimated natural
concentrations of fine particle components (or from components measured
by the IMPROVE monitors). As documented in our 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance, EPA allows states to use ``refined'' or alternative
approaches to this guidance to estimate the values that characterize
the natural visibility conditions of Class I areas.
One alternative approach is to develop and justify the use of
alternative estimates of natural concentrations of fine particle
components. Another alternative is to use the ``new IMPROVE equation''
that was adopted for use by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December
2005.\9\ The purpose of this refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation''
is to provide more accurate estimates of the various factors that
affect the calculation of light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs)
and regional planning organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring program
was established in 1985 to aid the creation of Federal and State
implementation plans for the protection of visibility in Class I
areas. One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical
species and emission sources responsible for existing anthropogenic
visibility impairment. TheIMPROVE program has also been a key
participant in visibility-related research, including the
advancement of monitoring instrumentation, analysis techniques,
visibility modeling, policy formulation and source attribution field
studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming used the new IMPROVE equation to calculate natural
conditions and baseline visibility. The natural condition for each
Class I area represents the visibility goal expressed in deciviews for
the 20% worst days and the 20% best days that would exist if there were
only naturally occurring visibility impairment. In accordance with 40
CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iii), the State calculated natural visibility
conditions based on available monitoring information and appropriate
data analysis techniques and in accordance with our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance. The State also calculated the number of deciviews
by which baseline conditions exceed natural conditions at each of its
Class I areas to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A).
Wyoming established the baseline visibility for the best and worst
visibility days for each Class I area based on data from the IMPROVE
monitoring sites. Each IMPROVE monitor collects particulate
concentration data which are converted into reconstructed light
extinction through a complex calculation using the IMPROVE equation
(see Chapter 13 of the SIP for more information on reconstructed light
extinction and the IMPROVE equation). Per 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(i), the
State calculated baseline visibility using a five-year average (2000 to
2004) of IMPROVE data for both the 20% best and 20% worst days. The
State's baseline calculations were made in accordance with our 2003
Tracking Progress Guidance.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), the State calculated the URP
for each of its Class I areas. For the 20% worst days, the URP is the
calculation of the deciview reduction needed to achieve natural
conditions by 2064. For the 20% worst days, the State calculated the
URP in deciviews per year using the following formula: URP = [Baseline
Condition--Natural Condition]/60 years. In order to determine the
uniform progress needed by 2018 to be on the path to achieving natural
visibility conditions by 2064, the State multiplied the URP by the 14
years in the first planning period (2004-2018).
Table 1 shows the baseline visibility, natural conditions, and URP
for each of the Class I areas. As indicated by the table, some Class I
areas share a single monitor because of the proximity of the areas to
each other.
Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Natural Conditions, and URP for Wyoming Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days 20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction
2000-2004 Needed to 2064 Natural Delta 2000-2004
Wyoming Class I areas Monitor name Baseline 2018 URP Reach 2018 URP Conditions Baseline--2064 Baseline
(deciview) (deciview) (delta (deciview) Natural (deciview)
deciview) Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton YELL2 11.8 10.5 1.3 6.44 5.36 2.58
National Park, Teton Wilderness........
[[Page 34746]]
North Absaroka Wilderness............... NOABI 11.5 10.4 1.1 6.83 4.67 2.0
Washakie Wilderness.....................
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick BRID1 11.1 10.0 1.1 6.45 4.65 2.1
Wilderness.............................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed Wyoming's baseline visibility, natural conditions,
and URP. We find they have been calculated correctly and are proposing
to approve them.
C. BART Determinations
BART is an element of Wyoming's LTS for the first implementation
period. As discussed in more detail in section VI.D of this notice, the
BART evaluation process consists of three components: (1) An
identification of all the BART-eligible sources; (2) an assessment of
whether those BART-eligible sources are in fact subject-to-BART; and
(3) a determination of any BART controls. Wyoming addressed these steps
as follows:
1. BART-Eligible Sources
The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. Wyoming identified its
BART-eligible sources by using the approach set out in the BART
Guidelines (70 FR 39158). This approach provides three criteria for
identifying BART-eligible sources: (1) One or more emission units at
the facility fit within one of the 26 categories listed in the BART
Guidelines; (2) the emission unit or units began operation on or after
August 6, 1962, and were in existence on August 6, 1977; and (3)
combined potential emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from
the units that meet the criteria in (1) and (2) are 250 tons or more
per year. Wyoming reviewed source permits and emission data from 2001-
2003 to identify facilities in the BART source categories with
potential emissions of 250 tons per year or more for any visibility-
impairing pollutant from any unit or units that were in existence on
August 7, 1977 and began operation on or after August 7, 1962. The BART
Guidelines direct states to address SO2\10\, NOX,
and direct PM (including both PM10 and PM2.5)
emissions as visibility-impairing pollutants and to exercise their
``best judgment to determine whether VOC or NH3 emissions
from a source are likely to have an impact on visibility in an area.''
(70 FR 39162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Wyoming has elected to submit its RH SIP pursuant to the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. For states electing to submit under
section 309, States do not have to do a BART analysis for
SO2. SO2 controls are included in the backstop
trading program under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State analyzed the emissions from VOC and NH3 from
sources in the State and eliminated them from further consideration for
BART controls. The State evaluated the BART-eligible sources and
determined emissions of VOC and NH3 were negligible. Thus,
the State has eliminated VOC and NH3 from further
consideration for BART controls. We agree with the State that emissions
of VOC and NH3 are negligible and propose to accept this
determination.
The State determined that the following were BART-eligible sources:
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger, P4 Production, PacifiCorp Naughton, OCI
Wyoming, FMC Granger, Dyno Nobel, FMC Westvaco, Sinclair Casper
Refinery, Basin Electric Laramie River, Black Hills Neil Simpson 1,
PacifiCorp Wyodak, Sinclair--Sinclair Refinery, PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston, and General Chemical Green River.
We have reviewed this information and propose to accept this
determination.
2. Sources Subject-to-BART
The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e.,
those sources that are subject-to-BART. The BART Guidelines allow
states to consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further
BART review because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Consistent
with the BART Guidelines, Wyoming performed dispersion modeling on the
BART-eligible sources to assess the extent of their contribution to
visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
a. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines provide that states may use the CALPUFF \11\
modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to, therefore,
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is
subject to BART.'' The Guidelines state that CALPUFF is the best
regulatory modeling application currently available for predicting a
single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70 FR 39162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer at http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that
states may want to consult with EPA and their RPO to address any issues
prior to modeling. Wyoming used the CALPUFF model for Wyoming BART
sources in accordance with a protocol it developed titled BART Air
Modeling Protocol Individual Source Visibility Impairment Analysis,
March 2006, which was approved by EPA and is included in Chapter 6 of
the State's TSD. The Wyoming protocol follows
[[Page 34747]]
recommendations for long-range transport described in appendix W to 40
CFR part 51, Guideline on Air Quality Models, and in EPA's Interagency
Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and
Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts as
recommended by the BART Guidelines. (40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
section III.A.3). To determine if each BART-eligible source has a
significant impact on visibility, Wyoming used the CALPUFF model to
estimate daily visibility impacts above estimated natural conditions at
each Class I area within 300 km of any BART-eligible facility. The
emission rates used in the CALPUFF modeling were determined by Wyoming
based upon existing permits, allowable rates, and emissions reporting
data.
b. Contribution Threshold
For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source
that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be
considered to `cause' visibility impairment.'' (70 FR 39104, 39161).
The BART Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for
determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may
reasonably differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any
threshold that you use for determining whether a source ``contributes''
to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' Id.
Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states should ``consider
the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue
and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.'' The Guidelines
affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude
that the location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in
proximity to a Class I area justifies this approach.
Wyoming used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews for
determining which sources are subject-to-BART. By using a contribution
threshold of 0.5 deciviews, Wyoming exempted seven of the fourteen
BART-eligible sources in the State from further review under the BART
requirements. Based on the modeling results, the State determined that
P4 Production, FMC Granger,\12\ and OCI Wyoming had an impact of .07
deciview, 0.39 deciview, and 0.07 deciview, respectively, at Bridger
Wilderness. Black Hills Neil Simpson 1, Sinclair Casper Refinery, and
Sinclair--Sinclair Refinery have an impact of 0.27 deciview, 0.06
deciview, and 0.12 deciview, respectively, at Wind Cave. Dyno-Nobel had
an impact of 0.22 deciview at Rocky Mountain National Park. These
sources' modeled visibility impacts fell below the State's threshold of
0.5 deciview and were determined not to be subject-to-BART.\13\ Given
the relatively limited impact on visibility from these seven sources,
we propose to agree with Wyoming that 0.5 deciviews is a reasonable
threshold for determining whether its BART-eligible sources are
subject-to-BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The State of Wyoming performed a refined CALPUFF visibility
modeling analysis for the two BART-eligible units at the FMC Wyoming
Granger Facility and demonstrated that the predicted 98th percentile
impacts at Bridger Wilderness Area and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area
would be below 0.5 dv for all meteorological periods modeled. This
modeling used higher-resolution meteorological data as compared to
the data used by the State for the initial screening modeling that
identified the facility as subject-to-BART.
\13\ CALPUFF modeling results, which provide the maximum change
in visibility are summarized in the WY BART Screening Analysis
Results and the WY BART Screening Analysis Results DV Frequency,
which can also be found in Chapter 6 of the State's TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because our recommended modeling approach already incorporates
choices that tend to lower peak daily visibility impact values,\14\ our
BART Guidelines state that a state should compare the 98th percentile
(as opposed to the 90th or lower percentile) of CALPUFF modeling
results against the ``contribution'' threshold established by the state
for purposes of determining BART applicability. Wyoming used a 98th
percentile comparison that we find appropriate. Further explanation on
use of the 98th versus 90th percentile value is provided at 70 FR
39121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See our BART Guidelines, Section III.A.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Sources Identified by Wyoming as Subject-to-BART
Table 2 shows the sources identified by the State as subject-to-
BART and the results of the CALPUFF modeling. The results reflect the
single highest impacted year.
[[Page 34748]]
Table 2--Wyoming Subject-to-BART Sources and CALPUFF Modeling Results
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State modeling
results--98th
Facility name Subject-to-BART units percentile delta-
deciview
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp--Jim Bridger....... Units 1-4............ 3.1
Basin Electric--Laramie River. Units 1, 2 and 3..... 3.68
PacifiCorp--Dave Johnston..... Units 3 and 4........ 3.30
PacifiCorp--Naughton.......... Units 1-3............ 4.36
PacifiCorp--Wyodak............ Unit 1............... 1.66
FMC--Westvaco................. Units NS-1A and NS-1B 1.3
General Chemical--Green River. Boilers C and D...... 1.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are proposing to approve the State's determination of the
subject-to-BART sources.
3. BART Determinations and Federally Enforceable Limits
The third step of a BART evaluation is to perform the BART
analysis. The BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164) describe the BART analysis
as consisting of the following five steps:
Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control
Technologies;
Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options;
Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining
Control Technologies;
Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results; and
Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
In determining BART, the State must consider the five statutory
factors in section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs of compliance; (2)
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3)
any existing pollution control technology in use 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. See also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
We find that Wyoming considered all five steps above in its BART
determinations, but we propose to find that its consideration of the
costs of compliance and visibility improvement for the EGUs was
inadequate and did not properly follow the requirements in the BART
Guidelines and statutory requirements, as explained below.
a. Costs of Compliance
Wyoming obtained the costs of compliance for controls from the BART
applications submitted by sources that were subject to BART.\15\ EPA in
turn relied on these costs in our original proposed rule. EPA has
reviewed Wyoming's cost analyses and has identified deficiencies in
various cost assumptions and methods. Accordingly, EPA has subsequently
and independently calculated costs of compliance and performed new
visibility modeling. In many instances, the BART sources underestimated
the cost of selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR), while
overestimating the cost of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) (both in
combination with additional combustion controls). Depending on the
particular BART source in question, we believe this was due to a number
of errors, such as: use of incorrect baseline emissions; overestimation
of the ability of SNCR to reduce NOX; underestimation of
SNCR reagent (urea) usage and cost; and underestimation of the ability
of SCR to reduce NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Attachment A to the Wyoming 309(g) Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has identified a number of flaws in Wyoming's cost analyses for
SNCR. For example, in the case of Laramie River Units 1-3, Wyoming
significantly overestimated the ability of SNCR to reduce
NOX. The analyses submitted by the source, and in turn used
by Wyoming, assumed that after the installation of additional
combustion controls, SNCR would reduce NOX from 0.23 lb/
MMBtu to 0.12 lb/MMBtu (or by roughly 48%). However, SNCR typically
reduces NOX an additional 20 to 30% above combustion
controls without excessive NH3 slip.\16\ NOX
reduction with SNCR is known to be greater at higher NOX
emission rates than lower rates.\17\ Accordingly, EPA has estimated
that the NOX reduction from SNCR as 30% for initial
NOX greater than 0.25 lb/MMBtu, 25% for NOX from
0.20 to 0.25 lb/MMBtu and 20% for NOX less than 0.20 lb/
MMBtu.\18\ Due to the relatively recent installation of overfire air at
the Laramie River units, the actual annual emissions in 2012 dropped to
around 0.19 lb/MMBtu,\19\ even lower than the 0.23 lb/MMbtu rate
assumed by Wyoming. Therefore, EPA predicts that the reduction that can
be achieved with SNCR at the Laramie River units is 20%, which is much
lower than the 48% assumed by Wyoming. This significantly reduces the
tons reduced by SNCR which is in turn used in the calculation of cost
effectiveness. It also affects the incremental cost effectiveness
between SNCR and SCR (both in combination with additional combustion
controls). In addition, our analysis of urea prices indicates that
producer prices for urea have increased the past three years. This
increase in price is not reflected in the Wyoming estimates for SNCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ White Paper, SNCR for Controlling NOX Emissions,
Institute of Clean of Clean Air Companies, pp. 4 and 9, February
2008.
\17\ Hofmann, J., Sun, W., ``Process for Nitrogen Oxides
Reduction to Lowest Achievable Level'', US Patent 5,229,090, July
20, 1993, Figure 6.
\18\ Review of Estimated Compliance Costs for Wyoming Electric
Generating (EGUs)--Revision of Previous Memo, memo from Jim Staudt,
Andover Technology Partners, to Doug Grano, EC/R, Inc., February 7,
2013, page 7 (Staudt Memo).
\19\ Staudt memo, Table 2, p. 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has also identified a number of flaws in Wyoming's cost
analyses for SCR. For example, Wyoming assumed that SCR could only
achieve a control effectiveness of 0.07 lb/MMBtu. By contrast, EPA has
determined that on an annual basis SCR can achieve emission rates of
0.05 lb/MMbtu or lower. Moreover, we note that Wyoming's SCR capital
costs on a $/kW basis often exceeded real-world industry costs. The
capital costs for SCR claimed by Wyoming for Dave Johnston 3 and 4,
Naughton Units 1-3, and Wyodak are in excess of the range of capital
costs documented by various studies for actual installations. Five
industry studies conducted between 2002 and 2007 have reported the
installed unit capital cost of SCRs, or the costs actually incurred by
owners, to range from $79/kW to $316/kW (2010 dollars). By contrast,
Wyoming's SCR costs range from $415/kW to $531/kW.\20\ These studies
show actual capital costs are much lower than Wyoming's, particularly
for the PacifiCorp units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Staudt memo, Table 1, p. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For all control technologies, EPA has identified instances in which
[[Page 34749]]
Wyoming's source-based cost analyses did not follow the methods set
forth in the EPA Control Cost Manual.\21\ For example, Wyoming included
an allowance for funds used during construction and for owners costs
and did not provide sufficient documentation such as vendor estimates
or bids.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ ``In order to maintain and improve consistency, cost
estimates should be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where
possible.'' 70 FR 39166.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, for the PacifiCorp units, Wyoming calculated the
baseline annual emissions used for determining cost effectiveness based
on allowable emissions, rated heat input, and 7,884 hours of operation
(equivalent to a 85% capacity factor), which are not representative of
actual emissions from the baseline period. By contrast, the BART
Guidelines state that the baseline emissions should ``represent a
realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source.''
\22\ Therefore, in our revised cost analyses, we have consistently used
the actual annual average emissions from 2001-2003 to represent
baseline emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 70 FR 39167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these flaws and deficiencies, EPA has developed
independent cost analyses. In our revised cost analyses, we have
followed the structure of the EPA Control Cost Manual, though we have
largely used the Integrated Planning Model cost calculations to
estimate direct capital costs and operating and maintenance costs. We
have also followed the BART Guidelines. Detailed information on the
revised costs can be found in the docket.23 24 In addition,
we received comments on our original proposed rulemaking from the
National Park Service and Conservation Organizations that expressed
similar concerns with the State's cost analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Review of Estimated Compliance Costs for Wyoming Electric
Generating (EGUs)--Revision of Previous Memo, memo from Jim Staudt,
Andover Technology Partners, to Doug Grano, EC/R, Inc., February 7,
2013. (Staudt Memo).
\24\ Review of Estimated BART Compliance Costs for Wyoming
Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) memo from Jim Staudt, Andover
Technology Partners, to Doug Grano, EC/R, Inc., February 7, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Visibility Improvement Modeling
The BART Guidelines provide that states may use the CALPUFF
modeling system or another appropriate model to determine the
visibility improvement expected at a Class I area from potential BART
control technologies applied to the source. The BART Guidelines also
recommend that states develop a modeling protocol for modeling
visibility improvement, and suggest that states may want to consult
with EPA and their RPO to address any issues prior to modeling. Wyoming
developed a modeling protocol titled BART Air Modeling Protocol
Individual Source Visibility Assessments for BART Control Analyses,
September 2006, for sources to use when they performed their BART
analysis (see Chapter 6 of the State's TSD). The Wyoming protocol
follows recommendations for long-range transport described in appendix
W to 40 CFR part 51, Guideline on Air Quality Models, and in EPA's
Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary
Report and Recommendations for Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts,
as recommended by the BART Guidelines (40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
section III.D.5).
While we are able to propose approval of the State's PM BART
determinations without having additional visibility improvement
modeling for PM controls, as discussed below, additional visibility
improvement modeling to address the EGU NOX BART controls
was needed and subsequently performed by EPA and presented in our
original proposed rulemaking.\25\ Our additional modeling to support
the original proposed rule was intended to addresses two deficiencies.
First, while Wyoming took into consideration the degree of visibility
improvement for some BART NOX control options for the
PacifiCorp EGUs, such as SCR, they did not do so for SNCR. The
visibility improvement for SNCR was neither provided in the State's SIP
nor made available to EPA. Wyoming did not assess the visibility
improvement of SNCR despite having found it to be a technically
feasible control option, and having considered a number of the other
statutory factors for SNCR, such as costs of compliance and energy
impacts. Wyoming did not consider the visibility improvement associated
with SNCR, which is clearly in conflict with the requirements set forth
in section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA, as well as in the implementing
regulations,\26\ which require that states take into consideration
``the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.'' Because
Wyoming did not do so, and in order to be consistent with the statutory
and regulatory requirements, EPA conducted additional CALPUFF modeling
to fill this gap in the State's visibility analysis (that is, to assess
the visibility improvement associated with SNCR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ A summary of EPA's modeling methodology and results for the
original proposed rulemaking can be found in the docket under EPA
BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming Sources.
\26\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, it was not possible for EPA, or any other party, to
ascertain the visibility improvement that would result from the
installation of the various NOX control options because
Wyoming modeled the emission reductions for multiple pollutants
together in its SIP. In other words, because the visibility improvement
associated with each of the State's control scenarios was due to the
combined emission reductions associated with SO2,
NOX, and PM controls, it was not possible to isolate what
portion of the improvement was attributable to the NOX
controls alone. In addition, because Wyoming varied SO2 and
PM emission rates along with NOX emission rates, it was not
possible to assess the incremental visibility improvement between the
various NOX controls options. For these reasons, EPA
conducted additional modeling for the EGUs in which we held
SO2 and PM emission rates constant (reflecting the
``committed controls'' identified by Wyoming), and varied only the
NOX emission rate. This allowed us to isolate the degree of
visibility improvement attributable to the NOX control
technologies. The modeling which EPA performed to support our original
proposed rule addressed these two deficiencies in the State's analysis.
To support today's proposal, EPA has found it necessary to revise
the CALPUFF modeling we performed in association with our original
proposed rule. The revised modeling to support today's proposed rule is
intended to address two additional issues that were raised by
commenters during the comment period for the original proposed rule.
First, as discussed above in section V.II, we have revised the costs of
control submitted by the State. In the process of revising these costs,
we have calculated a new removal efficiency for the control options
under consideration to reflect updated assumptions about baseline
emissions and control effectiveness.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ See Staudt memos.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to align our cost and modeling analyses, these removal
efficiencies have been incorporated into our revised modeling. Second,
the emission rates we relied on in our original proposed rule for both
the baseline (i.e., pre-control) and post-control modeling scenarios
were not consistent with the BART Guidelines. For pre-control emission
rates, the BART Guidelines recommend that States use the 24-hour
average actual
[[Page 34750]]
emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological
period modeled.\28\ By contrast, the visibility modeling performed by
PacifiCorp, and subsequently submitted by the State and utilized by EPA
in our original proposal, deviates from the BART Guidelines by using
permit limits and the maximum rated heat input to derive the modeled
emission rates. Similarly, the visibility modeling performed by Basin
Electric, and subsequently submitted by the State and utilized by EPA
in our original proposal, deviates from the BART Guidelines by using
actual annual average heat input and actual annual average emission
rates (on a lb/MMBtu basis) from 2001-2003 continuous emissions
monitoring data to derive modeled emission rates. Furthermore, the BART
Guidelines recommend that post-control emission rates be calculated as
a percentage of pre-control emission rates.\29\ The visibility modeling
performed by PacifiCorp and Basin Electric, and subsequently submitted
by the State and utilized by EPA in our original proposal, deviates
from the BART Guidelines by using post-control emission rates
calculated in a similar manner to the pre-control emission rates. Our
revised modeling remedies both of the issues identified by the
commenters and is consistent with the requirements of the BART
Guidelines. We have otherwise followed the procedures contained in the
Wyoming BART Air Modeling Protocol. A summary of EPA's revised modeling
methodology and results can be found in the docket.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ The BART Guidelines, Section IV. (70 FR 39170) specify that
the modeling should ``[u]se the 24-hour average actual emission rate
from the highest emitting day of the meteorological period modeled
(for the pre-control scenario)''.
\29\ The BART Guidelines, Section IV. (70 FR 39170) specify that
``[p]ost-control emission rates are calculated as a percentage of
pre-control emission rates''.
