[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74818-74892]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28930]
[[Page 74817]]
Vol. 79
Tuesday,
No. 241
December 16, 2014
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and Oklahoma;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan to Address Pollution Affecting Visibility and
Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze and
Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 2014 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 74818]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0754; FRL-9920-11-Region-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and
Oklahoma; Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate
Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting
Visibility and Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional
Haze and Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Texas
State Implementation Plan (SIP) received from the State of Texas on
March 31, 2009, that addresses regional haze for the first planning
period from 2008 through 2018. This SIP revision was submitted to
address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's rules
that require states to prevent any future, and remedy any existing,
manmade impairment of visibility to assure reasonable progress toward
the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. The EPA is proposing to partially approve this SIP revision as
meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program, including
the majority of the requirement to procure and install the Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) at certain categories of existing
major stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977. The EPA is also
proposing to partially disapprove the SIP revision for not adequately
addressing other requirements of the regional haze program related to
reasonable progress, the long-term strategy, and the calculation of
natural visibility conditions. The EPA is also proposing to disapprove
SIP revisions submitted by Texas for the purpose of addressing the
requirements of the CAA regarding interference with other states'
programs for visibility protection for the 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), the
1997 ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, the 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) NAAQS, and the 2010
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS.
Finally, the EPA is proposing to partially disapprove a revision to
the Oklahoma SIP submitted in February 19, 2010, that addresses
regional haze for the first planning period. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to disapprove Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for
the Wichita Mountains Class I area.
The EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for each
Texas and Oklahoma to remedy certain deficiencies in the SIP. The
proposed FIP would implement SO2 emission limits on fifteen
Texas sources as part of a long-term strategy for making reasonable
progress at three Class I areas in Texas and Oklahoma, sets new RPGs
for the Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, and Wichita Mountains Class
I areas, and substitutes Texas' reliance on the Clean Air Interstate
Rule (CAIR) to satisfy BART requirements at its EGUs with reliance on
CAIR's successor, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Our
proposed FIP for Oklahoma does not establish any additional
requirements on sources within Oklahoma. The EPA is taking this action
under the CAA.
Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2015.
Public Hearings. EPA is holding open houses--for the purpose of
providing additional information and informal discussion for our
proposal, and public hearings--to accept oral comments into the record,
as follows:
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015.
Time: Open House: 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
Public hearing: 4:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m. (including short break).
Location: Eastview Campus, Austin Community College, Building
8500, Room 8500, 3401 Webberville Road, Austin, Texas 78702.
Date: Thursday, January 15, 2015.
Time: Open House: 2:30 p.m.-4:30 p.m.
Public hearing: 5:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m.
Location: Metro Technology Centers, Springlake Campus, Business
Conference Center Meeting, Room H, 1900 Springlake Drive, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma 73111.
The public hearings will provide interested parties the opportunity
to present information and opinions to EPA concerning our proposal.
Interested parties may also submit written comments, as discussed in
the proposal. Written statements and supporting information submitted
during the comment period will be considered with the same weight as
any oral comments and supporting information presented at the public
hearing. We will not respond to comments during the public hearings.
When we publish our final action, we will provide written responses to
all significant oral and written comments received on our proposal. To
provide opportunities for questions and discussion, we will hold an
open house prior to each public hearing. During the open house, EPA
staff will be available to informally answer questions on our proposed
action. Any comments made to EPA staff during an open house must still
be provided orally during one of the public hearings, or formally in
writing within 30 days after completion of the hearings, in order to be
considered in the record.
At the public hearings, the hearing officer may limit the time
available for each commenter to address the proposal to three minutes
or less if the hearing officer determines it to be appropriate. We will
not be providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or
make computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written
or oral comments and data pertaining to our proposal at the public
hearings. Verbatim English language transcripts of the hearing and
written statements will be included in the rulemaking docket.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2014-0754, by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Email: [email protected].
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2014-
0754. Our policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an
[[Page 74819]]
``anonymous access'' system, which means we 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 us without going
through 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, we recommend 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 we cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, we 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.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
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
at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at our Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The Texas regional haze SIP is available online at: https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/sip/bart/haze_sip.html. It is also
available for public inspection during official business hours, by
appointment, at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Office
of Air Quality, 12124 Park 35 Circle, Austin, Texas 78753.