\30\ EPA's modeling results and a summary of EPA's modeling
methodology can be found in the docket under Summary of EPA's
Revised Modeling--Including Revisions from Previous Version Posted
on 1/18/2013 and Results for Jim Bridger Units 1-4 and EPA's Revised
Modeling Results; posted to the docket on February 11, 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because Wyoming relied on visibility modeling methodologies that
are inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory requirements, we do
not consider Wyoming's analyses of visibility improvement for
NOX BART to be reasonable. We propose to find that Wyoming's
analyses are inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory requirement
that Wyoming reasonably take into consideration ``the degree of
improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result
from the use of such technology.'' Therefore, as discussed in more
detail below, we are proposing to disapprove several of the State's
NOX BART determinations that do not meet the requirements of
the CAA and regional haze regulations because they are inconsistent
with the visibility requirements.
c. Summary of BART Determinations and Federally Enforceable Limits
For the subject-to-BART sources, the State provided BART analyses,
as well as additional technical information and materials, in
Attachment A to the SIP. Chapter 6 of the SIP provides a summary of the
five-factor analyses. As noted above, for this proposed rulemaking, EPA
performed cost analyses and NOX visibility improvement
modeling for the control technology options analyzed for the subject-
to-BART EGU sources. We are presenting the BART analyses that we based
our June 4, 2012 proposed rulemaking on, as well as EPA's revised BART
analyses, reflecting our revised cost and visibility improvement
modeling for the EGUs.
EPA is proposing to approve the State's BART determinations for the
following units because we have determined that the State's conclusions
were reasonable despite the cost and visibility errors for the EGUs
discussed earlier: NOX and PM BART for FMC Westvaco Unit NS-
1A and NS-1B; NOX and PM BART for General Chemical Green
River Boiler C and Boiler D; \31\ PM BART for Basin Electric Laramie
River Units 1, 2, and 3; PM BART for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3;
PM BART for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 4; NOX and PM BART
(including reasonable progress controls) for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger
Units 1-4; PM BART for PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1and 2; NOX
and PM BART for Naughton Unit 3; and PM BART for PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit
1. A summary of the State's and EPA's BART determination for each
source is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ FMC Westvaco and General Chemical Green River are not EGUs
and EPA did not identify the same cost and visibility improvement
modeling issues as it did for the EGUs and are thus proposing to
approve the State's BART analyses and determinations for these
units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's NOX BART
determinations and promulgate a FIP for the following units: PacifiCorp
Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4; PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 2;
PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1; and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2,
and 3. After re-analyzing the costs of control and visibility
improvement associated with these units, we determined that the State's
selection of NOX BART controls could not be supported,
warranting a FIP. EPA's reasoning behind its own NOX BART
determinations and emission limitations for these units can be found in
section VIII.A of this notice.
i. FMC Westvaco--Units NS-1A and NS-1B
Background
FMC's Westvaco facility is a trona mine and sodium products plant
located in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. FMC Westvaco has two existing
coal-fired boilers, Unit NS-1A and Unit NS-1B, that are subject to
BART. Unit NS-1A and Unit NS-1B each have a design heat input rate of
887 MMBtu/hr and were constructed in 1975. They are both wall-fired,
wet-bottom boilers burning subbituminous coal. The State's BART
determinations for these units can be found in Chapter 6.5.2 and
Attachment A of the SIP.
NOX BART Determination
Units NS-1A and NS-1B are currently controlled with combustion air
control with a permit limit of 0.7 lb/MMBtu (3-hour rolling average).
The State determined that low NOX burners (LNBs) and
overfired air (OFA), LNBs and OFA with SNCR, and LNBs and OFA with SCR
were all technically feasible for reducing NOX emissions at
Unit NS-1A and NS-1B. The State did not identify any technically
infeasible options. The State did not identify any energy or non-air
quality environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any
of the controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life
issues for this source. A summary of the State's NOX BART
analyses and the visibility impacts is provided in Table 3. Baseline
NOX emissions are 2,719.5 tpy for each unit based on a heat
input rate of 887 MMBtu/hr and 8,760 hours of operation per year.
[[Page 34751]]
Table 3--Summary of FMC Westvaco Unit NS-1A and Unit NS-1B NOX BART Analysis*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta dv for
(lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost Incremental cost the maximum 98th
Control technology day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness effectiveness percentile
average) ($/ton) impact at
Bridger
Wilderness Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB + OFA................................... 0.35 $1,359.7 $413,145 $304 ................ 0.13
LNB + OFA + SNCR............................ 0.21 1,903.6 1,281,851 673 $1,597 0.19
LNB + OFA + SCR............................. 0.10 2,331.0 8,141,177 3,493 16,051 0.24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This table reflects the costs and visibility improvements per boiler.
The visibility modeling in the State's SIP only includes the
visibility improvement at the two most impacted Class I areas: Bridger
Wilderness Area and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area. The visibility
improvement at Bridger is listed in the Table above. For Fitzpatrick,
the visibility improvement is .09 dv for LNBs with OFA, 0.11 dv for
LNBs with SNCR, and 0.13 dv for LNBs with SCR. Given the limited
visibility improvement at the two most impacted areas, we propose to
find that it was reasonable for the State to model only those two
receptors.
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined that LNBs plus OFA are reasonable for BART. The State
determined that the other control options were not reasonable based on
the cost effectiveness and associated visibility improvement. The State
has determined that NOX BART emission limit for FMC Westvaco
Unit NS-1A and Unit MS-1B is 0.35 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its NOX BART determinations for FMC Westvaco Unit
NS-1A and Unit NS-1B. Although the cost-effectiveness for SNCR is
reasonable, we find it reasonable for the State not to select this
control technology based on the incremental visibility improvement for
this control technology.
PM BART Determination
Unit NS-1A and Unit NS-1B are currently controlled for PM emissions
by electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). The units each currently have a
PM emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu. The State determined that fabric
filters on the wet scrubber, addition of an ESP downstream of the wet
scrubber, and replacement of the ESPs with fabric filters were
technically feasible control options. The State did not identify any
energy or non-air quality environmental impacts that would preclude the
selection of any of the controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-
useful-life issues for this source. A summary of the State's PM BART
analysis is provided in Table 4 below. Baseline PM emissions are 197
tpy for each unit based on a heat input rate of 887 MMBtu/hr and 8,760
hours of operation per year.
Table 4--Summary of FMC Westvaco Unit NS-1A and Unit NS-1B PM BART Analysis*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission rate
Control (lb/mmbtu) (30- Emission Average cost
Control technology efficiency (%) day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness
average) ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric Filter on Wet Scrubber................................ 21.4 0.04 41.7 $1,791,364 $42,948
ESP after Wet Scrubber....................................... 63.3 0.019 123.3 3,507,617 28,448
Replace ESP with Fabric Filter............................... 71.3 0.015 138.8 4,116,036 29,654
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This table reflects the costs and visibility improvements per boiler.
Given the high cost of controls, which are higher than what EPA, or
other states have considered reasonable for PM, FMC did not evaluate
the visibility improvement that would result from the PM controls
evaluated. Previous visibility modeling analyses from the source
indicate that the contribution in visibility degradation from PM is
minor when compared to the effects of NOX and
SO2. Results from FMC's visibility modeling screening and
analysis confirm this conclusion and are discussed in further detail
within the comprehensive visibility analysis included as part of FMC's
BART application (see Attachment A to the SIP). The State agreed with
FMC's conclusions and did not require FMC to perform additional
visibility analyses for the PM control options.
The State determined that the current ESP control was reasonable
for PM BART. The State rejected other controls because of their high
cost-effectiveness values. The State has determined that the PM BART
emission limits for FMC Westvaco Unit NS-1A and NS-1B are 0.05 lb/
MMBtu, 45.0 lb/hr, and 197 tpy.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its PM BART determinations for FMC Westvaco Unit NS-1A and Unit
NS-1B.
ii. General Chemical Green River--Boilers C and D
General Chemical Green River is a trona mine and sodium products
plant. General Chemical's two existing coal-fired boilers, C and D, are
co-located at the facility power plant. Both boilers burn low sulfur
bituminous coal, and they supply power and process steam to mining and
ore processing operations. Both boilers are tangentially fired using
in-line coal pulverizers. The firing rate is 534 MMBtu/hr for Boiler C
and 880 MMBtu/hr for Boiler D. The State's BART determinations can be
found in Chapter 6.5.3 and Attachment A of the SIP.
NOX BART Determination
Boiler C and Boiler D are currently controlled with LNBs plus OFA
with a permit limit of 0.7 lb/MMBtu (3-hour rolling average). On August
7, 2009, the State issued a BART permit to General Chemical that
required the source to meet a NOX emission limit of 0.32 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for Boiler C and Boiler D. The State
assumed the source could meet this
[[Page 34752]]
emission limit with the installation and operation of new LNBs with the
existing OFA. Upon further investigation, the source determined it
could not meet a limit of 0.32 lbs/MMBtu with new LNBs and the existing
OFA.
In response to the additional information provided by the source,
the State reexamined its BART determination for Boiler C and D. The
State determined that installing SOFA in addition to the existing LNBs
and OFA could achieve an emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu. Because SOFA
in conjunction with the existing NOX controls could achieve
better emission reductions than new LNBs plus OFA, the State eliminated
the latter from further consideration in the BART analysis. The State
determined that SNCR and SCR were also technically feasible. The State
did not identify any technically infeasible options.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's NOX BART analysis and
visibility impacts is provided in Tables 5 and 6 below. Baseline
NOX emissions are 1,167 tpy for Boiler C and 1,816 tpy for
Boiler D based on an average of 2001-2003 actual emissions.
Table 5--Summary of General Chemical--Green River Boiler C NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta dv for
(lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost Incremental cost the maximum 98th
Control technology day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness effectiveness percentile
average) ($/ton) impact at
Bridger
Wilderness Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing LNBs with SOFA..................... 0.28 512 $757,711 $1,480 -- 0.05
SNCR........................................ 0.35 584 1,433,720 2,455 $4,782 0.08
SCR......................................... 0.14 934 2,434,809 2,607 3,156 0.14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6--Summary of General Chemical--Green River Boiler D NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta dv for
(lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost Incremental cost the maximum 98th
Control technology day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness effectiveness percentile
average) ($/ton) impact at
Bridger
Wilderness Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing LNBs with SOFA..................... 028 737 $943,549 $1,280 -- 0.07
SNCR........................................ 0.35 908 1,486,581 3,176 $2,913 0.12
SCR......................................... 0.14 1,453 3,399,266 3,510 4,342 0.17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The visibility modeling in the State's SIP only includes the
visibility improvement at the two most impacted Class I areas: Bridger
Wilderness Area and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area. The visibility
improvement at Bridger is listed in the Table above. For Fitzpatrick,
the visibility improvement is 0.10 dv for LNBs with SOFA, 0.09 for
SNCR, and 0.12 dv for SCR for each unit. Given the limited visibility
improvement at the two most impacted areas, we propose to find that it
was reasonable for the State to model only those two receptors.
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined that NOX BART is the existing LNBs with new SOFA,
or a comparable performing technology. The State determined that SNCR
and SCR were not reasonable based on the high cost effectiveness and
low visibility improvement. The State determined the NOX
BART emission limit for General Chemical Green River Boiler C is 0.28
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) and that the NOX BART
emission limit for Boiler D is 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its NOX BART determinations for General Chemical
Green River--Boiler C and D. Although the cost-effectiveness for SNCR
and SCR is reasonable, we find it reasonable for the State not to
select this control technology based on the low visibility improvement
for these control technologies.
PM BART Determination
Boilers C and D are currently controlled by ESPs with permit limits
of 50 lb/hr and 80 lb/hr, respectively. General Chemical addressed PM
emissions through an abbreviated analysis by using PM BART information
from FMC Westvaco, as discussed above. The facilities are similar in
size and located about ten miles apart. Baseline PM emissions are 98
tpy for Boiler C and 161 tpy for Boiler D based on the average of 2001-
2003 actual emissions. As discussed above, visibility modeling
screening and analyses for FMC Westvaco indicate that the contribution
in visibility degradation from PM for a source comparable to Boiler C
and Boiler D is minor. Additionally, costs for controlling PM from
similar boilers are high as indicated by the FMC analysis for Westvaco.
The State accepted General Chemical's abbreviated PM BART analysis.
The State determined that the current ESP control was reasonable for PM
BART. The State rejected other controls because of their high cost-
effectiveness values. The State determined that the PM BART emission
limits for Boiler C are 0.09 lb/MMBtu, 50 lb/hr, and 219 tpy, and that
the PM BART emissions limits for Boiler D are 0.09 lb/MMBtu, 80 lb/hr,
and 350.4 tpy.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its PM BART determination for General Chemical Green River
Boiler C and D.
iii. Basin Electric Laramie River Station--Units 1-3
Basin Electric Laramie River Station is located in Platte County,
Wyoming. Laramie River Station is comprised of three 550 MW dry-bottom,
wall-fired boilers (Units 1, 2, and 3) burning
[[Page 34753]]
subbituminous coal for a total net generating capacity of 1,650 MW. All
three units are subject-to-BART. The State's BART determination can be
found in Chapter 6.5.8 and Attachment A of the SIP (The NOX
BART analysis is discussed in section VIII.A of this notice).
PM BART Determination
Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 are currently controlled with ESPs,
each with a permit limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu. The State determined that
fabric filters were technically feasible for Unit 3 but not Units 1 and
2. Units 1 and 2 are controlled with wet flue gas desulfurization and
fabric filters cannot be used downstream of such a system. The State
determined that flue gas treatment and GE Max-9 hybrid were technically
infeasible for all three units. Thus, the only technically feasible
control option for PM is fabric filters on Unit 3.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's PM BART analysis for Unit 3 is
provided in Table 7 below. Baseline PM emissions are 716 tpy for the
unit based on 2001-2003 actual emissions.
Table 7--Summary of Basin Electric Laramie River Unit 3 PM BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission rate
Control (lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost
Control technology efficiency (%) day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness
average) ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric Filter--Peak Rate for Lost Generating Costs............ 50 0.015 358 $194,809,000 $54,707
Fabric Filter Non-Peak Rate for Lost Generating Costs......... 50 0.015 358 134,934,000 40,156
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State did not provide visibility improvement modeling for
fabric filters, but EPA is proposing to conclude this is reasonable
based on the high cost-effectiveness of fabric filters at each of the
units, which is higher than EPA or other state have considered
reasonable for PM BART.
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined that the current ESPs are reasonable for PM BART, as fabric
filters on Unit 3 are not cost-effective and there are no other
technically feasible controls for Units 1 and 2. The State determined
that the PM BART emission limit for each of the Laramie River Units 1,
2, and 3 is 0.03 lb/MMBtu.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its PM BART determination for Basin Electric Laramie River
Units 1, 2, and 3.
iv. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston--Units 3 and 4
Background
PacifiCorp's Dave Johnston power plant is located in Converse
County, Wyoming. Dave Johnston Power Plant is comprised of four units
burning pulverized subbituminous Powder River Basin coal. Units 3 and 4
are the only units subject-to-BART. Dave Johnston Unit 3 is a nominal
230 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler that commenced service in 1964. It
was equipped with burners in a cell configuration until 2010, but was
then converted to a dry bottom wall-fired boiler. Dave Johnston Unit 4
is a nominal 330 MW pulverized coal-fired boiler that commenced service
in 1972. It is a tangential-fired boiler. The State's BART analysis can
be found in Chapter 6.5.5 and Appendix A of the SIP (the NOX
BART determination for Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4 is discussed in
section VIII.A of this notice).
PM BART Determination
Units 3 and 4 are currently controlled with fabric filters
installed in 2008 with an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. The State
determined that fabric filters represent the most stringent PM control
technology and that 0.015 lb/MMBtu is the most stringent emission
limit. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, the State did not provide a
five-factor analysis because the State determined BART to be the most
stringent control technology and limit available (70 FR 39165). The
State determined that the PM BART emission limits for Unit 3 and 4 are
both 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its PM BART determination for Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4.
v. PacifiCorp Jim Bridger--Units 1-4
Background
PacifiCorp's Jim Bridger Power Plant is located in Sweetwater
County, Wyoming. Jim Bridger is comprised of four identically sized
nominal 530 MW tangentially fired boilers burning pulverized coal for a
total net generating capacity of 2,120 MW. Jim Bridger Unit 1 was
placed in service in 1974, Unit 2 in 1975, Unit 3 in 1976, and Unit 4
in 1979. The State's BART determination can be found in Chapter 6.5.4
and Appendix A of the SIP.
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination for Jim Bridger Unit 1 and
Unit 2
During the baseline period of 2001-2003, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2 were equipped with early generation LNBs with permit
limits of 0.70 lb/MMBtu (3-hour fixed) and 0.42 lb/MMBtu and 0.40 lb/
MMBtu (annual limit), respectively. The State determined that new LNBs
with SOFA, new LNBs with SOFA plus SNCR, and new LNBs with SOFA plus
SCR were all technically feasible for controlling NOX
emissions. The State did not identify any technically infeasible
options.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, nor are there any remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. Baseline NOX emissions are 10,643 tpy for each
unit based on unit heat input rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of
operation. A summary of the State's NOX BART analysis and
the visibility impacts is provided in Table 8 below.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ We are assuming the same costs for Unit 2 as the other Jim
Bridger Units. The State analyzed Unit 2 using post installation of
LNBs/OFA costs so the cost information provided in their analysis is
not consistent with an uncontrolled baseline.
[[Page 34754]]
Table 8--Summary of Wyoming's Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 NOX BART Analysis--Costs per Boiler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta deciview
(lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost Incremental cost for the maximum
Control technology day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness effectiveness 98th percentile
average) ($/ton) impact at Mt.
Zirkel
wilderness)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNB with SOFA........................... 0.26 4,493 $1,144,969 $255 -- 0.41/0.47
New LNB with SOFA and SNCR.................. 0.20 5,913 2,710.801 459 $1,103 0.52/0.62
New LNB with SOFA and SCR................... 0.07 8,987 20,296,400 2,258 5,721 0.76/0.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined new LNBs with SOFA was reasonable for NOX BART.
The State determined the NOX BART emission limit for Jim
Bridger Units 1and 2 is 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
PacifiCorp is required to install additional controls under the
State's LTS. The State determined that based on the cost of compliance
and visibility improvement presented by PacifiCorp in the BART
applications for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 and taking into
consideration the logistical challenge of managing multiple pollution
control installations within the regulatory time allotted for
installation of BART by the RHR, additional controls would be required
under the LTS in order to achieve reasonable progress but would not be
requires as BART. With respect to Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, the State
has required PacifiCorp to install SCR, or other NOX control
systems, to achieve an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day
rolling average. As part of Wyoming's Regional Haze plan, PacifiCorp is
required to meet the 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission rate on Unit 1 prior to
December 31, 2021 and on Unit 2 prior to December 31, 2022.
EPA's PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 NOX BART
Determination
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. Baseline NOX emissions are 8,426 tpy for Unit 1
and 7,577 for Unit 2 based on the actual annual average for the years
2001-2003. A summary of the EPA's NOX BART analysis and the
visibility impacts is provided in Tables 9-12 below. The cost
effectiveness values for the Jim Bridger units vary considerably for
the same control option. This is largely due to differences in the
(actual) baseline emissions.
Table 9--Summary of EPA's Jim Bridger Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate Average cost (delta dv for
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized costs effectiveness Incremental cost the maximum 98th
(annual average) reduction (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
impact at Mt.
Zirkel)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA........................... 0.18 4,558 $1,167,297 $256 -- 0.59
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.................. 0.14 5,332 4,402,757 826 $4,182 0.69
New LNBs with OFA and SCR................... 0.05 7,352 17,592,636 2,393 6,530 0.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bridger Unit 1 also impacts other Class I areas. The visibility
improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 10
below.
Table 10--Jim Bridger Unit 1: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - New impact) - New impact) - New
LNBs + OFA LNBs + OFA/SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridger................................................... 0.53 0.62 0.91
Fitzpatrick............................................... 0.22 0.26 0.36
Rawah..................................................... 0.59 0.70 0.96
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.50 0.58 0.79
Grand Teton............................................... 0.17 0.19 0.27
Teton..................................................... 0.16 0.19 0.26
Washakie.................................................. 0.18 0.21 0.27
Yellowstone............................................... 0.23 0.15 0.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34755]]
Table 11--Summary of EPA's Jim Bridger Unit 2 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate Average cost (delta dv for
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized costs effectiveness Incremental cost the maximum 98th
(annual average) reduction (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
impact at Mt.
Zirkel)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA........................... 0.19 3,787 $1,167,297 $308 -- 0.55
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.................. 0.15 4,545 4,360,958 959 $4,214 0.65
New LNBs with OFA and SCR................... 0.05 6,554 19,757,979 3,015 7,664 0.95
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bridger Unit 2 also impacts other Class I areas. The visibility
improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 12
below.
Table 12--Jim Bridger Unit 2: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - new impact) - new impact) - new
LNBs + OFA LNBs + OFA/SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridger................................................... 0.48 0.58 0.89
Fitzpatrick............................................... 0.21 0.25 0.36
Rawah..................................................... 0.46 0.48 0.78
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.38 0.46 0.68
Grand Teton............................................... 0.15 0.18 0.26
Teton..................................................... 0.15 0.18 0.25
Washakie.................................................. 0.17 0.20 0.27
Yellowstone............................................... 0.15 0.18 0.26
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in detail above, because Wyoming relied on visibility
modeling methodologies that are inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements, we do not consider Wyoming's analysis of
visibility improvement for the NOX BART to be reasonable for
Wyodak Unit 1. We propose to find that Wyoming's analysis for this Unit
is inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory requirement that
``the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
Also, we are not relying on the State's costs due to reasons stated
in section VII.C.3.b of this notice. We propose to find that Wyoming
did not properly or reasonably ``take into consideration the costs of
compliance.''
Our analysis follows our BART Guidelines. With the exception of the
NOX emission limits, the visibility improvement analyses,
and the cost effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing to find that the
Wyoming RH BART analysis NOX for Dave Johnson Units 4
fulfills all the relevant requirements of CAA Section 169A and the RHR.
PacifiCorp asserted to the State during formulation of the SIP
proposal, and has since asserted directly to EPA \33\, that a number of
factors, when considered together, suggest that requiring installation
of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 earlier than 2021-2022 is not
reasonable. First, PacifiCorp points to the large number of retrofit
actions it is taking at 20 coal-fired electric generating units in
Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona in order to reduce their
emissions.\34\ These retrofits are intended to comply with the
requirements in the regional haze SIPs that these states have submitted
to EPA and with other regulatory requirements, including required
controls for mercury and acid gases under the recent Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards rule. The company asserts that there are high capital
costs for the measures required for these air quality-improving
retrofits. Moreover, PacifiCorp states that accelerating the required
installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 to late 2017, rather
than the 2021 and 2022 dates established by the State, would
significantly increase the costs to the utility and to its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See July 12, 2012 letter from PacifiCorp to EPA Region 8
located in the docket for this notice.