The Oklahoma regional haze SIP is available online at: http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/SIP/index.htm. It is also available for public inspection during official
business hours, by appointment, at the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, 707 North Robinson Avenue,
Oklahoma City, OK 73102.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone 214-665-7186; fax number 214-
665-7263; email address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regional Haze
B. Interstate Transport of Air Pollutants and Visibility
Protection
C. Our Prior Limited Disapproval of Texas' Regional Haze
Concerning CAIR
II. Why are we acting on the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs
simultaneously?
III. Summary of Our Proposed Actions
A. Texas
B. Oklahoma
IV. Discussion of the Regional Haze Rule Requirements as They Relate
to Visibility Transport
A. Introduction
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
C. Our Interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3)
V. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Texas Regional Haze
SIP
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
3. Natural Visibility Impairment
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
C. Evaluation of Texas' Reasonable Progress Goals
1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
2. Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor Analysis
3. Our Analysis of Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor
Analysis
4. Texas' Assertion that Its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
D. Evaluation of Texas' BART Determinations
1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
3. Texas' BART Rule
E. Long-Term Strategy
1. Texas' Long-Term Strategy Consultation
2. Texas' Share of Reductions in Other States' Progress Goals
3. Texas' Technical Basis for Its Long-Term Strategy
4. Texas' Consideration of the Long-Term Strategy Factors
F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
H. Federal Land Manager Consultation
I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
J. Future Determination of the Adequacy of the Existing
Implementation Plan
VI. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Remaining Parts of
the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP
A. Previous Rulemakings on the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP
B. Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals
1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
2. Reasonable Progress Consultation
3. The Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress ``Four Factor'' Analysis
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
6. Oklahoma's Assertion That Its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
7. Our Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals for
the Wichita Mountains
VII. Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas Regional Haze FIPs
A. Summary of Our Proposed Texas FIP
B. Summary of Our Proposed Oklahoma FIP
C. Technical Overview of Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas FIPs
D. Approach to Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
1. Time Necessary for Compliance, and the Oklahoma and Texas
RPGs
2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of
Compliance
3. Remaining Useful Life
4. Analysis of the PPG Flat Glass Plant
E. Use of Confidential Business Information
F. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber and DSI
Cost Results
G. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber Upgrade
Cost Results
H. Summary of the Modeled Benefits of Emission Controls
1. Visibility Benefits of DSI, SDA, and Wet FGD
2. Visibility Benefits of Scrubber Upgrades
I. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
Determinations
1. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
Determination for San Miguel
2. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
Determination for Units Other Than San Miguel
3. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
Determination for Scrubber Upgrades
4. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
Determination for Scrubber Retrofits
J. Treatment of Potential Error in Scrubber Upgrade Efficiency
Calculations
K. Proposed Natural Conditions for the Texas Class I Areas
L. Calculation of Visibility Impairment for the Texas Class I
Areas
M. Uniform Rates of Progress and the Emission Reductions Needed
To Achieve Them
[[Page 74820]]
N. Reasonable Progress Goals and Demonstration
VIII. Our Evaluation of the Texas Infrastructure SIP Submittals for
Interstate Transport and Visibility Protection
IX. Proposed Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect
X. Proposed Action
A. Texas Regional Haze
B. Oklahoma Regional Haze
C. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution and Visibility
Protection
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. 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, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and their precursors. Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere
to form PM2.5, which also impair visibility by scattering
and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color,
and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 also can 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 \1\ in many Class I Federal
areas \2\ (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.\3\ 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.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas (or
Class I areas for short) consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August
7, 1977. See CAA section 162(a) below. 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. See 44 FR 69122 (November 30,
1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent
changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA section 162(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'' (FLM). See CAA section 302(i).
We use the term, ``Class I Federal Area'' and ``Class I Area''
interchangeably throughout this document.
\3\ 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999).
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 which
impairment results from man-made air pollution.'' \5\ The terms
``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment'' are defined
in the CAA to include a reduction in visual range and atmospheric
discoloration.\6\ Section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we 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''
(RAVI).\7\ These regulations represented the first phase in addressing
visibility impairment. We 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 improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CAA section 169A(a)(1).
\6\ Id.
\7\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added Section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in
1999.\8\ The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulations provisions addressing
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in our visibility
protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. For a detailed description
of those requirements, please refer to Section IV of our previous
action on the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.\9\ The requirement to submit
a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and the Virgin Islands. States were required to submit the first SIP
addressing regional haze visibility impairment for the first ten year
planning period no later than December 17, 2007.\10\ States are
required to submit subsequent SIPs every ten years leading up to 2064,
when the national goal of a return to natural visibility at all Class I
areas is scheduled to be realized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart P.
\9\ 76 FR 16168, 16172-75 (Mar. 22, 2011).
\10\ 40 CFR 51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have acted on all of the states' regional haze SIPs for the
first planning period except for the Texas regional haze SIP and
certain portions of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP. Previously, we
proposed a partial approval and partial disapproval of, and a FIP for
portions of the Oklahoma SIP on March 22, 2011. We finalized that
action on December 28, 2011.\11\ However, for the reasons we explain
below, we did not complete our review of Oklahoma's regional haze SIP.
Due to the special interrelationship of the visibility impairing
transport of pollution between Texas and Oklahoma, we are proposing
action on the remaining portions of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP and
all portions of the Texas regional haze SIP simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Proposal: 76 FR 16168 (March 22, 2011). Final: 76 FR 81728
(December 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Interstate Transport of Air Pollutants and Visibility Protection
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA requires that states have a
SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing provisions prohibiting
emissions from within a state from interfering with measures required
to be included in the implementation plan for any other state under the
provisions of Part C of the CAA protecting visibility. Because of the
impacts on visibility from the interstate transport of pollutants, we
interpret this ``good neighbor'' provision in Section 110 of CAA as
requiring states to include in their SIPs measures to prohibit
emissions that would interfere with the reasonable progress goals set
to protect Class I areas in other states. This is consistent with the
requirements in the regional haze program which explicitly require each
state to address its share of the emission reductions needed to meet
the reasonable progress goals for surrounding Class I areas.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 64 FR 35714, 35735 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIPs addressing the good neighbor provisions of Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA are due to us within three years after
the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS (or within such shorter
period as we may prescribe).\13\ In this action, we propose to take
action on SIP
[[Page 74821]]
revisions addressing these good neighbor requirements that were
submitted by Texas following promulgation of the following new or
revised NAAQS: (1) 1997 8-hour ozone, (2) 1997 PM2.5 (annual
and 24 hour), (3) 2006 PM2.5 (24-hour), (4) 2008 8-hour
ozone, (5) 2010 NO2 and (6) 2010 1-hour SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ CAA Section 110(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005, we made a finding that a number of states, including
Texas, did not submit SIPs to address the interstate transport of air
pollution and visibility protection for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS.\14\ Pursuant to Section 110(c)(1) of the CAA,
this finding started a 24 month time period for us to promulgate a FIP
to address interstate transport of air pollution and visibility
protection, unless a SIP was approved during that time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 70 FR 21147 (April 25, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Texas did not make a timely SIP submittal to address the
interstate transport of air pollution and visibility protection for the
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS, Texas later made SIP submittals
for all new or revised NAAQS. Specifically, Texas made the following
submittals for new or revised NAAQS that pertain to this action:
April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5
(24-hour and annual)
May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5 (24-
hour and annual)
November 23, 2009: 2006 24-hour PM2.5
December 7, 2012: 2010 NO2
December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour Ozone
May 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO2 (Primary NAAQS)
We previously acted on portions of the April 4, 2008, and November
23, 2009, Texas SIP submittals that addressed other ``infrastructure''
elements specified in CAA Section 110(a)(2), necessary to implement,
maintain, and enforce the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.\15\ Texas' submittals addressing transport for
the ozone, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2 NAAQS
may be accessed through the www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No.
EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0754). Texas indicated in the submittals that its
regional haze SIP fulfilled its obligation for addressing emissions
that would interfere with measures required to be included in the SIP
for any other state to protect visibility. Because of our 2005 finding
that Texas did not make a timely SIP submission for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS and the expiration of the 24-month FIP clock, we
are obligated to either approve the SIP or, disapprove the SIP and
promulgate a FIP to address interstate transport of air pollution and
visibility protection for Texas emissions for the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS. We believe our proposal addresses this
obligation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 76 FR 81371 (December 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Our Prior Limited Disapproval of Texas' Regional Haze SIP Concerning
CAIR
In 2005, we promulgated CAIR, which required 28 states and the
District of Columbia to reduce emissions of SO2 and
NOX that significantly contribute to, or interfere with
maintenance of, the 1997 NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5.\16\ Also
in 2005, we determined that states could rely on CAIR to meet certain
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.\17\ In particular, we amended
our regulations to provide that states participating in the CAIR cap-
and-trade programs under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved
CAIR SIP or states that remain subject to a CAIR FIP in 40 CFR part 97
need not require affected BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate and
maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and NOX.\18\ A
number of states, including Texas, relied on CAIR in their regional
haze SIPs as an alternative to BART for EGU emissions of SO2
and NOX and as an element of their long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
\17\ 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
\18\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) (Aug. 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following our determination in 2005 that states could rely on CAIR
in their regional haze SIPs, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on
several petitions challenging CAIR and remanded CAIR to us.\19\ We
issued a new rule in 2011 to replace CAIR.\20\ The Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which replaced CAIR, also requires a number of
states to improve air quality by reducing SO2 and
NOX emissions that cross state lines and significantly
contribute to ozone and/or fine particulate pollution in other states.
We amended our regulations in 2012 to allow CSAPR to serve as an
alternative to SO2 and NOX BART for EGUs in
states in the CSAPR region.\21\ In that same rulemaking, we also
finalized a limited disapproval of the regional haze SIPs of 14 states,
including Texas. Although at the time that we completed our limited
disapproval of these SIPs, CAIR remained in place pursuant to an order
of the D.C. Circuit, we explained that as CAIR had been remanded, it
remained in place temporarily. We also finalized FIPs replacing
reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR as an alternative to BART for
several states but not for Texas.\22\ We more fully explained the basis
for our limited disapproval in that rulemaking and are not taking
comment on our limited disapproval of Texas' regional haze SIP in this
action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F3d 896; modified by 550 F.3d
1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
\20\ 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011).
\21\ 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
\22\ 77 FR 33642, 33643. (June 7, 2012)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Why are we acting on the Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze SIPs
simultaneously?
As we explained in our 2011 proposed rulemaking on the Oklahoma
regional haze SIP,\23\ we did not take action on Oklahoma's RPGs for
the Wichita Mountains at that time because we first had to evaluate and
act upon the regional haze SIP submitted by Texas. To properly assess
whether Oklahoma had satisfied the reasonable progress requirements of
Section 51.308(d)(1), which include the requirement to set RPGs that
take into account the visibility improvement that will result from
reasonable controls in upwind states, we concluded that we had to
review and evaluate Texas' regional haze SIP before proposing action on
Oklahoma's RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 76 FR 16168 (March 22, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our Regional Haze Rule, we stated that ``successful
implementation of the regional haze program will involve long-term
regional coordination among States,'' and that ``States will need to
develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into
account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction to air quality in
another.'' \24\ We also noted that RPGs and Long-Term Strategies (long-
term strategies) were intricately linked. The Regional Haze Rule
requires each state submitting a long-term strategy to (1) consult with
other states to develop coordinated emission strategies; (2)
demonstrate that the SIP includes all measures necessary for the state
to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs
for the Class I areas it affects; (3) document the technical basis the
state used to determine its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations for the Class I areas it affects; (4) consider all
anthropogenic sources of emissions; and (5) consider a list of seven
other enumerated factors.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 64 FR 35714, 35728 (July 1, 1999).
\25\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed within this proposal and within our Technical Support
Documents (TSDs), the Texas and Oklahoma regional haze SIPs reveal that
sources in Texas not only significantly impact visibility in the
Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in
[[Page 74822]]
Oklahoma, but that the impacts from Texas point sources are shown to be
several times greater than the impact from Oklahoma's own point
sources. Additionally, information in the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP
demonstrates that even if every source in Oklahoma were fully
controlled, the Wichita Mountains would not meet the Uniform Rate of
Progress (URP) in 2018 absent additional emission reductions from
upwind sources, principally Texas. As detailed in the Texas SIP,
however, Texas determined that no additional controls at its sources
were warranted during the first planning period to help achieve
reasonable progress at the Wichita Mountains, and Oklahoma did not
request any additional reductions from Texas. As a result, Oklahoma set
RPGs for the Wichita Mountains that do not reflect any reasonable
emission reductions from Texas beyond those that will be achieved by
compliance with other requirements of the CAA.