\34\ For a listing of PacifiCorp's retrofit actions, see Table 1
of Exhibit A--PacifiCorp's Emissions Reductions Plan in Chapter 6 of
the State's TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the company asserts that it has designed the
installation schedule in order to minimize the number of units that are
out of service system wide for installation of emissions controls at
any one time. Its goal, it asserts, is to be able to maintain service
to its customers with an adequate capacity margin. The company asserts
that accelerating the timeline for installation of SCR would upset the
orderly shut-down schedule they have devised and would threaten both
service interruptions and an increased risk of spot-purchases of more
expensive electrical energy, if it is available, to serve customers,
but that either eventuality would significantly increase costs to its
customers.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Exhibit A--PacifiCorp's Emissions Reductions Plan in
Chapter 6 of the State's TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that PacifiCorp has offered these assertions taking into
account only the requirements in the SIPs that have been submitted to
EPA by Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona. Today's proposal includes
requirements that would likely require the additional installation of
SCRs at three units and SNCR at two units owned by PacifiCorp
[[Page 34756]]
in Wyoming. In addition, we have since finalized action on the SIP for
Arizona, and are requiring LNBs plus SCR on three units under a FIP.
As stated in the BART Guidelines pertaining to affordability: ``1.
Even if the control technology is cost effective, there may be cases
where the installation of controls would affect the viability of
continued plant operations. 2. There may be unusual circumstances that
justify taking into consideration the conditions of the plant and the
economic effects of requiring the use of a given control technology.
These effects would include effects on product prices, the market
share, and profitability of the source. Where there are such unusual
circumstances that are judged to affect plant operations, you may take
into consideration the conditions of the plant and the economic effects
of requiring the use of a control technology. Where these effects are
judged to have a severe impact on plant operations you may consider
them in the selection process, but you may wish to provide an economic
analysis that demonstrates, in sufficient detail for public review, the
specific economic effects, parameters, and reasoning. (We recognize
that this review process must preserve the confidentiality of sensitive
business information). Any analysis may also consider whether other
competing plants in the same industry have been required to install
BART controls if this information is available.'' 40 CFR part 50,
Appendix Y, IV.E.3.
Based on the points made by PacifiCorp and noting the additional
requirements in the proposed FIP for Wyoming, the finalized FIP for
Arizona, and the possibility of additional requirements in a future FIP
or SIP for Utah, EPA is proposing that the additional time to install
controls under the State's LTS on Jim Bridger Unit 1 and Unit 2 is
warranted under the affordability provisions in the BART Guidelines
discussed above. Although neither the CAA nor the RHR require states or
EPA to consider the affordability of controls or ratepayer impacts as
part of a BART analysis, the BART guidelines allow (but do not require)
consideration of ``affordability'' in the BART analysis.
EPA is proposing to determine that BART for all units at Jim
Bridger would be SCR if the units were considered individually, based
on the five factors, without regard for the controls being required at
other units in the PacifiCorp system. However, when the cost of BART
controls at other PacifiCorp-owned EGUs is considered as part of the
cost factor for the Jim Bridger Units, EPA is proposing that Wyoming's
determination that NOX BART for these units is new LNB plus
OFA for is reasonable. Considering costs broadly, it would be
unreasonable to require any further retrofits at this source within
five years of our final action. We note that the CAA establishes five
years at the longest period that can be allowed for compliance with
BART emission limits.
EPA is proposing to approve the SIP with regard to the State's
determination that the appropriate level of NOX control for
Units 1 and 2 at Jim Bridger for purposes of reasonable progress is the
SCR-based emission limit in the SIP, with compliance dates of December
31, 2021 for Unit 2 and December 31, 2022 for Unit 1. In the context of
reasonable progress in the second planning period of the regional haze
program, we have determined it is appropriate to give considerable
deference to the State's conclusions about what controls are reasonable
and when they should be implemented. Thus, we do not find it
appropriate to disapprove the State's preferred compliance deadlines
for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. As discussed below, we are seeking
comment on an alternative proposal to promulgate a FIP for PacifiCorp
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination for Jim Bridger Units 3 and
4
During the 2001-2003 baseline period, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units
3 and 4 were equipped with early generation LNBs with permit limits of
0.70 lb/MMBtu (3-hour fixed) and 0.41 lb/MMBtu and 0.45 lb/MMBtu
(annual), respectively. The State determined that new LNBs with SOFA,
new LNBs with SOFA plus SNCR, and new LNBs with SOFA plus SCR were
technically feasible for controlling NOX emissions. The
State did not identify any technically infeasible options.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. Baseline NOX emissions are 10,643 tpy for each
unit based on unit heat input rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of
operation.
A summary of the State's NOX BART analysis and the
visibility impacts is provided in Table 13 below.
Table 13--Summary of Wyoming's Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 NOX BART Analysis--Costs per Boiler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta deciview
(lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost Incremental cost for the maximum
Control technology day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness effectiveness 98th percentile
average) ($/ton) impact at Mt.
Zirkel
Wilderness) \36\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNB with SOFA........................... 0.26 4,493 $1,144,969 $255 -- 0.41/0.47
New LNB with SOFA and SNCR.................. 0.20 5,913 2,710.801 459 $1,103 0.53/0.62
New LNB with SOFA and SCR................... 0.07 8,987 20,296,400 2,258 5,721 0.80/0.82
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State determined that new LNBs with SOFA were reasonable for
NOX BART for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4. The State determined
that the NOX BART emission limits for Jim Bridger Units 3
and 4 are both 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). As explained
below, the State determined SCR was not reasonable for BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Unit 4 has different modeling results as the stack
parameters used in the modeling are different enough from Units 1-3
to yield different modeled results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State is requiring PacifiCorp to install SCR controls under its
LTS. The State determined that based on the cost of compliance and
visibility improvement presented by PacifiCorp in the BART applications
for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 and taking into consideration the
logistical challenge of managing multiple pollution control
installations within the regulatory time
[[Page 34757]]
allotted for installation of BART by the RHR, SCR controls would be
required under the LTS but not BART (see Chapter 8.3.3 of the SIP).
With respect to Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, the State has required
PacifiCorp to install SCR, or other NOX control systems, to
achieve an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
PacifiCorp is required to meet the 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission rate on Unit
3 prior to December 31, 2015 and on Unit 4 prior to December 31, 2016.
EPA's NOX BART Determination for Jim Bridger Unit 3 and Unit
4
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. EPA determined that baseline NOX emissions are
7,853 tpy for Unit 3 and 8,133 tpy for Unit 4 based on the actual
annual average for the years 2001-2003 (compared to 10,643 tpy that
Wyoming relied on as noted above). As explained above, Wyoming
determined that taking into consideration the logistical challenge of
managing multiple pollution control installations within the regulatory
time allotted for installation of BART by the RHR, SCR controls would
be required under the LTS but not BART. A summary of the EPA's
NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts is provided in
Tables 14-17 below.
Table 14--Summary of EPA's Jim Bridger Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate Average cost (delta dv for
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized costs effectiveness Incremental cost the maximum 98th
(annual average) reduction (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
impact at Mt.
Zirkel)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with SOFA.......................... 0.20 3,710 $1,167,297 $315 -- 0.50
New LNBs with SOFA and SNCR................. 0.16 4,539 4,530,069 998 $4,058 0.61
New LNBs with SOFA and SCR.................. 0.05 6,799 20,135,420 2,961 6,905 0.92
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bridger Unit 3 also impacts other Class I areas. The visibility
improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 15
below.
Table 15--Jim Bridger Unit 3: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - new impact) - new impact) - new
LNBs + SOFA LNBs + SOFA/SNCR LNBs + SOFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridger................................................... 0.43 0.54 0.87
Fitzpatrick............................................... 0.19 0.23 0.34
Rawah..................................................... 0.41 0.51 0.75
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.34 0.42 0.65
Grand Teton............................................... 0.14 0.17 0.25
Teton..................................................... 0.14 0.17 0.24
Washakie.................................................. 0.22 0.19 0.26
Yellowstone............................................... 0.24 0.16 0.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 16--Summary of EPA's Jim Bridger Unit 4 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate Average cost (delta dv for
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized costs effectiveness Incremental cost the maximum 98th
(Annual Average) reduction (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
impact at Mt.
Zirkel)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with SOFA.......................... 0.19 4,161 $1,167,297 $281 -- 0.63
New LNBs with SOFA and SNCR................. 0.15 4,956 4,445,990 897 $4,127 0.75
New LNBs with SOFA and SCR.................. 0.05 7,108 17,712,336 2,492 6,165 1.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Bridger Unit 4 also impacts other Class I areas. The visibility
improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 17
below.
[[Page 34758]]
Table 17--Jim Bridger Unit 3: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - new impact) - new impact) - new
LNBs + SOFA LNBs + SOFA/SNCR LNBs + SOFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridger................................................... 0.56 0.68 1.00
Fitzpatrick............................................... 0.23 0.27 0.39
Rawah..................................................... 0.45 0.53 0.71
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.42 0.50 0.75
Grand Teton............................................... 0.18 0.21 0.30
Teton..................................................... 0.15 0.18 0.27
Washakie.................................................. 0.19 0.23 0.29
Yellowstone............................................... 0.17 0.20 0.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in detail above, because Wyoming relied on visibility
modeling methodologies that are inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements, we do not consider Wyoming's analysis of
visibility improvement for the NOX BART to be reasonable for
Jim Bridger Unit 3 and 4. We propose to find that Wyoming's analysis
for this Unit is inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory
requirement that ``the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
Also, we are not relying on the State's costs due to reasons stated
in section VII.C.3.b of this notice. We propose to find that Wyoming
did not properly or reasonably ``take into consideration the costs of
compliance.''
Our analysis follows our BART Guidelines. With the exception of the
NOX emission limits, the visibility improvement analyses,
and the cost effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing to find that the
Wyoming regional haze BART analysis NOX for Jim Bridger
Units 3 and 4 fulfills all the relevant requirements of CAA Section
169A and the RHR.
As stated above for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, EPA is proposing to
determine that the facts indicate that BART for the all units at Jim
Bridger is SCR when the units are considered individually based on the
five factors without regard to the status of those factors for other
units in the PacifiCorp system. However, when the five factors are
considered across all the units, EPA is proposing that BART for Jim
Bridger Units 3 and 4 is new LNB plus OFA.
EPA is proposing to approve the SIP with regard to the State's
determination that the appropriate level of NOX control for
Units 3 and 4 at Jim Bridger for purposes of reasonable progress is the
SCR-based emission limit in the SIP of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, with compliance
dates of December 31, 2015 for Unit 3 and December 31, 2016 for Unit 4.
As discussed above for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, in the context of
reasonable progress in the second planning period of the regional haze
program, we have determined it is appropriate to give considerable
deference to the State's conclusions about what controls are reasonable
and when they should be implemented. Thus, we do not find it
appropriate to disapprove the State's preferred compliance deadlines
for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4. In addition, the State is requiring
PacifiCorp to install the LTS controls within the timeline that BART
controls would have to be installed pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).
Thus, we are proposing to approve the State's compliance schedule and
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 as
meeting the BART requirements.
PM BART Determination for Jim Bridger Units 1-4
Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are currently controlled for PM with ESPs and
flue gas conditioning (FGC). The current permit limit for all four
units is 0.03 lb/MMBtu. The State determined that fabric filters were
technically feasible for controlling PM emissions. The State did not
identify any technically infeasible controls or any energy or non-air
quality environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any
of the controls evaluated. There are no remaining-useful-life issues
for this source. A summary of the State's PM BART analyses for Units 1-
4 is provided in Table 18 below. Baseline PM emissions are 1,064 tpy
for Unit 1, 1,750 tpy for Unit 2, 1,348 tpy for Unit 3, and 710 tpy for
Unit 4 based on unit heat input rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours
of operation per year.
Table 18--Summary of Wyoming's PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1-4 PM BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission rate
Control (lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost
Control technology efficiency (%) day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness
average) ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric Filter--Unit 1......................................... 66.6 0.015 709 $6,367,118 $8,980
Fabric Filter--Unit 2......................................... 79.7 0.015 1,395 6,357,658 4,557
Fabric Filter--Unit 3......................................... 73.7 0.015 993 6,337,434 6,382
Fabric Filter--Unit 4......................................... 50 0.015 355 6,367,118 17,936
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State did not provide visibility improvement modeling for
fabric filters, but EPA is proposing to conclude this is reasonable
based on the high cost for fabric filters at each of the units. In
addition, we anticipate that the visibility improvement that would
result from lowering the limit from 0.03 lb/MMBtu to 0.015 lb/MMBtu
would be
[[Page 34759]]
insignificant based on the State's analysis.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The cumulative 3-year averaged visibility improvement from
new LNB with separated OFA, upgraded wet FGD, and FGC for enhanced
ESP with FGC (Post-Control Scenario 1) across the three Class I
areas achieved with LNB and separated OFA, upgraded wet FGD, and
adding a polishing fabric filter (Post-Control Scenario 2) was 0.095
delta dv from Unit 1, 0.090 delta dv from Unit 2, 0.089 delta dv
from Unit 3 and 0.025 delta dv from Unit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its consideration of the five-factors, the State
determined the current ESPs with FGC are reasonable for BART. The State
determined that fabric filters were not reasonable based on the high
cost-effectiveness values. The State determined that the PM BART
emission limit for Jim Bridger Units 1 through 4 is 0.03 lb/MMBtu.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing approve
its PM BART determination for Jim Bridger Units 1-4.
vi. PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1-3
PacifiCorp Naughton is located in Lincoln County, Wyoming. Naughton
is comprised of three pulverized coal-fired units with a total net
generating capacity of 700 MW. Naughton Unit 1 generates a nominal 160
MW and commenced operation in 1963. Naughton Unit 2 generates a nominal
210 MW and commenced operation in 1968. Naughton Unit 3 generates a
nominal 330 MW and commenced operation in 1971. All three boilers are
tangentially fired boilers. The State's BART determinations can be
found in Chapter 6.5.6 and Appendix A of the SIP. The NOX
BART analysis for Unit 1 and Unit 2 is discussed in section VIII.A of
this notice.
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination for Naughton Unit 3
Naughton Unit 3 is currently controlled with LNBs with OFA with
permit limits of 0.75 lb/MMBtu (93-hour block) and 0.49 lb/MMBtu
(annual). The State determined that tuning the existing LNBs, existing
LNBs with OFA and SNCR, and existing LNBs with OFA and SCR were all
technically feasible for controlling NOX emissions from Unit
3. The State did not identify any technically infeasible options.
Wyoming treated Naughton Unit 3 differently than most other units
in that it did not assume that Unit 3 would first upgrade the
combustion controls. The State did not identify any energy or non-air
quality environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any
of the controls evaluated, and there no remaining-useful-life issues
for this source. A summary of the State's NOX BART analyses
for Unit 3 is provided in Table 19 below. Baseline NOX
emissions are 6,563 tpy for Unit 3 based on the unit heat input rate of
3,700 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of operation per year.
Table 19--Summary of Wyoming's Naughton Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta dv for
(lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost Incremental cost the maximum 98th
Control technology day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness effectiveness percentile
average) ($/ton) impact at
Bridger
Wilderness Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuning Existing LNBs........................ 0.37 1,167 $95,130 $82 -- 0.25
Existing LNBs with OFA and SNCR............. 0.30 2,188 1,916,039 876 $1,783 0.46
Existing LNB with OFA and SCR............... 0.07 5,542 15,682,702 2,830 4,105 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its consideration of the five-factors, the State
determined that the existing LNBs with OFA plus SCR were NOX
BART for Unit 3. The State determined the NOX BART emission
limit for Naughton Unit 3 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
EPA's NOX BART Determination for Naughton Unit 3
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. Baseline NOX emissions are 4,544 tpy for Unit 3
based on the actual annual average for the years 2001-2003. A summary
of the EPA's NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts is
provided in Tables 20 and 21 below.
Table 20--Summary of EPA's Naughton Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental cost the maximum 98th
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness effectiveness percentile
(annual average) ($/ton) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing LNBs with OFA...................... 0.33 442 $106,393 $240 -- 0.17
Existing LNBs with OFA and SNCR............. 0.23 1,673 3,896,839 2,329 $3,081 0.70
Existing LNBs with OFA and SCR.............. 0.05 3,922 12,718,731 3,243 3,922 1.51
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naughton Unit 3 also impacts other Class I areas. The visibility
improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 21
below.
[[Page 34760]]
Table 21--Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact)-existing impact)-existing impact)-existing
LNBs + OFA LNBs + OFA/SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitzpatrick............................................... 0.09 0.33 0.74
N. Absaroka............................................... 0.04 0.16 0.36
Washakie.................................................. 0.06 0.23 0.51
Teton..................................................... 0.08 0.30 0.66
Grand Teton............................................... 0.09 0.33 0.73
Yellowstone............................................... 0.07 0.26 0.57
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, the State determined that NOX BART for
Naughton Unit 3 was existing LNBs plus OFA with SCR with an emission
limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). We find this
determination reasonable given that the average cost effectiveness is
reasonable at $3,243/ton with significant visibility improvement at the
most impacted Class I area of 1.51 dv, as well as improvements ranging
from 0.36 dv to 0.74 dv at six other Class I areas.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its NOX BART determination for Naughton Unit 3.
We are also asking if interested parties have additional
information regarding the possible conversion of Naughton Unit 3 from a
coal fired unit to a natural gas fired unit as part of a better-than-
BART demonstration to the proposed requirement for the installation of
combustion controls and SCR.\38\ PacifiCorp has indicated that
converting the unit to natural gas would reduce NOX
emissions to 0.10 lb/MMbtu, and nearly eliminate all SO2
emissions. If PacifiCorp proceeds with their planned conversion to
natural gas, we seek comment on whether the interested parties think
the Agency should consider the conversion of Naughton Unit 3 to natural
gas as a BART control technology option that could be finalized as
either a FIP, or a SIP (if the Agency were to receive a SIP revision
from the State) instead of BART as proposed, with associated changes to
the proposed regulatory text as necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ At PacifiCorp's request, on December 11, 2013, EPA Region 8
met with PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp discussed the option of Naughton
Unit 3 being converted to natural gas and stated that they were
working on the analysis. In subsequent conversations with the State,
EPA learned that PacifiCorp had submitted its analysis to the State,
which the State then provided to EPA. We have included this
information in the docket (see document titled 2/19/2013 Email from
Cole Anderson, Wyoming DEQ, to Laurel Dygowski, EPA Region 8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM BART Determination
Naughton Units 1 and 2 are currently controlled for PM with ESPs
and FGC. The current permit limit for Units 1 and 2 is 0.04 lb/MMBtu.
Unit 3 is required by permit to install fabric filters for both Units
by 2014 with a permit limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. The State determined
that fabric filters were technically feasible for controlling PM
emissions for Units 1 and 2. The State did not identify any technically
infeasible controls. The State determined that a fabric filter on Unit
3 represents the most stringent PM control technology and that 0.015
lb/MMBtu represents the most stringent emission limit. Consistent with
the BART Guidelines, the State did not provide a full five-factor
analysis because the State determined BART to be the most stringent
control technology and limit.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's PM BART analyses for Units 1 and
2 is provided in Table 22 below. Baseline emissions for Unit 1 are 409
tpy and 605 tpy for Unit 2 based on unit heat input rate of 1,850
MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of operation per year.
Table 22--Summary of PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2 PM BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission rate
Control (lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission Average cost
Control technology efficiency (%) day rolling reduction (tpy) Annualized costs effectiveness
average) ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabric Filter--Unit 1......................................... 73.2 0.015 299 $3,436,594 $11,494
Fabric Filter--Unit 2......................................... 76.6 0.015 464 4,101,705 8,848
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State did not provide visibility improvement modeling for
fabric filters, but EPA is proposing to conclude this is reasonable
based on the high cost-effectiveness values of fabric filters at each
of the units, which are higher than EPA or other state have considered
reasonable for PM BART.
Based on its consideration of the five-factors, the State
determined that the existing ESPs with FGC were reasonable for PM BART
for Units 1 and 2. The State determined that fabric filters were not
reasonable based on the high cost-effectiveness values. The State
determined that the PM BART emission limit for Naughton Unit 1 and Unit
2 is 0.04 lb/MMBtu. The State determined the PM BART emission limit for
Naughton Unit 3 is 0.015 lb/MMBtu.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its PM BART determination for Naughton Units 1, 2, and 3.
vii. PacifiCorp Wyodak--Unit 1
Background
PacifiCorp Wyodak power plant is located in Campbell County,
Wyoming. Wyodak is comprised of one coal-fired
[[Page 34761]]
boiler, Unit 1, burning pulverized sub-bituminous Powder River Basin
coal for a total net generating capacity of a nominal 335MW. Wyodak's
boiler commenced service in 1978. The State's BART determination can be
found in Chapter 6.5.7 and Appendix A of the SIP. The NOX
BART analysis for Wyodak Unit 1 is discussed in Section VII.A of this
notice.
Wyodak Unit 1 PM BART Determination
Wyodak Unit 1 is currently controlled with fabric filters with an
emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). The State
determined that fabric filters on Wyodak Unit 1 represent the most
stringent PM control technology and that 0.015 lb/MMBtu represents the
most stringent emission limit. Consistent with the BART Guidelines, the
State did not provide a full five-factor analysis because the State
determined BART to be the most stringent control technology and limit.
The State determined the PM BART emission limit for Wyodak Unit 1 is
0.015 lb/MMBtu.
We agree with the State's conclusions, and we are proposing to
approve its PM BART determination for Wyodak Unit 1.
D. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In order to establish RPGs for it Class I areas, and to determine
the controls needed for the LTS, Wyoming followed the process
established in the RHR. Wyoming identified sources (other than BART
sources) and source categories in Wyoming that are major contributors
to visibility impairment and considered whether these sources should be
controlled based on a consideration of the factors identified in the
CAA and EPA's regulations (see CAA 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). Wyoming then identified the anticipated visibility
improvement in 2018 in all its Class I areas using the WRAP Community
Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling results.
1. Visibility Impairing Pollutants and Sources
In order to determine the significant sources contributing to haze
in Wyoming's Class I areas, Wyoming relied upon two source
apportionment analysis techniques developed by the WRAP. The first
technique was regional modeling using the Comprehensive Air Quality
Model (CAMx) and the PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool,
used for the attribution for sulfate and nitrate sources only. The
second technique was the Weighted Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, used
for attribution of sources of OC, EC, PM2.5, and
PM10. The WEP tool is based on emissions and residence time,
not dispersion modeling, and looks at all sources throughout the
modeling domain.
PSAT uses the CAMx air quality model to simulate nitrate-sulfate-
ammonia chemistry and apply this chemistry to a system of tracers or
``tags'' to track the chemical transformations, transport, and removal
of NOX and SO2. These two pollutants are
important because they tend to originate from anthropogenic sources.
Therefore, the results from this analysis can be useful in determining
contributing sources that may be controllable, both in-state and in
neighboring states.
WEP is a screening tool that helps to identify source regions that
have the potential to contribute to haze formation at specific Class I
areas. Unlike PSAT, this method does not account for chemistry or
deposition. The WEP combines emissions inventories, wind patterns, and
residence times of air masses over each area where emissions occur, to
estimate the percent contribution of different pollutants. Like PSAT,
the WEP tool compares baseline values (2000-2004) to 2018 values, to
show the improvement expected by 2018 for OC, EC, PM2.5, and
PM10. More information on the WRAP modeling methodologies is
available in the document Technical Support Document for Technical
Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) in
Support of Western Regional Haze Plans in the Supporting and Related
Materials section of the docket. Table 23 shows Wyoming's contribution
to extinction at its own Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Extinction and species contribution to total particulate
extinction taken from IMPROVE data (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/dev/web/AnnualSummaryDev/Composition.aspx). IMPROVE data for NOABI
based on available data for 2002-2004. Contribution of sulfate and
nitrate based on PSAT; OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10
contribution based on WEP as taken from the WRAP TSS (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/).
Table 23--Wyoming Sources Extinction Contribution 2000-2004 for 20% Worst Days \39\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
contribution to Wyoming sources
Class I area Pollutant species Extinction total contribution to
(Mm-1) particulate species
extinction (%) extinction (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand Sulfate................. 4.3 16.7 5.9
Teton National Park, Teton
Wilderness.
Nitrate................. 1.8 7.0 4.7
OC...................... 13.5 52.4 72.6
EC...................... 2.5 9.7 66.8
Fine PM................. 1.0 3.9 24.0
Coarse PM............... 2.6 10.1 20.0
Sea Salt................ 0.02 0.08 ................
North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Sulfate................. 4.9 20.7 5.6
Wilderness.
Nitrate................. 1.6 6.8 8.2
OC...................... 11.6 48.9 44.6
EC...................... 1.9 8.0 39.5
Fine PM................. 0.8 3.4 14.0
Coarse PM............... 2.9 12.2 12.1
Sea Salt................ ........... 0.04 ................
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Sulfate................. 5.0 22.2 15.4
Wilderness.
Nitrate................. 1.4 6.2 19.4
OC...................... 10.5 46.6 58.5
EC...................... 2.0 8.9 51.0
Fine PM................. 1.1 4.9 30.3
Coarse PM............... 2.5 11.1 27.4
[[Page 34762]]
Sea Salt................ 0.04 0.2 ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 24 shows influences from sources both inside and outside of
Wyoming per the PSAT modeling for 2018. As indicated, the outside
domain (OD) region is the highest contributor to sulfate and nitrate at
all Wyoming Class I areas. The outside domain region represents the
concentration of pollutants at the boundaries of the modeling domain.
Depending on meteorology and the type of pollutant (particularly
sulfate), these emissions can be transported great distances from
regions such as Canada, Mexico, and the Pacific Ocean. Wyoming is the
second highest contributor of particulate sulfate and nitrate at
Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness areas, but is a lesser contributor
at the other Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ OD denotes Outside Domain; ID denotes Idaho, MT denotes
Montana, CAN denotes Canada, UT denotes Utah, WA denotes Washington,
WY denotes Wyoming, CA denotes California, and OR denotes Oregon.
Table 24--PSAT Source Region Apportionment for 20% Worst Days \40\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area ................................. 2018 Sulfate PSAT
2018 Nitrate PSAT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Region........................... OD ID WY CAN OR OD ID WA UT OR
Park, Teton Wilderness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Contribution................... 46.5 8.1 5.8 5.4 4.6 31.3 28.2 9.4 7.4 7.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness. Region........................... OD CAN MT ID WY OD ID MT CAN WY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Contribution................... 50.1 12.5 6.5 5.7 5.5 30.7 16.7 14.8 11.5 8.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness..... Region........................... OD WY ID UT CAN OD WY UT ID CA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Contribution................... 31.1 15.3 7.6 5.9 5.1 21.8 19.3 15.6 10.6 6.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 25 shows the WEP contribution by source category for EC, OC,
PM2.5, and PM10.
Table 25--WEP Source Category Contribution for 20% Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthropogenic Natural fires
Class I area Point Area Mobile fires and biogenic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand 0.408 3.892 1.636 8.303 85.764
Teton National Park, Teton
Wilderness.....................
North Absaroka Wilderness, 0.661 9.449 2.844 11.881 75.159
Washakie Wilderness............
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick 0.984 7.552 3.28 7.644 80.543
Wilderness.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand 0.243 2.628 13.659 5.51 77.958
Teton National Park, Teton
Wilderness.....................
North Absaroka Wilderness, 0.386 5.755 23.253 7.054 63.55
Washakie Wilderness............
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick 0.54 4.509 25.65 4.105 65.195
Wilderness.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand 5.565 70.463 0.086 5.469 18.411
Teton National Park, Teton
Wilderness.....................
North Absaroka Wilderness, 3.491 86.311 0.171 3.334 6.691
Washakie Wilderness............
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick 16.311 69.195 0.081 3.618 10.785
Wilderness.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34763]]
PM10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand 2.655 83.939 0.363 0.717 12.316
Teton National Park, Teton
Wilderness.....................
North Absaroka Wilderness, 2.066 93.197 0.213 0.313 4.206
Washakie Wilderness............
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick 6.775 84.157 0.477 0.353 8.23
Wilderness.....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 25 shows that EC, OC, PM2.5 and PM10
emissions come mainly from sources such as natural fire, windblown
dust, and road dust. To select the sources that would undergo the
required four-factor analysis, Wyoming looked at State emission
inventory data in conjunction with the source apportionment information
discussed above (a summary of the State's emission inventory can be
found in section VI.E.1 of this notice). After evaluating this
information, the State determined that stationary source emissions of
NOX and SO2 were reasonable to evaluate for
purposes of reasonable progress controls. The State also determined
that emissions of NOX from oil and gas development should be
analyzed for purposes of reasonable progress. Since emissions of OC,
EC, PM2.5, and PM10 come from mainly
uncontrollable sources, the State determined it was reasonable to not
evaluate these pollutants for reasonable progress controls. The State
submitted a January 12, 2011, SIP that addresses sources of
SO2.\41\ Thus, the State evaluated emissions of the
remaining pollutant, NOX, for reasonable progress in this
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The State submitted a January 12, 2011 SIP submittal to
address the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of
the 40 CFR 51.309(g) requirements addressed in this SIP action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Four-Factor Analysis
In determining the measures necessary to make reasonable progress,
States must take into account the following four factors and
demonstrate how they were taken into consideration in selecting
reasonable progress goals for each Class I area:
Costs of Compliance;
Time Necessary for Compliance;
Energy and Non-air Quality Environmental Impacts of
Compliance; and
Remaining Useful Life of any Potentially Affected Sources.
CAA Sec. 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 308(d)(1)(i)(A).
The State performed a four factor analysis for each of the
reasonable progress sources pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
a. Stationary Sources
The State used a reasonable progress screening methodology termed
``Q/d'' to determine which stationary sources would be candidates for
controls under reasonable progress. Q/d is a calculated ratio where Q
represents (in this case) the NOX emission rate in tpy of
the source divided by the distance in kilometers of the point source
from the nearest Class I area, denoted by ``d.'' The State used the
maximum permitted emission rate for each source to determine the tpy of
NOX in the Q/d calculation. The State determined that a Q/d
value of 10 is reasonable for determining which sources the State
should consider for reasonable progress controls, since this value
yielded sources of concern similar in magnitude to sources subject-to-
BART.
The State determined there were three units with a Q/d of greater
than 10 that are not already being controlled under BART and the State
completed a reasonable progress analysis for each of the sources. The
sources are PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2 and Mountain
Cement Company Laramie Plant kiln. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 are
addressed as part of our FIP in section VII.B of this notice. In
addition, as previously mentioned, the State considered reasonable
controls on oil and gas development sources.
b. Summary of Reasonable Progress Determinations and Limits
For the subject-to-reasonable progress sources, the State provided
analyses that took into consideration the four factors as required by
section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). For the
stationary sources, the State relied on the analysis found in
Supplementary Information for Four-Factor Analyses for Selected
Individual Facilities in Wyoming, May 6, 2009, Revised Draft Report
Prepared by EC/R Incorporated. For oil and gas sources, the State
relied on the analysis found in Supplementary Information for Four
Factor Analyses by WRAP States, May 4, 2009 (Corrected 4/20/10) Revised
Draft Report Prepared by EC/R Incorporated (for a complete copy of the
reports see Chapter 7 of the State's TSD). The analyses considered
EPA's BART Guidelines as relevant to their reasonable progress
evaluations, as well as EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress
Goals Under the Regional Haze Program.
In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the reasonable progress
NOX determinations submitted by the State for oil and gas
sources and for Mountain Cement Company Laramie Plant kiln. EPA is
proposing to disapprove the State's reasonable progress determinations
and proposing to issue a reasonable progress determination
NOX FIP for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2. As
with the BART EGUs, EPA is providing revised cost analyses and
visibility improvement modeling for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 1 and
2. We are also providing the original reasonable progress analyses EPA
relied on in its June 4, 2012 proposed rulemaking. EPA's rationale for
disapproving the State's reasonable progress determination for these
units, as well as EPA's reasonable progress FIP determination, can be
found in section VIII.B of this notice.
A summary of the reasonable progress analysis and determination for
each source/source category that we are proposing to approve is
provided below.
i. Oil and Gas Sources
Background
Oil and gas exploration and production is occurring in numerous
areas in Wyoming. The sources associated with oil and gas production
mainly emit NOX and VOCs; in this context, the State
considered NOX. Oil and gas production and exploration
includes operation, maintenance, and servicing of production
properties, including transportation to and from sites. EC/R evaluated
reasonable progress control technologies for common sources in the oil
and gas industry including compressor engines, turbines, process
heaters, and drilling rig engines. The State's NOX
reasonable progress determination for oil and gas
[[Page 34764]]
sources can be found in Chapter 7.3.5 of the SIP.
NOX Reasonable Progress Determination
For compressor engines, potential control options identified by the
State include air-fuel ratio controls (AFRC), ignition timing retard,
low-emission combustion (LEC) retrofit, SCR, SNCR, and replacement with
electric motors. The State evaluated several control technologies for
drilling rig engines including ignition timing retard, exhaust gas
recirculation (EGR), SCR, replacement of Tier 2 engines with Tier 4
engines, and diesel oxidation catalyst. Potential controls for turbines
identified by the State include water or steam injection, LNBs, SCR,
and water or steam injection with SCR. NOX emission control
technologies identified by the State for process heaters include LNBs,
ultra-low NOX burners (ULNBs), LNBs with flue gas
recirculation (FGR), SNCR, SCR, and LNBs installed in conjunction with
SCR.
NOX emissions vary based on the equipment and fuel
source. Emissions from individual natural gas-fired turbines at
production operations can be as high as 877 tpy of NOX,
while emissions from individual natural gas turbines at exploration
operations can reach 131 tpy of NOX. Individual gas
reciprocating engines have comparable NOX emissions with up
to 700 tpy at production operations and 210 tpy at exploration
operations. Diesel engine emissions can approach 46 tpy for production
operations and 10 tpy for exploration operations.
Table 26 provides a summary of the reasonable progress
NOX analysis for oil and gas sources. Both the capital and
annual costs for each technology is dependent on the engine size or on
the process throughput; therefore, for most of the control technologies
listed in Table 26, the State has provided cost estimate ranges. The
lower end of the cost/ton estimates represent the cost per unit for
larger or higher production units, while the higher end of the cost/ton
estimates represent the cost per unit for the smaller or lower
production units. The capital and annual cost figures are expressed in
terms of the cost per unit of engine size or per unit of process
throughput.
Table 26--Summary of Reasonable Progress NOX Analysis for Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
control Pollutant capital Annual cost Cost
Source type Control technology efficiency controlled cost ($/ ($/year/ Units effectiveness
(%) unit) unit) ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor Engines................ AFRC................. 10-40 NOX............... 5.3-42 0.9-6.8 hp................ 68-2,500
Ignition timing 15-30 NOX............... N/A 1-3 hp................ 42-1,200
retard.
LEC retrofit......... 80-90 NOX............... 120-820 30-210 hp................ 320-2,500
SCR.................. 90 NOX............... 100-450 40-270 hp................ 870-31,000
SNCR................. 90-99 NOX............... 17-35 3-6 hp................ 16-36
Replacement with 100 NOX............... 120-140 38-44 hp................ 100-4,700
electric motors.
Drilling Rig Engines and Other Ignition timing 15-30 NOX............... 16-120 14-66 hp................ 1,000-2,200
Engines. retard.
EGR.................. 40 NOX............... 100 26-67 hp................ 780-2,000
SCR.................. 80-95 NOX............... 100-2,000 40-1,200 hp................ 3,000-7,700
Replacement of Tier 2 87 NOX............... 125 20 hp................ 900-2,400
engines with Tier 4.
Turbines.......................... Water or steam 68-80 NOX............... 4.4-16 2-5 1000 BTU.......... 560-3,100
injection.
LNB.................. 68-84 NOX............... 8-22 2.7-8.5 1000 BTU.......... 2,000-10,000
SCR.................. 90 NOX............... 13-34 5.1-13 1000 BTU.......... 1,000-6,700
Water or steam 93-96 NOX............... 13-34 5.1-13 1000 BTU.......... 1,000-6,700
injection with SCR.
Process Heaters................... LNB.................. 40 NOX............... 3.8-7.6 0.41-0.81 1000 BTU.......... 2,100-2,800
ULNB................. 75-85 NOX............... 4.0-13 0.43-1.3 1000 BTU.......... 1, 500-2,000
LNB and FGR.......... 48 NOX............... 16 1.7 1000 BTU.......... 2,600
SNCR................. 60 NOX............... 10-22 1.1-2.4 1000 BTU.......... 4,700-5,200
SCR.................. 70-90 NOX............... 33-48 3.7-5.6 1000 BTU.......... 2,900-6,700
LNB and SCR.......... 70-90 NOX............... 37-55 4-6.3 1000 BTU.......... 2,900-6,300
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming states that it would need up to two years to develop the
necessary regulations to control oil and gas sources.\42\ The State
estimated that companies would require a year to procure the necessary
capital to purchase the control equipment. The time required to design,
fabricate, and install control technologies will vary based on the
control technology selected and other factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ For all reasonable progress sources, the time necessary to
develop regulations is not a consideration under the time necessary
for compliance factor. If regulations are needed to implement
reasonable progress controls, the State must develop them as part of
the regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State determined that no additional controls for oil and gas
sources were reasonable at this time. The State concluded that
emissions from large stationary sources processing oil and gas in the
WRAP region have been well quantified over the years, while smaller
exploration and production sources that the State is evaluating for
reasonable progress have not had the same degree of emission inventory
development. The State points out that understanding the sources and
volume of emissions at oil and gas production sites is necessary to
recognizing the impact that these emissions have on visibility.
To better understand the emissions from stationary and mobile
equipment
[[Page 34765]]
operated as part of oil and gas field operations, the WRAP has been
working on developing an emission inventory to more fully characterize
the oil and gas field operations emissions. The WRAP's development of a
more comprehensive emission inventory is still in process (as of the
date of the State's SIP submittal). The State determined it cannot
complete the evaluation of oil and gas on visibility until the WRAP
emission inventory study has been completed.
The State points out that in the case of compressor engines, many
facilities have already installed control equipment.\43\ For lean burn
engines, oxidation catalysts are commonly installed, while SNCR with
AFRC are commonly installed for rich burn engines. The State also
points out that regulating drill rig engines can be problematic since
drill rig engines are, for the most part, considered mobile sources and
emission limits for mobile sources are set by the Federal government
under section 202 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Oil and gas sources are regulated by the State as part of
its minor source BACT requirements in Wyoming Air Quality Standards
and Regulations Chapter 6, Section 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the State's reasoning for not adopting reasonable
progress controls for oil and gas sources. If the State determined that
additional information was needed to potentially control oil and gas
sources, the State should have developed the information. While we
disagree with the State's reasoning for not requiring any controls
under reasonable progress, we are proposing to approve the State's
conclusion that no additional NOX controls are warranted for
this planning period. As shown by the four-factor analyses, the most
reasonable controls are for compressor engines, which the State already
controls through its minor source BACT requirements (see above). In
addition, while the costs of some controls are within the range of
cost-effectiveness values Wyoming, other states, and we have considered
as reasonable in the BART context, they are not so low that we are
prepared to disapprove the State's conclusion in the reasonable
progress context. Therefore, we are proposing to approve the State's
reasonable progress determination for oil and gas sources.
ii. Mountain Cement Company Laramie Plant--Kiln
Background
The Mountain Cement Company Laramie Plant cement kiln is a long dry
kiln with a capacity of 1,500 tons of clinker per day. Assuming the
plant runs 365 days of the year, the result is 547,500 tpy of clinker.
NOX Reasonable Progress Determination
The kiln is currently uncontrolled for NOX emissions.
The State determined that indirect and direct firing of LNBs, biosolid
injection, NOxOUT\SM\, CemSTAR\SM\, LoTOxTM, SCR, SNCR
(using urea), and SNCR (using ammonia) were technically feasible for
controlling NOX emissions from the kiln. The State did not
identify any technically infeasible controls.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's NOX reasonable
progress analyses for the kiln is provided in Table 27 below. Baseline
NOX emissions for the kiln are 524 tpy based on 2002 actual
emissions.
Table 27--Summary of Mountain Cement Company Kiln NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost
Control technology Control Emission Annualized costs effectiveness ($/
efficiency (%) reduction (tpy) ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB (indirect)...................... 30-40 157-210 $205,000 $6,568-4,910
LNB (direct)........................ 40 210 449,000 13,853
Biosolid Injection \44\............. 50 262 -127,000 1,324
NOxOUT \SM\......................... 35 183 507,000 8,023
CemSTAR \SM\ \45\................... 20-60 105-314 Unknown Unknown
LoTOxTM \46\........................ 80-90 419-472 Unknown Unknown
SCR................................. 80 419 7,553,000 82,535
SNCR (urea) \47\.................... 35 183 Unknown 1,223
SNCR (ammonia)...................... 35 183 Unknown 1,223
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ A negative annual cost is given because cement kilns receive a credit for the biosolids tipping fee paid by
facilities providing the biosolids to the cement plant. For the purposes of this analysis, the tipping fee is
$5.00/ton.
\45\ Cost effectiveness figures for the CemStar\SM\ process were not available for dry kilns.
\46\ Cost effectiveness figures for LoTOxTM were not available for dry kilns.
\47\ Capital and annual costs for SNCR have only been evaluated for preheater and precalcnier kilns. Only cost
effectiveness figures were available for dry kilns.
The State estimated that it could potentially take seven years to
install control equipment on the kiln. This estimate includes the two
years that will be necessary for the State to implement new regulations
and the one-year Mountain Cement will likely need to obtain the
necessary capital for the purchase of new emission control technology.
The State estimates the total time necessary for compliance will vary
based on the control technology selected. For example, the State
predicts that one and a half years will be required to design,
fabricate, and install SCR or SNCR technology, while over two and a
half years will be required to design, fabricate, and install LoTOx\TM\
technology.
The State determined no controls were reasonable for reasonable
progress for Mountain Cement Company Laramie Plant kiln. The State
cited that the four-factor analysis was limited, in that no guidance
was provided by EPA for identifying significant sources and EPA did not
establish contribution to visibility impairment thresholds (a potential
fifth factor for reasonable progress determinations).\48\ The State
further claims that the State cannot, per Wyoming Statute 35-11-202,
establish emission control requirements except through State rule or
regulation. Furthermore, the Wyoming statute requires the State to
consider the
[[Page 34766]]
character and degree of injury of the emissions involved. In this case,
the State claims it would need to have visibility modeling that
assessed the degree of injury caused by the emissions, which the State
does not have. The State believes it has taken a strong and reasonable
first step in identifying potential contributors to visibility
impairment, and that the next step of creating an appropriate rule or
regulation will be accomplished in the next SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ States must consider the four factors as listed above but
can also take into account other relevant factors for the reasonable
progress sources identified (see EPA's Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance''), p. 2-3, July 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the State's reasoning for not adopting reasonable
progress controls for Mountain Cement Company Laramie Plant kiln. If
the State determined that it needed to adopt a rule or perform modeling
to adequately assess and, if warranted, require reasonable progress
controls, the State should have completed these steps before it
submitted its regional haze SIP. The RHR does not allow for commitments
to potentially implement strategies at some later date that are
identified under reasonable progress or for the State to take credit
for such commitments. Nor does it allow the State to consider the time
to promulgate regulations as part of the time for compliance.
While we disagree with the State's reasoning for not requiring any
controls under reasonable progress, we are proposing to approve the
State's conclusion that no additional NOX controls are
warranted for this planning period. While the costs of some controls
(i.e., biosolid injection and SNCR) are within the range of cost-
effectiveness values that Wyoming, other states, and EPA have
considered as reasonable in the BART context, the costs are not so low
that we are prepared to disapprove the State's conclusion in the
reasonable progress context. In addition, these additional controls
only afford relatively modest emission reductions.
3. Reasonable Progress Goals
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to ``establish goals'' (in
deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility conditions for each Class I area of the State. These
RPGs are interim goals that must provide for incremental visibility
improvement for the most impaired visibility days, and ensure no
degradation for the least impaired visibility days. The RPGs for the
first planning period are goals for the year 2018.
Wyoming relied on WRAP modeling to establish its RPGs for 2018. The
primary tool WRAP relied upon for modeling regional haze improvements
by 2018, and for estimating Wyoming's RPGs, was the CMAQ model. The
CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 visibility conditions in Wyoming
and all western Class I areas, based on application of anticipated
regional haze strategies in the various states' regional haze plans,
including assumed controls on BART sources.
The Regional Modeling Center (RMC) at the University of California
Riverside conducted the CMAQ modeling under the oversight of the WRAP
Modeling Forum. The RMC developed air quality modeling inputs including
annual meteorology and emissions inventories for: (1) A 2002 actual
emissions base case; (2) a planning case to represent the 2000-2004
regional haze baseline period using averages for key emissions
categories; (3) a 2018 base case of projected emissions determined
using factors known at the end of 2005; and (4) a 2018 reasonable
progress case to represent anticipated BART controls. All emission
inventories were spatially and temporally allocated using the Sparse
Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system. Each of these
inventories underwent a number of revisions throughout the development
process to arrive at the final versions used in CMAQ modeling.
The photochemical modeling of regional haze for the WRAP states for
2002 and 2018 was conducted on the 36-km resolution national regional
planning organization domain that covered the continental United
States, portions of Canada and Mexico, and portions of the Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans along the east and west coasts. The RMC examined the
model performance of the regional modeling for the areas of interest
before determining whether the CMAQ model results were suitable for use
in the regional haze assessment of the LTS and for use in the modeling
assessment. The 2002 modeling efforts were used to evaluate air
quality/visibility modeling for a historical episode, in this case, for
calendar year 2002, to demonstrate the suitability of the modeling
systems for subsequent planning, sensitivity, and emissions control
strategy modeling. Model performance evaluation compares output from
model simulations with ambient air quality data for the same time
period to determine whether model performance is sufficiently accurate
to justify using the model to simulate future conditions. Once the RMC
determined that model performance was acceptable, it used the model to
determine the 2018 RPGs using the current and future year air quality
modeling predictions, and compared the RPGs to the uniform rate of
progress. A more detailed description of the CMAQ modeling performed
for the WRAP can be found in the Chapter 5 of the State's TSD.
The State determined that the WRAP 2018 projections represent
significant visibility improvement and reasonable progress toward
natural visibility based upon the State's consideration of the factors
required for BART and reasonable progress. The State adopted the WRAPs
2018 projections as their RPG for each Class I area. Table 28 shows the
URP and the 2018 RPGs adopted by the State.
Table 28--Wyoming's URP and RPGs for 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst days 20% Best days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduction
Wyoming Class I Areas 2000-2004 needed to 2018 CMAQ modeling 2000-2004 2018 CMAQ
Baseline 2018 URP reach URP goal projection--State's Baseline modeling
(deciview) (deciview) (delta RPG (deciview) projection
deciview) (deciview)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 11.8 10.5 0.7 11.2 2.6 2.4
Park, Teton Wilderness............................
North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness..... 11.5 10.4 0.6 11.0 2.0 2.0
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness......... 11.1 10.0 0.6 10.6 2.1 2.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34767]]
Table 28 shows that the State's regional haze SIP is providing for
improvement in visibility for the most-impaired days for the period
ending in 2018 and allows for no degradation in visibility for the
least-impaired days.
Table 28 also shows that Wyoming is not meeting the URP to meet
natural visibility conditions by 2064. In this case, 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(ii) requires the State to demonstrate, based on the four
factors in 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), that the RPGs established in this SIP
are reasonable for this planning period and that achieving the URP in
this planning period is not reasonable. In its demonstration, the State
cited many reasons why meeting the URP was not reasonable, including
the following. First, emissions from natural sources greatly affect the
State's ability to meet the 2018 URP. As discussed earlier, WEP data
shows that emissions of OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10
come mainly from natural or non-anthropogenic sources, such as natural
wildfire and windblown dust. The State has little or no control over
OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10 emissions associated with
natural fire and windblown dust. Second, emissions from sources outside
the WRAP modeling domain also affect the State's ability to meet the
2018 URP. Sources outside of the modeling domain are the single largest
source region contributor to sulfate and nitrate at the State's Class I
areas. These sources are not under the control of Wyoming or the
surrounding states.
Because the State is not meeting the URP, the State is required by
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii) to assess the number of years it would take to
reach natural conditions if visibility improvement continues at the
current rate of progress. The State has calculated the year and the
length of time to reach natural visibility as follows: Yellowstone
National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and Teton Wilderness: 2130
(126 years); North Absaroka Wilderness and Washakie Wilderness: 2136
(132 years); and Bridger Wilderness and Fitzpatrick Wilderness: 2165
(161 years).
EPA disagrees with the State's assessment that, based on the
factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(a), all reasonable controls were
implemented by the State for this first planning period of the regional
haze program. In particular, as discussed in sections VIII.A and
VIII.B. below, we find unreasonable the State's determination to not
impose more stringent NOX BART controls on certain sources
or not to impose any reasonable progress controls at PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2. As a result, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
State's RPGs, and because we are proposing to disapprove Wyoming's
RPGs, we are also proposing a FIP to replace them. See discussion in
section VIII.C below.
E. Long Term Strategy
1. Emission Inventories
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that Wyoming document the
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring, and emissions
information, on which it relied to determine its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable
progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it affects. Wyoming
must identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies
are based. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that Wyoming identify all
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment it considered in
developing its LTS. This includes major and minor stationary sources,
mobile sources, and area sources.
In order to meet these requirements, Wyoming relied on the emission
inventory developed by the WRAP. The State has provided an emission
inventory for SO2, NOX, VOC, OC, EC,
PM2.5, PM10, and NH3. The inventory
provides the baseline year 2002 emissions and provides projections of
future emissions in 2018 based on expected controls, growth, and other
factors. The following are the inventory source categories identified
by the State: point, area, on-road mobile, off-road mobile,
anthropogenic fire, natural fire, road dust, fugitive dust, area source
oil and gas, and biogenic emissions. The emission inventories developed
by the WRAP were calculated using best available data and approved EPA
methods.\49\ Following is a summary of the emission inventory for each
pollutant by source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ The methods WRAP used to develop these emission inventories
are described in more detail in Technical Support Document for
Technical Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) in Support of Western Regional Haze Plans in the Supporting
and Related Materials section of the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2
Sulfur dioxide emissions come primarily from coal combustion at
EGUs, but smaller amounts come from natural gas combustion, mobile
sources, and wood combustion.
[[Page 34768]]
Table 29--Wyoming SO2 Emissions--2002 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Percent
Source category 2002 Future 2018 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................ 119,717 96,809 -19
Area............................. 16,689 23,093 38
On-Road Mobile................... 959 81 -92
Off-Road Mobile.................. 5,866 65 -99
Oil & Gas........................ 150 3 -98
Road Dust........................ 0 0 0
Fugitive Dust.................... 0 0 0
Windblown Dust................... 0 0 0
Anthropogenic Fire............... 173 109 -37
Natural Fire..................... 2,286 2,286 0
Biogenic......................... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 145,840 122,446 -16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State expects a 16% reduction in SO2 emissions by
2018 due to planned controls on existing sources, even with expected
growth in generating capacity for the State.
NOX
NOX emissions in Wyoming come mostly from point sources
and from on-road and off-road mobile sources.
Table 30--Wyoming NOX Emissions--2002 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Percent
Source category 2002 Future 2018 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................ 117,806 110,109 -7
Area............................. 15,192 19,663 29
On-Road Mobile................... 38,535 9,728 -75
Off-Road Mobile.................. 76,637 49,677 -35
Oil & Gas........................ 14,725 34,142 132
Road Dust........................ 0 0 0
Fugitive Dust.................... 0 0 0
Windblown Dust................... 0 0 0
Anthropogenic Fire............... 782 484 -38
Natural Fire..................... 8,372 8,372 0
Biogenic......................... 15,925 15,925 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 287,974 248,100 -14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State expects NOX emissions to decrease by 14% by
2018, primarily due to significant reductions in mobile source
emissions. The State projects that off-road and on-road vehicles
emissions will decline by more than 55,760 tpy from the baseline 2002
emissions of 115,172 tpy.
OC
A wide variety of sources contribute emissions to this pollutant,
including diesel emissions and combustion byproducts from wood and
agricultural burning.
Table 31--Wyoming OC Emissions--2002 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Percent
Source category 2002 Future 2018 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................ 646 990 53
Area............................. 2,000 1,975 -1
On-Road Mobile................... 304 249 -18
Off-Road Mobile.................. 625 411 -34
Oil & Gas........................ 0 0 0
Road Dust........................ 20 26 30
Fugitive Dust.................... 96 133 39
Windblown Dust................... 0 0 0
Anthropogenic Fire............... 1,709 886 -48
Natural Fire..................... 23,793 23,793 0
Biogenic......................... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 29,193 28,463 -3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34769]]
OC emissions from all sources are expected to show a 3% decline.
Natural fire is the largest source contributing to OC emissions. The
State does not have the ability to predict future emissions from
natural fires and thus, the State held this category constant in the
inventory.
EC
EC is a byproduct of incomplete combustion. EC emissions mainly
come from mobile sources and natural fires.
Table 32--Wyoming EC Emissions--2002 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Percent
Source category 2002 Future 2018 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................ 104 180 73
Area............................. 304 335 10
On-Road Mobile................... 443 86 -81
Off-Road Mobile.................. 1,986 1,161 -42
Oil & Gas........................ 0 0 0
Road Dust........................ 2 2 0
Fugitive Dust.................... 7 9 29
Windblown Dust................... 0 0 0
Anthropogenic Fire............... 298 153 -49
Natural Fire..................... 4,922 4,922 0
Biogenic......................... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 8,066 6,848 -15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State predicts EC emissions to decrease approximately 15% by
2018. Reductions in manmade emissions of EC are largely due to mobile
sources emission reductions resulting from new federal emission
standards for mobile sources, especially for diesel engines.
PM2.5
PM2.5 emissions come mainly from agricultural and mining
activities, windblown dust from construction areas, and emissions from
unpaved and paved roads.
Table 33--Wyoming PM2.5 Emissions--2002 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Percent
Source category 2002 Future 2018 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................ 11,375 15,709 38
Area............................. 1,601 1,756 10
On-Road Mobile................... 0 0 0
Off-Road Mobile.................. 0 0 0
Oil & Gas........................ 0 0 0
Road Dust........................ 160 206 29
Fugitive Dust.................... 2,082 2,882 38
Windblown Dust................... 5,838 5,838 0
Anthropogenic Fire............... 242 129 -47
Natural Fire..................... 1,535 1,535 0
Biogenic......................... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 22,833 28,055 23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State predicts emissions of PM2.5 to increase 23% by
2018. Emission increases are related to population growth and an
increase in vehicle miles traveled.
PM10
PM10 emissions come from many of the same sources as
PM2.5 emissions but other activities like rock crushing and
processing, material transfer, open pit mining, and unpaved road
emissions also can be prominent sources.
Table 34--Wyoming PM10 Emissions--2002 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Percent
Source category 2002 Future 2018 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................ 24,751 30,619 24
Area............................. 409 653 60
On-Road Mobile................... 171 165 -4
Off-Road Mobile.................. 0 0 0
Oil & Gas........................ 0 0 0
Road Dust........................ 1,125 1,449 29
Fugitive Dust.................... 18,030 25,144 39
Windblown Dust................... 52,546 52,546 0
Anthro Fire...................... 259 109 -58
Natural Fire..................... 5,369 5,369 0
[[Page 34770]]
Biogenic......................... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 102,660 116,054 13
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, PM10 emissions are expected to increase by 13%.
increases in coarse PM emissions are linked to population growth and
vehicle miles traveled.
NH3
NH3 emissions come from a variety of sources including
wastewater treatment facilities, livestock operations, fertilizer
application, mobile sources, and point sources.
Table 35--Wyoming NH3 Emissions--2002 and 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Percent
Source category 2002 Future 2018 change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point............................ 685 1,398 104
Area............................. 29,776 29,901 0
On-Road Mobile................... 538 724 35
Off-Road Mobile.................. 41 57 39
Oil & Gas........................ 0 0 0
Road Dust........................ 0 0 0
Fugitive Dust.................... 0 0 0
Windblown Dust................... 0 0 0
Anthropogenic Fire............... 218 119 -45
Natural Fire..................... 1,775 1,775 0
Biogenic......................... 0 0 0
--------------------------------------
Total........................ 33,033 33,974 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH3 emissions are expected to increase by 3% by 2018.
Increases in NH3 emissions are linked to population growth
and increased vehicular traffic.
2. Consultation and Emissions Reductions for Other States' Class I
Areas
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that Wyoming consult with another
state if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s), and that Wyoming
consult with other states if those other states' emissions are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at its
Class I areas. The State participated in regional planning,
coordination, and consultation with other states in developing emission
management strategies through the WRAP. Through the WRAP consultation
process, Wyoming has reviewed and analyzed contributions from other
states that reasonably may cause or contribute to visibility impairment
in Wyoming's Class I areas and analyzed Wyoming's impact on other
states' Class I areas.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if Wyoming emissions cause or
contribute to impairment in another state's Class I area, Wyoming must
demonstrate that it has included in its regional haze SIP all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet
the RPG for that Class I area. Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires
that, since Wyoming participated in a regional planning process, it
must ensure it has included all measures needed to achieve its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations agreed upon through
that process. As we state in the RHR, Wyoming's commitments to
participate in WRAP bind it to secure emission reductions agreed to as
a result of that process.
The State determined it did potentially impact Class I areas in
South Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Montana, and North Dakota (see
Table 8.1.2.1-1 in the SIP). Wyoming accepted and incorporated the
WRAP-developed visibility modeling into its regional haze SIP and the
SIP includes the controls assumed in the modeling. Wyoming has
satisfied the RHR requirements for consultation and included controls
in the SIP sufficient to address the relevant requirements related to
impacts on Class I areas in other states.
We are proposing to find that the State has met the requirements
for consultation under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) and 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
3. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that Wyoming, at a minimum,
consider certain factors in developing its LTS. These are: (a) Emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including
measures to address RAVI; (b) measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; (c) emissions limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goals; (d) source
retirement and replacement schedules; (e) smoke management techniques
for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans that
currently exist within the state for these purposes; (f) enforceability
of emissions limitations and control measures; and (g) the anticipated
net effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS.
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
In addition to its BART and reasonable progress determinations, the
State's LTS contains other reductions due to ongoing air pollution
programs. The State's LTS contains numerous ongoing air pollution
programs, including: (1) New Source Review Program, which is a permit
program for
[[Page 34771]]
the construction of new sources and the modification of existing
sources; (2) Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program, which
protects visibility from proposed major stationary sources or major
modifications to existing facilities; and (3) New Source Performance
Standards, which the State incorporates by reference on an annual
basis. For a complete listing of ongoing air pollution programs in
Wyoming, see Chapter 8.2.1 of the SIP.
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
Chapter 3 of the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations
(WAQSR) establishes limits on the quantity or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources, including
construction activities. Specifically, WAQSR Chapter 3, Section 2(f),
prescribes measures to ensure the control of fugitive dust emissions
during construction or demolition activities. WAQSR Chapter 3, Section
2(f) requires any person engaged in clearing or leveling of land,
earthmoving, excavation, or movement of trucks or construction
equipment over access haul roads or cleared land to take steps to
minimize fugitive dust from such activities. Such control measures may
include frequent watering and/or chemical stabilization. EPA approved
WAQSR Chapter 3 into the SIP on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 44965).
c. Smoke Management
WAQSR Chapter 10 establishes restrictions and requirements on
different types of burning in Wyoming. WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 2
regulates open burning, including refuse burning, open burning of trade
wastes, open burning at salvage operations, open burning for
firefighting training, and small vegetative material open burning (not
exceeding 0.25 tons per day of PM). WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 3
regulates emissions from wood waste burners. EPA approved WAQSR Chapter
10, Section 2 and 3 into the SIP on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). WAQSR
Chapter 10, Section 4 was adopted by the State and submitted to EPA to
meet the requirements for programs related to fire under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(6). Chapter 10, Section 4 seeks to minimize the impacts from
private and prescribed burning on visibility in Class I areas and
potentially affected populations. EPA is proposing approval of Chapter
10, Section 4 in a separate action.
d. Emission Limitations and Schedules for Compliance
Chapter 6.5 of the State's SIP contains the emission limitations
and schedules for compliance for BART sources. Chapter 6.5 of the SIP
requires the BART sources to install and demonstrate compliance with
the State's BART determination as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after EPA approval of the SIP. For some sources
where controls have already been installed, the State specifies an
earlier compliance deadline in Chapter 6.5 of the SIP. In addition,
Chapter 8.3.3 of the SIP contains the emission limits and compliance
schedule for LTS controls on Jim Bridger Units 1-4.
e. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
The State is not currently aware of any specific scheduled
shutdowns, retirements in upcoming years, or replacement schedules,
such as planned installation of new control equipment to meet other
regulations. If such actions occur, the State will factor them into
upcoming reviews.
f. Enforceability of Wyoming's Measures
As discussed in section VII.D of this notice, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the State's SIP because it contains inadequate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements, and we are proposing a FIP
to address the enforceability of BART and reasonable progress controls.
g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
The anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes
in point, area, and mobile source emissions during this planning period
is addressed in section VI.D.3 of this notice.
4. Our Conclusions on Wyoming's Long-Term Strategy
We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove Wyoming's
LTS. Because we are proposing to disapprove the NOX BART
determinations for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4,
PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin
Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, we are also proposing to
disapprove the corresponding emission limits and compliance schedules
that Wyoming relied on as part of its LTS. Because we are proposing to
disapprove the reasonable progress determination for PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2, we are also proposing to disapprove the LTS
because it does not include appropriate NOX reasonable
progress emission limits and compliance schedules for Dave Johnston
Units 1 and 2. We are also proposing to disapprove the State's LTS
because it does not contain the necessary monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements to make the BART and reasonable progress
limits practically enforceable. Except for these elements, the State's
LTS satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), and we are
proposing to approve it.
F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Rule Requirements
Per 40 CFR 51.306(c), the State must provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze,
and the State must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first
regional haze SIP. The State did not provide for the coordination of
their RAVI and regional haze LTS. We are proposing to disapprove the
State's SIP as not meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). We are
proposing a FIP as explained in section VIII.F of this notice to meet
the coordination requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c).
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the SIP contain a monitoring
strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting regional haze
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 for
RAVI. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement
may be met through participation in the IMPROVE network. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires the establishment of any additional
monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether the RPGs for all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state are being achieved.
Consistent with EPA's monitoring regulations for RAVI and regional
haze, Wyoming states in Chapter 9 of the regional haze SIP that it will
rely on the IMPROVE network for compliance purposes, in addition to any
additional visibility impairment monitoring that may be needed in the
future.
Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that states establish procedures
by which monitoring data and other information are used in determining
the contribution of emissions from within Wyoming to regional haze
visibility impairment at mandatory Class I Federal areas both within
and outside the state. The IMPROVE monitoring program is national in
scope, and other states have similar monitoring and data reporting
procedures, ensuring a consistent and robust monitoring data collection
system. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) indicates, Wyoming's participation in
[[Page 34772]]
the IMPROVE program constitutes compliance with this requirement.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that the SIP provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator, at
least annually, for each mandatory Class I Federal area in the state.
To the extent possible, Wyoming should report visibility monitoring
data electronically. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the SIP
provide for other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. We
propose that Wyoming's participation in the IMPROVE network ensures
that the monitoring data is reported at least annually and is easily
accessible; therefore, such participation complies with this
requirement. IMPROVE data are centrally compiled and made available to
EPA, states and the public via various electronic formats and Web sites
including IMPROVE (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/) and VIEWS
(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/).
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that Wyoming maintain a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
Federal area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and
estimates of future projected emissions. The State must also include a
commitment to update the inventory periodically. The State's emission
inventory is discussed in section VI.F.1 of this notice. Wyoming states
in Chapter 9 of the SIP that it intends to update the Wyoming statewide
emissions inventories periodically and review periodic emissions
information from other states and future emissions projections. We
propose that this satisfies the requirement.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) requires that states provide for any
additional reporting, recordkeeping, and measures necessary to evaluate
and report on visibility. The State of Wyoming, in accordance with
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi), will track data related to
regional haze for sources for which the State has regulatory authority,
and will depend on the IMPROVE program and RPO sponsored collection and
analysis efforts for monitoring and emissions inventory data,
respectively. To ensure the availability of data and analyses to report
on visibility conditions and progress toward Class I area visibility
goals, the State of Wyoming will collaborate with members of a RPO to
ensure the continued operation of the IMPROVE program and RPO sponsored
technical support analysis tools and systems.
We propose to find that the State's SIP satisfies the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
H. Consultation With FLMs
Although the FLMs are very active in participating in the RPOs, the
RHR grants the FLMs a special role in the review of the regional haze
SIPs, summarized in section V.H above. Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2),
states are obligated to provide the FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation, in person, and at least 60 days prior to holding a public
hearing on the regional haze SIP. The State provided an opportunity for
FLM consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP. As required by 40 CFR Section 51.308(i)(3),
the State has included FLM comments and State responses in Chapter 11
of the Wyoming TSD.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that states provide in its regional
haze SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. The FLMs formally commented on the Wyoming proposed SIP in
November and December of 2010. The FLM comments provided support for
the modeling approach used by the State in the BART determinations and
complimented the State on thorough BART, reasonable progress, and area
source analysis. The FLMs also recommended the State reevaluate costs
and emission limits for some of the BART and reasonable progress
sources. Chapter 11 of the State's TSD provides detailed information on
the State's response to FLM comments.
Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between a state and FLMs
on the implementation of the visibility protection program required by
40 CFR 51.308. This includes development and review of implementation
plan revisions and five-year progress reports and the implementation of
other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. Pursuant to Chapter 11.2
of the SIP, the State will provide the FLMs an opportunity to review
and comment on SIP revisions, the five-year progress reports, and other
developing programs that may contribute to Class I visibility
impairment.
We are proposing that the State's SIP satisfies the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(i).
I. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports
40 CFR 51.308(f) requires a state to revise and submit its regional
haze SIP to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every ten years thereafter.
Pursuant to Chapter 10 of the SIP, the State will provide this
revision. In accordance with the requirements listed in 40 CFR
51.308(g), the State will submit a report on reasonable progress to EPA
every five years following the initial submittal of the SIP. That
report will be in the form of an implementation plan revision. The
State's report will evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs for
each mandatory Class I area located within the State and in each
mandatory Class I area located outside the State, which have been
identified as being affected by emissions from the State. The State
will also evaluate the monitoring strategy adequacy in assessing RPGs.
Based on the findings of the five-year progress report, 40 CFR
51.308(h) requires a state to make a determination of adequacy of the
current implementation plan. The State must take one or more of the
actions listed in 40 CFR 51. 308(h)(1) through (4) that are applicable
at the same time as the state submits a five-year progress report.
Chapter 12 of the SIP requires the State to make an adequacy
determination of the current SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1)
through (4) at the same time a five-year progress report is due.
We propose to find the State's SIP satisfies the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(f)-(h).
VIII. Federal Implementation Plan
EPA is proposing a FIP to address the deficiencies indentified in
our proposed partial disapproval of Wyoming's regional haze SIP. In
lieu of our proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we will propose
approval of a SIP revision as expeditiously as practicable if the State
submits such a revision and the revision matches the terms of our
proposed FIP. We will also review and take action on any regional haze
SIP submitted by the state to determine whether such SIP is approvable,
regardless of whether or not its terms match those of the FIP. We
encourage the State to submit a SIP revision to replace the FIP, either
before or after our final action.
A. Disapproval of the State's NOX BART Determinations and
Federal Implementation Plan for NOX BART Determinations and
Limits
As noted above, the State provided five-factor analyses that
considered all factors, but we find that its
[[Page 34773]]
consideration of the costs of compliance and visibility improvement was
inconsistent with regulatory and statutory requirements. In
disapproving specific State BART determinations in our proposed
rulemaking notice on June 4, 2012, we based our analysis on information
provided by the State in their BART analyses, with the exception of
visibility improvement modeling, and thus accepted the cost information
provided by the State. In this proposed rulemaking, in addition to the
other BART information in the State SIP submittal, we are basing our
proposed BART determinations on cost analyses and visibility
improvement modeling developed by EPA, as explained in section VII.C of
this notice. EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's NOX
BART determinations, and we are proposing to issue a BART FIP, for the
following units: PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp
Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin
Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. EPA's rationale for
disapproving the State's BART determinations for these units, as well
as EPA's BART FIP determinations and emission limits, are discussed
below.
We are also asking if interested parties have additional
information or comments regarding the BART factors and EPA's proposed
determinations, for example our weighing of average costs, incremental
costs, visibility improvement, and timing of installation of such
controls, and in light of such information, whether the interested
parties think the Agency should consider another BART control
technology option that could be finalized either instead of, or in
conjunction with, BART as proposed. The Agency is also asking if
interested parties have additional information or comments on the
proposed timing of compliance when the challenge of coordinating the
work our proposed SIP and FIP will require is considered.
The Agency will take the comments and testimony received, as well
as any further SIP revisions submitted by the State, into consideration
in our final promulgation. Supplemental information received may lead
the Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP regulations that reflect a
different BART control technology option, or impact other proposed
regulatory provisions, which differ from this proposal.
1. Disapproval of the State's Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1-3
NOX BART Determination and FIP to Address NOX
BART
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination
During the 2001-2003 baseline, Basin Electric Laramie River Units
1-3 were all controlled with LNBs with a permit limit of 0.5 lbs/MMBtu
(3-hour rolling average). The State determined that new LNBs, OFA, new
LNBs and OFA, new SNCR/SCR hybrid \50\, new LNBs and OFA with SNCR, and
SCR were technically feasible for reducing NOX emissions at
Units 1-3. The State determined that natural gas re-burn was
technically infeasible. The State did not identify any energy or non-
air quality environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of
any of the controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life
issues for this source. A summary of the State's NOX BART
analysis is provided in Tables 36-38 below. As discussed above, the
visibility improvement modeling results in these tables were developed
by EPA because Wyoming did not properly follow the BART Guidelines.
Baseline NOX emissions are 6,320 tpy for Unit 1, 6,285 tpy
for Unit 2, and 6,448 tpy for Unit 3 based on annual average heat input
for 2001-2003 and an emission rate of 0.27 lb/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ A hybrid SNCR/SCR system combines the lower costs and
higher ammonia slip of SNCR with the higher NOx reduction potential
and lower ammonia slip of SCR. During operation, the SNCR system is
allowed to inject higher amounts of reagent into the flue gas. The
increased reagent flow brings about increased NOx reduction, but
also causes increased ammonia slip which is then consumed by the SCR
system. The use of the ammonia slip by the SCR system can reduce the
size of the required SCR catalyst.
Table 36--Summary of Wyoming's Basin Electric Laramie River Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate the maximum
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental 98th
Control technology (30-day reduction costs effectiveness cost percentile
rolling (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness impact at Wind
average) Cave National
Park) EPA
analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFA..................................................... 0.23 936 $625,000 $668 .............. 0.08
New LNBs................................................ 0.23 936 1,360,000 1,453 .............. 0.08
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.23 936 1,944,000 2,077 .............. 0.08
SNCR/SCR Hybrid......................................... 0.20 1,639 7,429,000 4,534 .............. ..............
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.12 3,511 7,365,000 2,098 $2,105 0.32
SCR..................................................... 0.07 4,681 15,787,000 3,372 7,198 0.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 37--Summary of Wyoming's Basin Electric Laramie River Unit 2 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate the maximum
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental 98th
Control technology (30-day reduction costs effectiveness cost percentile
rolling (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness impact at Wind
average) Cave National
Park) EPA
analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFA..................................................... 0.23 931 $625,000 $671 .............. 0.08
[[Page 34774]]
New LNBs................................................ 0.23 931 $1,360,000 $1,461 .............. 0.08
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.23 931 1,944,000 2,088 .............. 0.08
SNCR/SCR Hybrid......................................... 0.20 1,630 7,429,000 4,559 .............. ..............
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.12 3,492 7,365,000 2,109 $2,117 0.32
SCR..................................................... 0.07 4,656 15,787,000 3,391 7,242 0.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 38--Summary of Wyoming's Basin Electric Laramie River Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate the maximum
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental 98th
Control technology (30-day reduction costs effectiveness cost percentile
rolling (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness impact at Wind
average) Cave National
Park) EPA
analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OFA..................................................... 0.23 955 $625,000 $654 .............. 0.08
New LNBs................................................ 0.23 955 1,360,000 1,424 .............. 0.08
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.23 955 1,944,000 2,036 .............. 0.08
SNCR/SCR Hybrid......................................... 0.20 1,672 7,429,000 4,444 .............. ..............
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.12 3,582 7,365,000 2,056 $2,064 0.33
SCR..................................................... 0.07 4,777 15,787,000 3,305 7,054 0.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State eliminated the SNCR/SCR hybrid from further consideration
because it has higher cost-effectiveness values and lower control
efficiency compared to new LNBs plus OFA with SNCR.
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined that new LNBs with OFA were reasonable for NOX
BART. The State determined that the NOX BART emission limit
for Laramie River Unit 1 is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). The
State determined that the NOX BART emission limit for
Laramie River Unit 2 is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). The
State determined that the NOX BART emission limit for
Laramie River Unit 3 is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
The State's proposed SIP required additional NOX
emission reductions for Laramie River under its LTS. Based on the costs
and visibility improvement for Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3,
the State proposed installation of two SCRs, or equivalent performing
emission control systems, at any of the three units. The State proposed
that the add-on NOX control achieve an emission rate, on an
individual unit basis, at or below 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling
average. The State proposed that the add-on controls be installed and
operational on one of the Laramie River Station units by December 31,
2018 and on a second Laramie River Station unit by December 31, 2023.
On March 8, 2010, Basin Electric Power Cooperative appealed the
additional controls proposed by the State under its LTS before the
Wyoming Environmental Quality Council. The State entered into a
settlement agreement on November 16, 2010 with Basin Electric Power
Cooperative (a copy of the settlement agreement is included in the
State's revised NOX BART Analysis for Laramie River dated
January 3, 2011). As part of the settlement agreement, the State agreed
to remove the requirement for Basin Electric to install additional
controls under the LTS. In return, Basin Electric agreed to additional
NOX emissions reductions under BART. Under the settlement
agreement, Basin Electric agreed to a NOX emission limit of
0.21 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) on all three units. Basin
Electric also agreed to a NOX emission limit for Unit 1 and
Unit 2 of 4,780 tpy and a NOX emission limit for Unit 3 of
4,914 tpy, effectively capping emissions from all three units at 12,773
tpy. In the SIP adopted by the State, the State determined the emission
limits in the settlement agreement were BART for Basin Electric Laramie
River Units 1, 2, and 3.
EPA's Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1-3 NOX BART
Determination and FIP for NOX BART
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. However, EPA disagrees with the State's baseline
NOX emissions estimates, as listed above, because the State
based its estimate on annual average heat input for 2001-2003 at an
emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu and not actual annual averages. EPA's
revised baseline NOX emissions are 6,051 tpy for Unit 1,
6,293 tpy for Unit 2, and 6,375 tpy for Unit 3 based on the actual
annual average for the years 2001-2003. A summary of the EPA's
NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts is provided in
Tables 39-44 below.
[[Page 34775]]
Table 39--Summary of EPA's Laramie River Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta dv for
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (annual reduction costs effectiveness cost 98th
average) (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
impact at
Badlands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.19 1,556 $2,268,806 $1,458 .............. 0.29
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.15 2,445 5,880,822 2,395 $4,018 0.44
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 4,880 18,146,629 3,718 5,057 0.79
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laramie River Unit 1 also impacts other Class I areas. The
visibility improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown
in Table 40 below.
Table 40--Laramie River Unit 1: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - new impact) - new impact) - new
LNBs + OFA LNBs + OFA/SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave................................................. 0.20 0.30 0.64
Rawah..................................................... 0.10 0.16 0.32
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.12 0.19 0.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 41--Summary of EPA's Laramie River Unit 2 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta dv for
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (annual reduction costs effectiveness cost 98th
average) (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
impact at
Badlands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.19 1823 $2,268,806 $1,244 .............. 0.30
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.15 2,717 5,884,257 2,166 $4,044 0.42
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 5,129 20,017,988 3,903 5,860 0.73
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laramie River Unit 2 also impacts other Class I areas. The
visibility improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown
in Table 42 below.
Table 42--Laramie River Unit 2: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - new impact) - new impact) - new
LNBs + OFA LNBs + OFA/SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave................................................. 0.24 0.36 0.66
Rawah..................................................... 0.10 0.16 0.29
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.13 0.19 0.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 34776]]
Table 43--Summary of EPA's Laramie River Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
Emission rate (delta dv for
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (annual reduction costs effectiveness cost 98th
average) (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
impact at
Badlands)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.19 1789 $2,268,806 $1,268 .............. 0.22
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.15 2,706 5,933,791 2,192 $3,996 0.33
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 5,181 18,597,027 3,589 5,117 0.67
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laramie River Unit 3 also impacts other Class I areas. The
visibility improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown
in Table 44 below.
Table 44--Laramie River Unit 3: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - new impact) - new impact) - new
LNBs + OFA LNBs + OFA/SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave................................................. 0.20 0.31 0.60
Rawah..................................................... 0.10 0.15 0.29
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.12 0.18 0.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, under the settlement agreement terms incorporated
into the SIP, Basin Electric agreed to a NOX emission limit
of 0.21 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) on all three units, and thus
eliminated other control options. We propose to find that Wyoming did
not properly follow the requirements of the BART Guidelines in
determining NOX BART for these units.
Furthermore, as discussed in detail above, because Wyoming relied
on visibility modeling methodologies that are inconsistent with the
statutory and regulatory requirements, we do not consider Wyoming's
analyses of visibility improvement for the NOX BART to be
reasonable for the Laramie units. We propose to find that Wyoming's
analyses for these units are inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirement that ``the degree of improvement in visibility
which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology.''
Therefore, EPA does not agree with the State's conclusion that a
limit of 0.21 lb/MMBtu is consistent with the BART Guidelines and
reasonable for BART for Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, which can be
achieved with the installation and operation of new LNBs with OFA.
Specifically, we propose to find that in negotiating the emission
limit, Wyoming did not properly or reasonably ``take into consideration
the costs of compliance.'' Thus, the State's BART analyses for Basin
Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 do not meet the requirements
of the regional haze regulation, and we are proposing to disapprove
those analyses and the State's NOX BART determination. We
are proposing a FIP for NOX BART to fill the gap left by our
disapproval, as explained below.
Our analysis follows our BART Guidelines. Because the Basin
Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 are similar, we are proposing
a single BART analysis and determination that applies to each unit.
With the exception of the NOX emission limits, the
visibility improvement analyses, and the cost-effectiveness analyses,
EPA is proposing to find that the Wyoming regional haze NOX
BART analyses for Units 1, 2 and 3, fulfills all the relevant
requirements of CAA Section 169A and the RHR. As discussed above in
section VII.C.3.b., Wyoming's visibility improvement analyses for these
units is inconsistent with the requirements found in the CAA and BART
Guidelines. Furthermore, we are not relying on the State's costs due to
the reasons described in section VII.C.3.a above.
In addition, the cost-effectiveness for new LNBs with OFA and SCR
ranges from approximately $3,600/ton to $3,900/ton with significant
visibility improvement at the most impacted Class I area of 0.79 dv for
Unit 1, 0.73 dv for Unit 2, and 0.67 dv for Unit 3. SCR provides
significant visibility improvement at other impacted Class I areas,
with cumulative visibility improvements of 2.12 dv for Unit 1, 1.97 dv
for Unit 2, and 2.29 dv for Unit 3. When considering the cost
effectiveness and visibility improvement of new LNBs plus OFA and SCR,
it is within the range of what EPA has found reasonable for BART in
other SIP and FIP actions. We also propose to find that the incremental
cost-effectiveness does not preclude the selection of new LNBs with OFA
and SCR.
EPA's NOX BART analyses and the visibility impacts for
Units 1, 2 and 3 is summarized in Tables 39-44 above and detailed
information can be found in the docket.\51\ We propose to find that at
an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), which can
be achieved by the installation of new LNBs with OFA plus SCR, is
reasonable and consistent with the CAA and BART Guideline requirements
for NOX BART for Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2,
and 3. Consequently, we are proposing that the FIP NOX BART
emission limit for Basin Electric Laramie River Unit 1, Unit 2, and
Unit
[[Page 34777]]
3 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Detailed supporting information for our cost and visibility
improvement analyses can be found in the Docket (see Staudt memos
and EPA BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose that Basin Electric meet our proposed emission limit at
Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, as expeditiously as practicable, but
no later than five years after EPA finalizes action on our proposed
FIP. This is consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).
We are also asking if interested parties have additional
information regarding the BART factors and EPA's proposed
determination, for example our weighing of average costs, incremental
costs, visibility improvement, and timing of installation of such
controls, and in light of such information, whether the interested
parties think the Agency should consider another BART control
technology option that could be finalized either instead of, or in
conjunction with, BART as proposed. The Agency will take the comments
and testimony received, as well as any further SIP revisions submitted
by the State, into consideration in our final promulgation.
Supplemental information received may lead the Agency to adopt final
SIP and/or FIP regulations that reflect a different BART control
technology option, or impact other proposed regulatory provisions,
which differ from this proposal.
2. Disapproval of the State's PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit
4 NOX BART Determinations and FIP To Address NOX
BART
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination for Dave Johnston Unit 3
During the baseline period of 2001-2003, Dave Johnston Unit 3 was
uncontrolled for NOX and had emission limits of 0.75 lb/
MMbtu (3-hour rolling) and 0.59 lb/MMbtu (annual). The State determined
LNBs with advanced OFA, LNBs with advanced OFA and SNCR, and LNBs with
advanced OFA and SCR were technically feasible for controlling
NOX emissions from Unit 3. The State did not identify any
technically infeasible controls.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. Baseline NOX emissions are 5,814 tpy for Unit 3
based on unit heat input rate of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of
operation. A summary of the State's NOX BART analysis and
the visibility impacts is provided in Table 45 below. As discussed
above, the visibility improvement modeling results in these tables were
developed by EPA because Wyoming did not properly follow the BART
Guidelines.
Table 45--Summary of Wyoming's Dave Johnston Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta
deciview for
Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) (30- reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th
day rolling (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park) EPA
analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB with advanced OFA................................... 0.28 2,723 $1,764,775 $648 .............. 0.77
LNB with advanced OFA and SNCR.......................... 0.19 3,717 2,679,192 721 $920 0.94
LNB with advanced OFA and SCR........................... 0.07 5,041 16,347,519 3,243 10,234 1.16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined LNBs with OFA were reasonable for NOX BART. The
State determined the cost of compliance (capital costs and annual
operating and maintenance costs) were significantly higher for the
addition of SCR. The State determined that the NOX BART
emission limit for Unit 3 is 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
EPA's Conclusions on Dave Johnston Unit 3 NOX BART
Determination and Proposed FIP for NOX BART
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. We disagree with the State's estimate of baseline
NOX emissions (5,814 tpy) because it is based on a unit heat
input rate of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of operation rather than
an average of actual annual emissions. EPA finds that baseline
NOX emissions are 4,913 tpy for Unit 3 based on the actual
annual average for the years 2001-2003. A summary of the EPA's
NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts is provided in
Tables 46 and 47 below.
Table 46--Summary of EPA's Dave Johnston Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th
(annual (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs with OFA........................................... 0.22 2,837 $1,699,807 $599 .............. 0.64
LNBs with OFA and SNCR.................................. 0.16 3,356 3,545,435 1,057 $3,555 0.76
LNBs with OFA and SCR................................... 0.05 4,433 11,262,188 2,540 7,163 1.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Johnston Unit 3 also impacts other Class I areas. The
visibility improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown
in Table 47 below.
[[Page 34778]]
Table 47--Dave Johnston Unit 3: Visibility Improvement Modeled at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - LNBs + impact) - LNBs + impact) - LNBs +
OFA OFA/SNCR OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands.................................................. 0.44 0.52 0.67
Mt. Zirkel................................................ 0.21 0.25 0.33
Rawah..................................................... 0.24 0.29 0.38
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.34 0.41 0.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not agree with the State's conclusion that a limit of 0.28
lb/MMBtu, which can be achieved with the installation and operation of
LNBs with OFA, is reasonable for NOX BART for Dave Johnston
Unit 3. We propose to find that Wyoming did not properly follow the
requirements of the BART Guidelines in determining NOX BART
for this unit. Specifically, we propose to find that Wyoming did not
properly or reasonably conduct certain requirements of the BART
analysis.
As discussed in detail above, because Wyoming relied on visibility
modeling methodologies that are inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements, we do not consider Wyoming's analysis of
visibility improvement for the NOX BART to be reasonable for
Dave Johnston Unit 3. We propose to find that Wyoming's analysis for
this Unit is inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory requirement
that ``the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
Also, we are not relying on the State's costs due to reasons stated
in section VII.C.3.a. We propose to find that Wyoming did not properly
or reasonably ``take into consideration the costs of compliance.''
Thus, the State's BART analysis for Dave Johnson Unit 3 does not meet
the requirements of the CAA and the RHR, and we are proposing to
disapprove the analysis and the State's NOX BART
determination. We are proposing a FIP for NOX BART to fill
the gap left by our disapproval, as explained below.
Our analysis follows our BART Guidelines. With the exception of the
NOX emission limits, the visibility improvement analyses,
and the cost analyses, EPA is proposing to find that the Wyoming
regional haze NOX BART analysis for Dave Johnson Units 3
fulfills all the relevant requirements of CAA Section 169A and the
Regional Haze Rule. As discussed above, Wyoming's visibility
improvement analyses for these units is inconsistent with the
requirements found in the BART Guidelines.
EPA's NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts for
Dave Johnson Units 3 are summarized in Tables 46-47 above and detailed
information can be found in the docket.\52\ The cost-effectiveness for
LNB with OFA and SCR at this unit is $2,540, with visibility
improvement at the most impacted Class I area of 1.00 dv. SCR provides
significant visibility improvement at other impacted Class I areas,
with cumulative visibility improvements of 2.92 dv. We do not find that
the incremental cost-effectiveness for LNBs with OFA and SCR precludes
the selection of this technology for BART. The cost-effectiveness and
visibility improvement are within the range that Wyoming in its SIP and
EPA in other SIP and FIP actions have considered reasonable in the BART
context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Detailed supporting information for our cost and visibility
improvement analyses can be found in the Docket (see Staudt memos
and EPA BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our examination of the cost estimates and the predicted
visibility improvement (along with a consideration of the other BART
factors), we propose to find that LNBs with OFA plus SCR at an emission
limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) is reasonable and
consistent with the CAA and BART Guideline requirements for
NOX BART for Dave Johnston Unit 3. We are proposing that the
FIP NOX BART emission limit for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston
Unit 3 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
We propose that PacifiCorp meet our proposed emission limit at Dave
Johnston Unit, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five
years after EPA finalizes action on our proposed FIP, consistent with
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).
We are also asking if interested parties have additional
information regarding the BART factors and EPA's proposed
determination, for example our weighing of average costs, incremental
costs, visibility improvement, and timing of installation of such
controls, and in light of such information, whether the interested
parties think the Agency should consider another BART control
technology option that could be finalized either instead of, or in
conjunction with, BART as proposed. The Agency will take the comments
and testimony received, as well as any further SIP revisions submitted
by the State, into consideration in our final promulgation.
Supplemental information received may lead the Agency to adopt final
SIP and/or FIP regulations that reflect a different BART control
technology option, or impact other proposed regulatory provisions,
which differ from this proposal.
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination for Dave Johnston Unit 4
Unit 4 is currently controlled with LNBs that were placed in
operation in 1976. The State determined new LNBs with advanced OFA, new
LNBs with advanced OFA and SNCR, and new LNBs with advanced OFA and SCR
were technically feasible for controlling NOX emissions for
Unit 4. The State did not identify any technically infeasible controls.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. Baseline NOX emissions are 8,566 tpy for Unit 4
based on unit heat input rate of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of
operation. A summary of the State's NOX BART analysis and
the visibility impacts is provided in Table 48 below. As discussed
above, the visibility improvement modeling results in these tables were
developed by EPA because Wyoming did not properly follow the BART
Guidelines.
[[Page 34779]]
Table 48--Summary of Wyoming's Dave Johnston Unit 4 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta
Emission rate deciview for
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (30-day reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th
rolling (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park) EPA
analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNB with advanced OFA............................... 0.15 6,142 $841,527 $137 .............. 0.71
New LNB with advanced OFA and SNCR...................... 0.12 6,626 2,141,786 323 $2,686 0.80
New LNB with advanced OFA and SCR....................... 0.07 7,435 16,430,528 2,210 17,662 0.97
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined new LNBs with advanced OFA was reasonable for NOX
BART for Dave Johnston Unit 4. The State determined the NOX
BART emission limit for Unit 4 is 0.15 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average).
EPA's Conclusions on Dave Johnston Unit 4 NOX BART
Determination and FIP for NOX BART
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. We disagree with the State's estimate of baseline
NOX emissions (8,566 tpy) because it is based on a unit heat
input rate of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of operation rather than
an average of actual annual emissions. EPA finds that baseline
NOX emissions are 5,070 tpy for Unit 4 based on the actual
annual average for the years 2001-2003. A summary of the EPA's
NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts is provided in
Tables 49 and 50 below.
Table 49--Summary of EPA's Dave Johnston Unit 4 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th
(annual (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.14 3,114 $767,342 $246 .............. 0.84
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.11 3,505 2,592,288 740 $4,665 0.95
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 4,377 13,021,894 2,975 11,951 1.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Johnston Unit 4 also impacts other Class I areas. The
visibility improvement EPA modeled at other Class I areas is shown in
Table 50 below.
Table 50--Dave Johnston Unit 4: Visibility Improvement Modeled at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - new impact) - new impact) - new
LNBs + OFA LNBs + OFA/SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands.................................................. 0.54 0.57 0.73
Mt. Zirkel................................................ 0.28 0.32 0.37
Rawah..................................................... 0.29 0.32 0.39
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.45 0.51 0.63
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not agree with the State's conclusion that a limit of 0.15
lb/MMBtu, which can be achieved with the installation and operation on
new LNBs with OFA, is reasonable for NOX BART for Dave
Johnston Unit 4. We propose to find that Wyoming did not properly
follow the requirements of the BART Guidelines in determining
NOX BART for this unit. Specifically, we propose to find
that Wyoming did not properly or reasonably conduct certain
requirements of the BART analysis.
As discussed in detail above, because Wyoming relied on visibility
modeling methodologies that are inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements, we do not consider Wyoming's analysis of
visibility improvement for the NOX BART to be
[[Page 34780]]
reasonable for Dave Johnston Unit 4. We propose to find that Wyoming's
analysis for this Unit is inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirement that ``the degree of improvement in visibility
which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology.''
Also, we are not relying on the State's costs due to reasons stated
in section VII.C.3.b. We propose to find that Wyoming did not properly
or reasonably ``take into consideration the costs of compliance.''
Thus, the State's BART analysis for Dave Johnson Unit 4 does not meet
the requirements of the regional haze regulation, and we are proposing
to disapprove the analysis and the State's NOX BART
determination. We are proposing a FIP for NOX BART to fill
the gap left by our disapproval, as explained below.
Our analysis follows our BART Guidelines. With the exception of the
NOX emission limits, the visibility improvement analyses,
and the cost-effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing to find that the
Wyoming RH BART analysis of NOX for Dave Johnson Units 4
fulfills all the relevant requirements of CAA Section 169A and the RHR.
As discussed above, Wyoming's visibility improvement analyses for these
units are inconsistent with the requirements found in the BART
Guidelines.
EPA's NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts for
Dave Johnson Unit 4 are summarized in Tables 49-50 above and detailed
information can be found in the docket.\53\ Additionally, the cost
effectiveness and visibility improvement are within the range that
Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in other SIP and FIP actions have considered
reasonable and consistent with the BART Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Detailed supporting information for our cost and visibility
improvement analyses can be found in the Docket (see Staudt memos
and EPA BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our examination of the cost estimates and the predicted
visibility improvement (along with a consideration of the other BART
factors), we propose to find that new LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at an
emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) is reasonable
and consistent with the CAA and BART Guideline requirements for
NOX BART for Dave Johnston Unit 4. We are proposing that the
FIP NOX BART emission limit for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston
Unit 4 is 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
We propose to eliminate the higher performing control option (i.e.,
new LNBs with advanced OFA plus SCR) because, although the average cost
effectiveness and visibility improvement for SCR are within the range
EPA has found reasonable in other SIP or FIP actions, we find that the
incremental cost of SCR at $11,951/ton is high enough so that it
precludes the selection of SCR.
We propose that PacifiCorp meet our proposed emission limit at Dave
Johnston Unit 4, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
five years after EPA finalizes action on our proposed FIP. This is
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).
We are also asking if interested parties have additional
information regarding the BART factors and EPA's proposed
determination, for example our weighing of average costs, incremental
costs, visibility improvement, and timing of installation of such
controls, and in light of such information, whether the interested
parties think the Agency should consider another BART control
technology option that could be finalized either instead of, or in
conjunction with, BART as proposed. The Agency will take the comments
and testimony received, as well as any further SIP revisions submitted
by the State, into consideration in our final promulgation.
Supplemental information received may lead the Agency to adopt final
SIP and/or FIP regulations that reflect a different BART control
technology option, or impact other proposed regulatory provisions,
which differ from this proposal.
3. Proposal in the Alternative for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2
NOX BART
As noted above, EPA is seeking comment on a proposal (``first
proposed approach'') to approve the regional haze plan submitted by the
State for Jim Bridger Unit 1 and Unit 2. EPA also is seeking comment on
another alternative approach (``second proposed approach'') that would
determine that BART for Units 1 and 2 at Jim Bridger power plant is
SCR, and would establish corresponding NOX emission limits
for these units that would have to be achieved within five years of our
final action. This would have the effect of accelerating the
installation of the SCR controls at these units that the State and
source owner (PacifiCorp) had proposed to install later (in the 2021-
2022 time-period). The State determined that BART for these units is
LNB plus OFA, and selected the 2021-2022 time-period for SCR-based
emission limits as a reasonable progress measure. The timeframe was
based on the large number of actions PacifiCorp is undertaking (or
helping to finance) at a large number of EGUs in Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado, and Arizona that it owns and operates or co-owns.
Under our second proposed approach, EPA would propose that it does
not agree with the State's conclusion that a limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu is
reasonable for BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, which can be
achieved with the installation and operation on LNBs with OFA. In
particular, the cost-effectiveness values that EPA calculated for LNBs
with OFA and SCR at Unit 1 is $2,393 with a 0.96 deciview visibility
improvement at the most impacted Class I area. The cost-effectiveness
values that EPA calculated for LNBs with SOFA and SCR at Unit 2 is
$2,492, with a 0.95 deciview visibility improvement at the most
impacted Class I area. Under this approach, EPA would propose to find
that the cost effectiveness values are reasonable and the visibility
improvement significant for LNBs with SOFA plus SCR. In addition, the
costs are within the range that Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in other SIP
and FIP actions have considered reasonable in the BART context. We
would propose in the alternative to find that it was unreasonable for
the State not to determine that LNBs with OFA plus SCR was
NOX BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. Though the State is
requiring the installation of SCR on Units 1 and 2 under its LTS, the
compliance date for both installations is beyond the five-years allowed
for BART sources by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv). Thus, we would propose to
disapprove the State's NOX BART determination for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 and propose a FIP for NOX BART.
Based on our examination of the cost estimates and the predicted
visibility improvement (along with a consideration of the other BART
factors), for our second proposed approach we would propose to find
that LNBs with SOFA plus SCR at an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-
day rolling average) is reasonable for NOX BART for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2. We would propose that the FIP NOX
BART emission limit for PacifiCorp Units 1 and 2 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-
day rolling average).
Under our second proposed approach, we would propose that
PacifiCorp meet our proposed emission limit at Jim Bridger Unit 1 and
2, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years after
EPA finalizes action on our proposed FIP. This is consistent with
[[Page 34781]]
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ The proposed regulatory language for this rulemaking only
covers our first proposed approach. If EPA finalizes an action that
differs from our first proposed approach for Jim Bridger Units 1 and
2, we will revise the regulatory language accordingly. If we
finalize action on our first proposed approach, the regulatory
language will reflect a compliance deadline of December 31, 2021 for
Unit 2 and December 31, 2022 for Unit 1. If we finalize action on
our second proposed approach, the regulatory language would be
revised to require compliance at Unit 1 and Unit 2 no later than
five years after we take final action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Disapproval of the State's PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 2
NOX BART Determinations and FIP to Address NOX
BART
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination
During the baseline period of 2001-2003, NOX emissions
from Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2 were controlled with good combustion
practices with NOX emission limits of 0.75 lb/MMBtu (3-hour
block) per boiler, and 0.58 lb/MMBtu (annual) and 0.54 lb/MMBtu
(annual), respectively. The State determined that new LNBs with OFA,
new LNBs with OFA and SNCR, and new LNBs with OFA and SCR were all
technically feasible for controlling NOX emissions from Unit
1 and Unit 2. The State did not identify any technically infeasible
options.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's NOX BART analyses for
Units 1 and 2 is provided in Tables 51 and 52 below. As discussed
above, the visibility improvement modeling results in these tables were
developed by EPA because Wyoming did not properly follow the BART
Guidelines. Baseline NOX emissions are 4,230 tpy for Unit 1
and 5,109 tpy for Unit 2 based on heat input rates of 1,850 MMBtu/hr
and 2,400 MMBtu/hr, respectively, and 7,884 hours of operation.
Table 51--Summary of Wyoming's Naughton Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta
deciview for
Emission rate the maximum
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental 98th
Control technology (30-day reduction costs effectiveness cost percentile
rolling (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness impact at
average) Bridger
Wilderness
Area) EPA
Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.26 2,334 $993,248 $426 .............. 0.79
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.21 2,699 1,972,363 731 $2,683 0.80
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.07 3,720 10,231,210 2,750 8,089 1.07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 52--Summary of Wyoming's Naughton Unit 2 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta
deciview)
(delta
Emission rate deciview for
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (30-day reduction costs effectiveness cost 98th
rolling (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at
Bridger
Wilderness
Area) EPA
Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.26 2,649 $945,683 $357 .............. 0.70
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.21 3,122 2,260,957 724 $2,781 0.74
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.07 4,447 12,664,919 2,848 7,852 1.10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined new LNBs with OFA was reasonable for NOX BART for
Unit 1 and Unit 2. The State determined SNCR and SCR were not
reasonable based on the high cost effectiveness and associated
visibility improvement. The State determined that the NOX
BART emission limit for Naughton Unit 1 is 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average), and the NOX BART emission limit for
Naughton Unit 2 is 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
EPA's PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 2 NOX BART
Determination and Proposed FIP for NOX BART
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. We disagree with the State's estimate of baseline
NOX emissions of 4,230 tpy for Unit 1 and 5,109 tpy for Unit
2 because these estimates are based on heat input rates of 1,850 MMBtu/
hr and 2,400 MMBtu/hr, respectively rather than an average of actual
annual emissions. EPA finds that baseline NOX emissions are
3,553 tpy for Unit 1 and 4,337 tpy for Unit 2 based on the actual
annual average for the years 2001-2003. A summary of the EPA's
NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts is provided in
Tables 53-56 below.
[[Page 34782]]
Table 53--Summary of EPA's Naughton Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate the maximum
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental 98th
Control technology (annual reduction costs effectiveness cost percentile
average) (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness impact at
Bridger
Wilderness
Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.21 2,100 $932,466 $444 .............. 0.84
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.16 2,463 2,258,826 917 $3,650 0.99
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 3,209 7,437,269 2,318 6,947 1.23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naughton Unit 1 also impacts other Class I areas. The visibility
improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 54
below.
Table 54--Naughton Unit 1: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
Visibility improvement Visibility
improvement (delta dv for improvement
(delta dv for the maximum (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum
98th percentile 98th
percentile impact) new percentile
impact) new LNBs + OFA/ impact) new
LNBs + OFA SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitzpatrick..................................................... 0.38 0.45 0.56
N. Absaroka..................................................... 0.14 0.16 0.20
Washakie........................................................ 0.20 0.23 0.29
Teton........................................................... 0.25 0.29 0.36
Grand Teton..................................................... 0.33 0.39 0.49
Yellowstone..................................................... 0.28 0.32 0.41
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 55--Summary of EPA's Naughton Unit 2 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate the maximum
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental 98th
Control technology (annual reduction costs effectiveness cost percentile
average) (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness impact at
Bridger
Wilderness
Area)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.21 2,586 $883,900 $342 .............. 0.97
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.16 3,024 2,510,049 830 $3,713 1.15
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 3,922 8,843,387 2,255 7,050 1.42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naughton Unit 2 also impacts other Class I areas. The visibility
improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 56
below.
Table 56--Naughton Unit 2: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
Visibility improvement Visibility
improvement (delta dv for improvement
(delta dv for the maximum (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum
98th percentile 98th
percentile impact) new percentile
impact) new LNBs + OFA/ impact) new
LNBs + OFA SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fitzpatrick..................................................... 0.43 0.51 0.64
N. Absaroka..................................................... 0.18 0.21 0.26
Washakie........................................................ 0.24 0.28 0.34
Teton........................................................... 0.24 0.37 0.45
Grand Teton..................................................... 0.48 0.56 0.70
[[Page 34783]]
Yellowstone..................................................... 0.26 0.30 0.37
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not agree with the State's conclusion that a limit of 0.26
lb/MMBtu, which can be achieved with the installation and operation of
new LNBs with SOFA, is reasonable for BART for Naughton Units 1 and 2.
We propose to find that Wyoming did not properly follow the
requirements of the BART Guidelines in determining NOx BART for these
units. Specifically, we propose to find that Wyoming did not properly
or reasonably conduct certain requirements of the BART analyses.
As discussed in detail above, because Wyoming relied on visibility
modeling methodologies that are inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements, we do not consider Wyoming's analysis of
visibility improvement for the NOX BART to be reasonable for
Naughton Units 1 and 2. We propose to find that Wyoming's analyses for
these Units are inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory
requirement that ``the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
Also, we are not relying on the State's costs due to reasons stated
in section VII.C.3.b. We propose to find that Wyoming did not properly
or reasonably ``take into consideration the costs of compliance.''
Thus, the State's BART analyses for Naughton Units 1 and 2 do not meet
the requirements of the CAA and RHR, and we are proposing to disapprove
the analyses and the State's NOX BART determinations. We are
proposing a FIP for NOX BART to fill the gaps left by our
disapproval, as explained below.
Our analysis follows our BART Guidelines. With the exception of the
NOX emission limits, the visibility improvement analyses,
and the cost effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing to find that the
Wyoming's regional haze NOX BART analysis for Naughton Units
1 and 2, fulfills all the relevant requirements of CAA Section 169A and
the RHR.
EPA's NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts for
Naughton Units 1 and 2 are summarized in Tables 53-56 above and
detailed information can be found in the docket.\55\ EPA's cost
analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness value for LNBs with OFA and
SCR at Unit 1 is $2,318/ton with a 1.23 dv visibility improvement at
the most impacted Class I area. The cost effectiveness value for LNBs
with OFA and SCR at Unit 2 is estimated at $2,255/ton, with a 1.42 dv
visibility improvement at the most impacted Class I area. In addition,
the installation of SCR will also have substantial visibility benefits
for other Class I areas, besides the most impacted area. The cumulative
visibility improvement is 3.54 dv for Unit 1 and 4.18 dv for Unit 2.
EPA followed the BART Guidelines in developing these cost-effectiveness
values, which are reasonable and the visibility improvement is
significant for new LNBs with OFA plus SCR. The costs and visibility
improvements are within the range that Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in
other SIP and FIP actions have considered reasonable in the BART
context.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Detailed supporting information for our cost and visibility
improvement analyses can be found in the Docket (see Staudt memos
and EPA BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our examination of the cost estimates and the predicted
visibility improvement (along with a consideration of the other BART
factors), we propose to find that new LNBs with OFA plus SCR at an
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) is reasonable
and consistent with the CAA and BART Guidelines requirements for
NOX BART for Naughton Units 1 and 2. We are proposing that
the FIP NOX BART emission limit for PacifiCorp Naughton
Units 1 and 2 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
We propose that PacifiCorp meet our proposed emission limit at
Naughton Unit 1 and 2, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than five years after EPA finalizes action on our proposed FIP. This is
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).
We are also asking if interested parties have additional
information regarding the BART factors and EPA's proposed
determination, for example our weighing of average costs, incremental
costs, visibility improvement, and timing of installation of such
controls, and in light of such information, whether the interested
parties think the Agency should consider another BART control
technology option that could be finalized either instead of, or in
conjunction with, BART as proposed. The Agency will take the comments
and testimony received, as well as any further SIP revisions submitted
by the State, into consideration in our final promulgation.
Supplemental information received may lead the Agency to adopt final
SIP and/or FIP regulations that reflect a different BART control
technology option, or impact other proposed regulatory provisions,
which differ from this proposal.
5. Disapproval of the State's PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1 NOX
BART Determination and FIP To Address NOX BART
Wyoming's NOX BART Determination
During the baseline period, Wyodak Unit 1 was controlled for
NOX emissions with early generation LNBs with emission
limits of 0.70 lb/MMBtu (3-hour block) and 0.31 lb/MMbtu (annual). The
State determined new LNBs with OFA, existing LNBs with ROFA, new LNBs
with OFA plus SNCR, and new LNBs with OFA plus SCR were technically
feasible for controlling NOX emissions. The State did not
identify any technically infeasible control options.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's NOX BART analyses for
Unit 1 is provided in Table 57 below. Baseline NOX emissions
are 5,744 tpy based on the unit heat input rate of 4,700 MMBtu/hr and
7,884 hours of operation per year. As discussed above, the visibility
improvement modeling results in these tables were developed by EPA
because Wyoming
[[Page 34784]]
did not properly follow the BART Guidelines.
Table 57--Summary of Wyoming's Wyodak Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate the maximum
(lb/MMBtu) Emission Annualized Average cost Incremental 98th
Control technology (30-day reduction costs effectiveness cost percentile
rolling (tpy) ($/ton) effectiveness impact at Wind
average) Cave National
Park) EPA
analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs with OFA........................................... 0.23 1,483 $1,306,203 $881 .............. 0.25
LNBs with OFA and SNCR.................................. 0.18 2,409 2,306,728 958 $1,080 0.40
LNBs with OFA and SCR................................... 0.07 4,447 18,910,781 4,252 8,147 0.72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its consideration of the five factors, the State
determined LNBs with OFA was reasonable for NOX BART for
Unit 1. The State determined other control technologies were not
reasonable based on the high-cost effectiveness values and low
visibility improvement. The State determined the NOX BART
emission limit for Wyodak Unit 1 is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average).
EPA's Conclusions on Wyodak Unit 1 NOX BART Determination
and FIP for NOX BART
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. We disagree with the State's estimate of baseline
NOX emissions of 5,744 tpy because these estimates are based
on the unit heat input rate of 4,700 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of
operation per year rather than an average of actual annual emissions.
EPA finds that baseline NOX emissions are 4,615 tpy based on
the actual annual average for the years 2001-2003. A summary of the
EPA's NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts is
provided in Tables 58 and 59 below.
Table 58--Summary of EPA's Wyodak's NOX BART Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th
(annual (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.19 1,239 $1,272,427 $1,027 .............. 0.24
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.15 1,914 3,787,466 1,979 $3,725 0.38
New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 3,735 14,386,417 3,852 5,822 0.71
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyodak also impacts one other Class I area. The visibility
improvement EPA modeled at the other Class I area is shown in Table 59
below.
Table 59--Wyodak: Visibility Improvement at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
Visibility improvement Visibility
improvement (delta dv for improvement
(delta dv for the maximum (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum
98th percentile 98th
percentile impact) - new percentile
impact) - new LNBs + OFA/ impact) - new
LNBs + OFA SNCR LNBs + OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands........................................................ 0.17 0.23 0.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA does not agree with the State's conclusion that a limit of 0.23
lb/MMBtu is reasonable for NOX BART for Wyodak Unit 1, which
can be achieved with the installation and operation of new LNBs with
OFA. We propose to find that Wyoming did not properly follow the
requirements of the BART Guidelines in determining NOx BART for this
unit. Specifically, we propose to find that Wyoming did not properly or
reasonably conduct certain requirements of the BART analysis.
As discussed in detail above, because Wyoming relied on visibility
modeling methodologies that are inconsistent with the statutory and
regulatory requirements, we do not consider Wyoming's analysis of
visibility improvement for the NOX BART to be reasonable for
Wyodak Unit 1. We propose to find that Wyoming's analysis for this Unit
is inconsistent with the statutory and regulatory requirement that
``the degree of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be
[[Page 34785]]
anticipated to result from the use of such technology.''
Also, we are not relying on the State's costs due to reasons stated
in section VII.C.3.b of this notice. We propose to find that Wyoming
did not properly or reasonably ``take into consideration the costs of
compliance.'' Thus, the State's BART analysis for Wyodak Unit 1 does
not meet the requirements of the CAA and RHR, and we are proposing to
disapprove the analysis and the State's NOX BART
determination. We are proposing a FIP for NOX BART to fill
the gap left by our disapproval, as explained below.
Our analysis follows our BART Guidelines. With the exception of the
NOX emission limits, the visibility improvement analyses,
and the cost-effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing to find that the
Wyoming's regional haze NOX BART analysis for Wyodak Unit 1
fulfills all the relevant requirements of CAA Section 169A and the RHR.
EPA's NOX BART analysis and the visibility impacts for
Wyodak Unit 1 are summarized in Tables 58-59 above and detailed
information can be found in the docket.\56\ In particular, the cost
effectiveness value for new LNB with OFA plus SNCR at this unit is
$1,979/ton with a visibility improvement at the most impacted Class I
area of 0.38 deciviews. The costs are within the range that EPA in
other SIP and FIP actions has considered reasonable and consistent with
the BART Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Detailed supporting information for our cost and visibility
improvement analyses can be found in the Docket (see Staudt memos
and EPA BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on our examination of the costs estimates, emission
reductions, and the predicted visibility improvement, we propose to
find that new LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at an emission limit of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) is reasonable and consistent with the
CAA and BART Guideline requirements for NOX BART for Wyodak
Unit 1. We are proposing that the FIP NOX BART emission
limit for PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1 is 0.17 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average).
We have eliminated the highest performing option from
consideration--new LNBs with OFA plus SCR. Although the cost-
effectiveness and visibility improvement are within the range of other
EPA FIP actions, we find that the cumulative visibility improvement of
1.16 deciviews for new LNBs with OFA plus SCR is low compared to the
cumulative visibility benefits that will be achieved by requiring SCR
at Dave Johnston Unit 3 (2.92 dv), Laramie River Unit 1 (2.12 dv),
Laramie River Unit 2 (1.97 dv), Laramie River Unit 3 (2.29 dv),
Naughton Unit 1 (3.54 dv), and Naughton Unit 2 (4.18 dv).
We propose that PacifiCorp meet our proposed emission limit at
Wyodak Unit 1, as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five
years after EPA finalizes action on our proposed FIP. This is
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv).
We are also asking if interested parties have additional
information regarding the BART factors and EPA's proposed
determination, for example our weighing of average costs, incremental
costs, visibility improvement, and timing of installation of such
controls, and in light of such information, whether the interested
parties think the Agency should consider another BART control
technology option that could be finalized either instead of, or in
conjunction with, BART as proposed. The Agency will take the comments
and testimony received, as well as any further SIP revisions submitted
by the State, into consideration in our final promulgation.
Supplemental information received may lead the Agency to adopt final
SIP and/or FIP regulations that reflect a different BART control
technology option, or impact other proposed regulatory provisions,
which differ from this proposal.
B. Disapproval of the State's NOX Reasonable Progress
Determinations and Federal Implementation Plan for NOX
Reasonable Progress Determinations and Limits
We are proposing to disapprove the State's reasonable progress
determination for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2, and we
are proposing a reasonable progress NOX FIP for these units,
as explained below. As noted above, the State provided four-factor
analyses that evaluated the required factors. However, due to
deficiencies in the control cost estimates, EPA conducted its own cost
analyses for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and 2. The cost analysis was done in
the same manner as described for BART sources in Section VII.C.
We concluded that it is also appropriate to consider a fifth factor
for these units for evaluating potential reasonable progress control
options--the degree of visibility improvement that may reasonably be
anticipated from the use of the reasonable progress controls. Our
reasonable progress guidance contemplates that states (or EPA in lieu
of a state) may be able to consider other relevant factors for
reasonable progress sources (see EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable
Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (``Reasonable Progress
Guidance''), pp. 2-3, July 1, 2007). We find it appropriate, in certain
circumstances, to consider visibility improvement when evaluating
potential reasonable progress controls. Thus, in the same manner as
described for BART sources in Section VII.C, EPA conducted visibility
improvement modeling for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
1. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston--Units 1 and 2
Background
PacifiCorp's Dave Johnston power plant is comprised of four units
burning pulverized subbituminous Powder River Basin coal. Units 3 and 4
are subject to BART, as described above. Units 1 and 2 are nominal 106
MW dry bottom wall-fired boilers. Unit 1 began operation in 1958 and
Unit 2 in 1960.
Wyoming's NOX Reasonable Progress Determinations
Unit 1 and Unit 2 are currently uncontrolled for NOX
emissions. The State determined that LNBs, LNBs with OFA, SNCR, and SCR
were technically feasible for controlling NOX emissions. The
State did not identify any technically infeasible control options.
The State did not identify any energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts that would preclude the selection of any of the
controls evaluated, and there are no remaining-useful-life issues for
this source. A summary of the State's NOX reasonable
progress analyses for Unit 1 and Unit 2, along with our visibility
modeling results, are provided in Tables 60 and 61 below. Baseline
NOX emissions are 2,256 tpy for Unit 1 and 2,174 tpy for
Unit 2 based on 2002 actual emissions. Wyoming did not provide
controlled emission rates in their reasonable progress analysis.
[[Page 34786]]
Table 60--Summary of Dave Johnston Unit 1 NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
the maximum
Control Emission Annualized Average cost 98th
Control technology efficiency (%) reduction costs effectiveness percentile
(tpy) ($/ton) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park) EPA
Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs............................ 51 1,150 $631,000 $528 0.37
LNBs with OFA................... 65 1,466 962,000 632 0.49
SNCR............................ 40 902 2,490,000 2,659 0.26
SCR............................. 80 1,804 3,390,000 1,810 0.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 61--Summary of Dave Johnston Unit 2 NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
the maximum
Control Emission Annualized Average cost 98th
Control technology efficiency (%) reduction costs effectiveness percentile
(tpy) ($/ton) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park) EPA
Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs............................ 51 1,108 $631,000 $538 0.38
LNBs with OFA................... 65 1,413 962,000 644 0.49
SNCR............................ 40 869 2,490,000 2,709 0.28
SCR............................. 80 1,739 3,390,000 1,844 0.58
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State estimated that it would take nearly five and a half years
for NOX reduction strategies to become effective. The State
determined that roughly two years would be necessary for the State to
develop the necessary regulations to implement the selected control
measures. The State estimated that it would take up to a year for the
source to secure the capital necessary to purchase emission control
devices and approximately 18 months would be required for the company
to design, fabricate, and install SCR or SNCR technology. Because there
are two boilers being evaluated at Dave Johnston, the State determined
an additional year may be required for staging the installation
process.
The State determined that no controls were reasonable for this
planning period. The State cited that the four-factor analysis was
limited, in that no guidance was provided by EPA for identifying
significant sources and EPA did not establish contribution to
visibility impairment thresholds (a potential fifth factor for
reasonable progress determinations).\57\ The State further claims that
the State cannot, per Wyoming Statute 35-11-202, establish emission
control requirements except through state rule or regulation.
Furthermore, the Wyoming statute requires the State to consider the
character and degree of injury of the emissions involved. In this case,
the State claims it would need to have visibility modeling that
assessed the degree of injury caused by the emissions, which the State
does not have. The State believes it has taken a strong and reasonable
first step in identifying potential contributors to visibility
impairment, and that the next step of creating an appropriate rule or
regulation will be accomplished in the next SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ States must consider the four factors as listed above but
can also take into account other relevant factors for the reasonable
progress sources identified (see EPA's Guidance for Setting
Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's
Reasonable Progress Guidance''), p. 2-3, July 1, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's Conclusions on Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 NOX
Reasonable Progress Determination and FIP for NOX Reasonable
Progress Controls
The EPA agrees with the State's analysis pertaining to energy or
non-air quality environmental impacts and remaining-useful-life for
this source. We disagree with the State's estimate of baseline
NOX emissions of 2,256 tpy for Unit 1 and 2,174 tpy for Unit
2, which were based on 2002 actual emissions. EPA's estimate of
baseline NOX emissions are 2,188 tpy for Unit 1 and 2,161
tpy for Unit 2 based on the actual annual average for the years 2001-
2003. A summary of the EPA's NOX BART analysis and the
visibility impacts is provided in Tables 62-65 below.
[[Page 34787]]
Table 62--Summary of EPA's Dave Johnston Unit 1 NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th
(annual (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs with OFA........................................... 0.20 1,226 $1,187,179 $968 .............. 0.31
LNBs with OFA and SNCR.................................. 0.15 1,466 2,087,189 1,423 $3,743 0.35
LNBs with OFA and SCR................................... 0.05 1,947 6,417,536 3,296 9,004 0.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Johnston Unit 1 also impacts other Class I areas. The
visibility improvement EPA modeled at other Class I areas is shown in
Table 63 below.
Table 63--Visibility Improvement Modeled at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - LNBs + impact) - LNBs + impact) - LNBs +
OFA OFA/SNCR OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands.................................................. 0.17 0.16 0.25
Mt. Zirkel................................................ 0.06 0.08 0.13
Rawah..................................................... 0.10 0.12 0.15
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.13 0.16 0.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 64--Summary of EPA's Dave Johnston Unit 2 NOX Reasonable Progress Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
improvement
(delta dv for
Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum
Control technology (lb/MMBtu) reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th
(annual (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile
average) impact at Wind
Cave National
Park)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNBs with OFA........................................... 0.20 1,180 $1,188,797 $1,007 .............. 0.29
LNBs with OFA and SNCR.................................. 0.15 1,425 2,100,619 1,474 $3,718 0.33
LNBs with OFA and SCR................................... 0.05 1,916 6,432,035 3,357 8,830 0.42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Johnston Unit 1 also impacts other Class I areas. The
visibility improvement EPA modeled at other Class I areas is shown in
Table 65 below.
Table 65--Visibility Improvement Modeled at Other Class I Areas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Visibility Visibility
improvement improvement improvement
(delta dv for (delta dv for (delta dv for
Class I area the maximum 98th the maximum 98th the maximum 98th
percentile percentile percentile
impact) - LNBs + impact) - LNBs + impact) - LNBs +
OFA OFA/SNCR OFA/SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands.................................................. 0.14 0.17 0.24
Mt. Zirkel................................................ 0.06 0.09 0.12
Rawah..................................................... 0.09 0.11 0.15
Rocky Mountain............................................ 0.13 0.16 0.21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the State's reasoning for not adopting reasonable
progress controls for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2. If the State
determined that it needed to adopt a rule or perform modeling to
adequately assess and, if warranted, require reasonable progress
controls, the State should have completed these steps before it
submitted its regional haze SIP. The RHR does not allow for commitments
to potentially implement strategies at some later date that are
identified under reasonable progress or for the State to take credit
for such commitments.
[[Page 34788]]
In addition, the cost effectiveness value for LNBs with OFA at Unit
1 is $968/ton and $1,007/ton at Unit 2. These values are very
reasonable and far less than some of the cost effectiveness values the
State found reasonable in making its BART determinations. Given
predicted visibility improvement of approximately 0.30 deciviews per
unit at the most impacted Class I area and the fact that Wyoming's
reasonable progress goals will not meet the URP, we find that it was
unreasonable for the State to reject these very inexpensive controls.
Thus, we are proposing to disapprove the State's NOX
reasonable progress determination for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2
and proposing a FIP for NOX reasonable progress controls as
explained below.
Based on our examination of the State's costs estimates, emission
reductions, and the predicted visibility improvement, we propose to
find that LNBs with OFA at an emission limit of 0.22 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) is reasonable for NOX reasonable progress
controls for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. We are proposing that the FIP
NOX reasonable progress emission limit for PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 0.22 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
We propose that PacifiCorp meet our proposed emission limit at Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2 as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than July 31, 2018. This is consistent with the requirement that the
SIP cover an initial planning period that ends July 31, 2018.
C. Reasonable Progress Goals
We are proposing to impose reasonable progress controls on Dave
Johnston Units 1 and 2, as well as more stringent NOX BART
controls on PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp
Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin
Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, than WRAP assumed in modeling
Wyoming's RPGs.
We could not re-run the WRAP modeling due to time and resource
constraints, but anticipate that the additional controls would result
in an increase in visibility improvement during the 20% worst days. As
noted in our analyses, many of our proposed controls would result in
significant incremental visibility benefits when modeled against
natural background. We anticipate that this would translate into
measurable improvement if modeled on the 20% best days as well. While
we expect our proposed controls will result in additional visibility
improvement, we do not expect that these improvements will result in
the State achieving the URP. For some of the reasons discussed in
section VII.D.3, in particular, emissions from sources outside the WRAP
modeling domain, along with our consideration of the statutory
reasonable progress factors, we find it reasonable for the State to not
achieve the URP during this planning period. We expect the State to
quantify the visibility improvement in its next regional haze SIP
revision.
For purposes of this action, we are proposing RPGs that are
consistent with the additional controls we are proposing. While we
would prefer to quantify the RPGs, we note that the RPGs themselves are
not enforceable values. The more critical elements for our FIP are the
emissions limits we are proposing to impose, which will be enforceable.
D. Federal Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements
The CAA requires that SIPs, including the regional haze SIP,
contain elements sufficient to ensure emission limits are practically
enforceable.\58\ Other applicable regulatory provisions are contained
in Appendix V to Part 51--Criteria for Determining the Completeness of
Plan Submissions.\59\ We are proposing to find that the State's
regional haze SIP does not contain adequate monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements. Chapter 6.4, Section V of the SIP contains
monitoring and reporting requirements that we find inadequate for
numerous reasons, summarized as follows: (1) The State's language
includes references to WAQSR Chapters that EPA has not approved as part
of the SIP and are thus not federally enforceable. These references
should be to the appropriate sections in the CFR; (2) Definitions have
not been included; (3) The State's language allows for data
substitution pursuant to 40 CFR part 75. The data substitution
procedures of 40 CFR part 75 were never intended to apply to BART
sources; (4) There are numerous language clarifications and rewordings
needed; and (5) The State did not include appropriate recordkeeping
language.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ CAA Section 110(a)(2) states that SIPs ``shall (A) include
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means,
or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees,
marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter; (C)
include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures
described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification
and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered
by the plan as necessary to assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved, including a permit program as required in
parts C and D of this subchapter; (F) require, as may be prescribed
by the Administrator--(i) the installation, maintenance, and
replacement of equipment, and the implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of stationary sources to monitor
emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and
amounts of emissions and emissions-related data from such sources,
and (iii) correlation of such reports by the State agency with any
emission limitations or standards established pursuant to this
chapter, which reports shall be available at reasonable times for
public inspection''
\59\ Appendix V part 51 states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs
contain: ``(g) Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations,
work practice standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements,
where necessary, to ensure emission levels''; and ``(h) Compliance/
enforcement strategies, including how compliance will be determined
in practice.''
\60\ On July 6, 2011, EPA sent an email to the State with
detailed comments (that are summarized above) on the State's
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter
6.4, Section V of the SIP. The July 6, 2011 email from Laurel
Dygowski, EPA Region 8, to Tina Anderson, State of Wyoming, is
included in the Supporting and Related Materials section of the
docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to disapprove the State's monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
EPA is proposing regulatory language as part of our FIP that specifies
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for all BART and
reasonable progress sources. For purposes of consistency, EPA is
proposing to adopt language that is the same as we have adopted for
other states in Region 8.
E. Federal Implementation Plan for the Long-Term Strategy
We are proposing regulatory language as part of our FIP that
specifies NOX emission limits and compliance schedules for
the following sources: PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1-4, PacifiCorp
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2,
PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2,
and 3. We are also proposing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for all BART SIP and FIP sources and for Dave Johnston
Units 1 and 2. We are proposing this regulatory language to fill the
gap in the LTS that would be left by our proposed partial disapproval
of the LTS.
F. Federal Implementation Plan for Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Long-Term Strategy
In response to EPA's RAVI rules, Wyoming adopted WAQSR Chapter 9,
Section 2. EPA approved WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2 as part of the SIP
on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). As discussed above, the State is
required to coordinate the review of its RAVI and regional haze LTS and
conduct the
[[Page 34789]]
reviews together. WAQSR Chapter 9, Section 2(f) requires the State to
review its RAVI LTS every three years, which does not coordinate with
the five-year review for the State's regional haze LTS. Thus, we are
proposing to disapprove the State's SIP because it does not meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). We are proposing a FIP in which EPA
commits to coordinating the State's RAVI LTS review with the regional
haze LTS review. Thus, EPA is committing to provide a review of the
State's RAVI LTS every five years in coordination with the State's
regional haze LTS review. EPA is proposing that our review of the
State's RAVI LTS will follow those items as indicated by 40 CFR
51.306(c).
IX. EPA's Proposed Action
EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove a
regional haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January
12, 2011. Specifically, we are proposing to disapprove the following:
The State's NOX BART determinations for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1
and Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River
Units 1, 2, and 3.
The State's NOX reasonable progress
determination for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
Wyoming's RPGs.
The State's monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in
Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
Portions of the State's LTS that rely on or reflect other
aspects of the regional haze SIP we are proposing to disapprove.
The provisions necessary to meet the requirements for the
coordination of the review of the RAVI and the regional haze LTS.
We are proposing to approve the remaining aspects of the State's
January 12, 2011, SIP submittal. We are also seeking comment on an
alternative proposal related to the State's NOX BART
determination for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.
We are proposing the promulgation of a FIP to address the
deficiencies in the Wyoming regional haze SIP that we have identified
in this proposal. The proposed FIP includes the following elements:
NOX BART determinations and limits for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1
and Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River
Units 1, 2, and 3.
NOX reasonable progress determination and
limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
RPGs consistent with the SIP limits proposed for approval
and the proposed FIP limits.
Monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting requirements
applicable to all BART and reasonable progress sources for which there
is a SIP or FIP emissions limit.
LTS elements pertaining to emission limits and compliance
schedules for the proposed BART and reasonable progress FIP limits.
Provisions to ensure the coordination of the RAVI and
regional haze LTS.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). As discussed in section C below, the
proposed FIP applies to only five facilities. It is therefore not a
rule of general applicability.
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.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the proposed FIP applies
to just five facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply.
See 5 CFR 1320(c).
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 proposed 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 today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Regional
Haze FIP that EPA is proposing for purposes of the regional haze
program consists of imposing federal controls to meet the BART
requirement for NOX emissions on specific units at five
sources in Wyoming, and imposing controls to meet the reasonable
progress requirement for NOX emissions at one additional
source in Wyoming. The net result of this FIP action is that EPA is
proposing direct emission controls on selected units at only five
sources. The sources in question are each large electric generating
plants that are not owned by small entities, and therefore are not
small entities. The proposed partial approval of the SIP, if finalized,
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-
Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985)
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA
rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA
generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
[[Page 34790]]
205 of UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable
law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows EPA to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any one year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism 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 state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states,
on the relationship between the national government and the states, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely addresses the State not fully meeting its obligation to prohibit
emissions from interfering with other states measures to protect
visibility established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and
state and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this
proposed rule from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it implements specific standards established by Congress
in statutes. However, to the extent this proposed rule will limit
emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM, the rule will have
a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.
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(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
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.
We have determined that this proposed action, if finalized, 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 proposed rule limits emissions
of NOX from five facilities in Wyoming.
[[Page 34791]]
The partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
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, does not
apply because this action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 23, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart ZZ--Wyoming
0
2. Add section 52.2636 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2636 Federal implementation plan for regional haze.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ The proposed regulatory language only reflects our proposed
action. If EPA's final action differs from our proposed action, the
regulatory language will be amended, as necessary, to reflect the
Agency's final decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to approve the State's BART determination:
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant Units NS-1A and NS-1B (PM and
NOX);
TATA Chemicals Partners (previously General Chemical) Boilers C and
D (PM and NOX);
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1, 2,
and 3 (PM);
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 3 (PM);
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 4 (PM);
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant Units 1, 2, 3, and 4
(NOX and PM);
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Unit 3 (PM and NOX);
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 (PM); and
PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1 (PM).
This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to disapprove the State's BART determination and issue a
NOX BART Federal Implementation Plan:
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1, 2,
and 3;
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 3;
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Unit 4;
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2; and
PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1.
This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
proposes to disapprove the State's reasonable progress determinations
and issue a reasonable progress determination NOX Federal
Implementation Plan: PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant Units 1 and
2.
(b) Definitions. Terms not defined below shall have the meaning
given them in the Clean Air Act or EPA's regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act. For purposes of this section:
(1) BART means Best Available Retrofit Technology.
(2) BART unit means any unit subject to a Regional Haze emission
limit in Table 1 and Table 2 of this section.
(3) CAM means Compliance Assurance Monitoring as required by 40 CFR
part 64.
(4) Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the
equipment required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and
provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes
(using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a
permanent record of NOX emissions, diluent, or stack gas
volumetric flow rate.
(5) FIP means Federal Implementation Plan.
(6) Lb/hr means pounds per hour.
(7) Lb/MMBtu means pounds per million British thermal units of heat
input to the fuel-burning unit.
(8) NOX means nitrogen oxides.
(9) Operating day means a 24-hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time
in the BART or RP unit. It is not necessary for fuel to be combusted
for the entire 24-hour period.
(10) The owner/operator means any person who owns or who operates,
controls, or supervises a unit identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(11) PM means filterable total particulate matter.
(12) RP unit means any Reasonable Progress unit subject to a
Regional Haze emission limit in Table 3 of this section.
(13) Unit means any of the units identified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) Emissions limitations.
(1) The owners/operators of emissions units subject to this section
shall not emit, or cause to be emitted, PM or NOX in excess
of the following limitations:
Table 1--Emission Limits for BART Units for Which EPA Proposes To
Approve the State's BART Determination
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM Emission NOX Emission
limits limits
Source name/BART unit -------------------------------
lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-1A..... 0.05 0.35
FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS-1B..... 0.05 0.35
TATA Chemicals Partners (General 0.09 0.28
Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/
Boiler C...............................
TATA Chemicals Partners (General 0.09 0.28
Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/
Boiler D...............................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie 0.03 N/A
River Station/Unit 1...................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie 0.03 N/A
River Station/Unit 2...................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie 0.03 N/A
River Station/Unit 3...................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/ 0.015 N/A
Unit 3.................................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/ 0.015 N/A
Unit 4.................................
[[Page 34792]]
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 0.03 0.07
1......................................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 0.03 0.07
2......................................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 0.03 0.07
3......................................
Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 0.03 0.07
4......................................
Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1.. 0.04 N/A
Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2.. 0.04 N/A
Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 3.. 0.015 0.07
Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1.... 0.015 N/A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Emission Limits for BART Units for Which EPA Proposes To
Disapprove the State's BART Determination and Implement a FIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emission
Source name/BART unit limit (lb/
MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/ 0.07
Unit 1.................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/ 0.07
Unit 2.................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/ 0.07
Unit 3.................................................
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 3............. 0.07
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 4............. 0.12
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1.................. 0.07
PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2.................. 0.07
Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1.................... 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Emission Limits for RP Units for Which EPA Proposes To
Disapprove the State's RP Determination and Implement a FIP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emission
Source name/RP unit limit (lb/
MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 1............. 0.22
Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 2............. 0.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) These emission limitations shall apply at all times, including
startups, shutdowns, emergencies, and malfunctions.
(d) Compliance date.
(1) The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 and
Unit 4 shall comply with the emission limitations and other
requirements of this section by December 31, 2015, for Unit 3 and
December 31, 2016, for Unit 4.
(2) The owners and operators of the other BART and RP sources
subject to this section shall comply with the emissions limitations and
other requirements of this section within five years of the effective
date of this rule.
(e) Compliance determinations for NOX.
(1) For all BART and RP units other than Trona Plant units:
(i) CEMS. At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure
NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each
unit. The CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
(ii) Method.
(A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NOX
concentration in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average
emission rate in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
(B) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu or
lb/hr is valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified
in 40 CFR part 75, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration
monitor (NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
(C) Compliance with tons-per-year emission limits shall be
calculated on a rolling 12-month basis. At the end of each calendar
month, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 12-month
rolling average emission rate from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current month and the
previous 11 months and the report the result in tons.
(D) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
(2) For all Trona Plant BART units:
(i) CEMS. At all times after the compliance date specified in
paragraph
[[Page 34793]]
(d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall maintain,
calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the requirements
found at 40 CFR part 60, to accurately measure NOX, diluent,
and stack gas volumetric flow rate from each unit, including the CEMS
quality assurance requirements in appendix F of 40 CFR part 60. The
CEMS shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitations in paragraph (c) of this section for each unit.
(ii) Method.
(A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NOX
concentration in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 60. At the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average
emission rate in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic average of all
valid hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day
and the previous 29 successive operating days.
(B) An hourly average NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu or
lb/hr is valid only if the minimum number of data points, as specified
in 40 CFR part 60, is acquired by both the pollutant concentration
monitor (NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
(C) Compliance with tons-per-year emission limits shall be
calculated on a rolling 12-month basis. At the end of each calendar
month, the owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 12-month
rolling average emission rate from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current month and the
previous 11 months and report results in tons.
(f) Compliance determinations for particulate matter.
Compliance with the particulate matter emission limit for each BART
and RP unit shall be determined from annual performance stack tests.
Within 60 days of the compliance deadline specified in section (d), and
on at least an annual basis thereafter, the owner/operator of each unit
shall conduct a stack test on each unit to measure particulate
emissions using EPA Method 5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as appropriate, in 40 CFR
part 60, Appendix A. A test shall consist of three runs, with each run
at least 120 minutes in duration and each run collecting a minimum
sample of 60 dry standard cubic feet. Results shall be reported in lb/
MMBtu and lb/hr. In addition to annual stack tests, the owner/operator
shall monitor particulate emissions for compliance with the BART
emission limits in accordance with the applicable Compliance Assurance
Monitoring (CAM) plan developed and approved by the State in accordance
with 40 CFR part 64.
(g) Recordkeeping. The owner/operator shall maintain the following
records for at least five years:
(1) All CEMS data, including the date, place, and time of sampling
or measurement; parameters sampled or measured; and results.
(2) Records of quality assurance and quality control activities for
emissions measuring systems including, but not limited to, any records
required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, records of
quality assurance and quality control activities for emissions
measuring systems including, but not limited to appendix F of 40 CFR
part 60.
(3) Records of all major maintenance activities conducted on
emission units, air pollution control equipment, and CEMS.
(4) Any other CEMS records required by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for
Trona Plant units, any other CEMs records required by 40 CFR part 60.
(5) Records of all particulate stack test results.
(6) All data collected pursuant to the CAM plan.
(h) Reporting. All reports under this section shall be submitted to
the Director, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental
Justice, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mail Code
8ENF-AT, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
(1) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly excess
emissions reports for NOX BART and RP units no later than
the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter. Excess
emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include the magnitude,
date(s), and duration of each period of excess emissions, specific
identification of each period of excess emissions that occurs during
startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit, the nature and cause
of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective action taken or
preventative measures adopted. The owner/operator shall also submit
reports of any exceedances of tons-per-year emission limits.
(2) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly CEMS
performance reports, to include dates and duration of each period
during which the CEMS was inoperative (except for zero and span
adjustments and calibration checks), reason(s) why the CEMS was
inoperative and steps taken to prevent recurrence, and any CEMS repairs
or adjustments. The owner/operator of each unit shall also submit
results of any CEMS performance tests required by 40 CFR part 75. Or,
for Trona Plant units, the owner/operator of each unit shall also
submit results of any CEMs performance test required appendix F of 40
CFR part 60 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, Relative Accuracy Audits,
and Cylinder Gas Audits).
(3) When no excess emissions have occurred or the CEMS has not been
inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during the reporting period, such
information shall be stated in the quarterly reports required by
sections (h)(1) and (2) above.
(4) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit results of any
particulate matter stack tests conducted for demonstrating compliance
with the particulate matter BART limits in section (c) above, within 60
calendar days after completion of the test.
(5) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit semi-annual
reports of any excursions under the approved CAM plan in accordance
with the schedule specified in the source's title V permit.
(i) Notifications.
(1) The owner/operator shall submit notification of commencement of
construction of any equipment which is being constructed to comply with
the NOX emission limits in paragraph (c) of this section.
(2) The owner/operator shall submit semi-annual progress reports on
construction of any such equipment.
(3) The owner/operator shall submit notification of initial startup
of any such equipment.
(j) Equipment operation. At all times, the owner/operator shall
maintain each unit, including associated air pollution control
equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control
practices for minimizing emissions.
(k) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this section shall preclude the
use, including the exclusive use, of any credible evidence or
information, relevant to whether a source would have been in compliance
with requirements of this section if the appropriate performance or
compliance test procedures or method had been performed.
0
3. Add section 52.2637 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2637 Federal implementation plan for reasonable attributable
visibility impairment long-term strategy.
As required by 40 CFR 41.306(c), EPA will ensure that the review of
the State's reasonably attributable visibility
[[Page 34794]]
impairment long-term strategy is coordinated with the regional haze
long-term strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA's review will be in
accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c).
[FR Doc. 2013-13611 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P