This situation demonstrates the difficulties states face when
working to address air pollution problems that do not respect state
borders. It also highlights the respective roles and responsibilities
of upwind and downwind states in addressing visibility impairment in
national parks and wilderness areas. In order to address these
intricately intertwined issues between Oklahoma and Texas, it is
appropriate to review them simultaneously.
III. Summary of Our Proposed Actions
A. Texas
We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove the
regional haze SIP that Texas submitted to us on March 31, 2009, to meet
the requirements of Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule.
Specifically, we propose to take action on Texas' BART determinations,
RPGs for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas, and long-
term strategy for making reasonable progress at all Class I areas
impacted by emissions from Texas sources. We are also proposing to take
action on the requirements that support these major components of the
state's plan, including Texas' calculations of baseline and natural
visibility conditions, calculation of the URP, identification of
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment within the state, and
Texas' monitoring strategy. We take very seriously a decision to
propose disapproval of provisions in Texas' plan, as we believe that it
is preferable that all emission control requirements needed to protect
visibility be implemented through the Texas SIP. However, in order to
approve the state's plan, we must be able to find that the state's plan
is consistent with the requirements of the CAA. Our proposed actions
are summarized as follows:
BART: We propose to approve Texas' determination of which sources
in the state are BART-eligible. We also propose to approve Texas'
determination that none of the state's BART-eligible non-EGUs are
subject to the BART requirements because they are not reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I areas. We propose to approve the provisions in Texas' BART
rules at 30 Tex. Admin. Code (TAC) 116.1500--116.1540, with the
exception of 30 TAC 116.1510(d), which relies on CAIR. With respect to
EGUs, we previously issued a limited disapproval of the Texas regional
haze SIP due to Texas' reliance on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirements. This action does not impact the limited disapproval.
Reasonable Progress Goals: We propose to disapprove Texas' RPGs for
2018 on the 20-percent least impaired and 20-percent most impaired days
for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas. We propose to
find that the state has not demonstrated that its RPGs provide for
reasonable progress towards meeting the national visibility goal.
Specifically, we propose to find that Texas did not satisfy several of
the requirements at Section 51.308(d)(1) with regard to setting RPGs,
most notably the requirement to reasonably consider the four statutory
reasonable progress factors and the requirement to adequately justify
RPGs that are less stringent than the URP.
Calculations of Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions: We
propose to approve Texas' calculation of baseline visibility conditions
at the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas. We propose to
disapprove Texas' calculation of natural visibility conditions at these
Class I areas. Because we propose to disapprove Texas' calculation of
natural visibility conditions, we must also propose to disapprove
Texas' calculation of the URP.
Long-Term Strategy: We propose to disapprove Texas' long-term
strategy because it does not sufficiently address regional haze
visibility impairment for all Class I areas impacted by Texas sources.
Specifically, we propose to find that Texas did not satisfy several of
the requirements of Section 51.308(d)(3) with regard to developing
long-term strategies. We propose to find that Texas' long-term strategy
does not include all measures necessary to obtain the state's share of
emission reductions needed to make reasonable progress in the Wichita
Mountains Class I area in Oklahoma. We also propose to find that the
technical basis on which Texas relied to determine its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable
progress in Wichita Mountains was inadequate. Finally, we propose to
find that Texas did not adequately consider the emissions limitations
and schedules for compliance needed to achieve reasonable progress in
Big Bend, Guadalupe Mountains, or Wichita Mountains. We propose to find
that Texas satisfied the remaining long-term strategy requirements,
including the identification of anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment and the consideration of emission reductions due to ongoing
air pollution control programs; measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; source retirement and replacement schedules;
smoke management techniques; enforceability; and projected changes in
emissions.
Monitoring Strategy: We propose to approve Texas' monitoring
strategy.
To remedy the deficiencies identified above, we propose a FIP for
Texas that consists of a long-term strategy with SO2
emission limits for fifteen coal-fired EGUs that impact visibility in
multiple Class I areas. We propose that these SO2 emission
limits, listed below in Table 1, be met on a 30-boiler-operating-day
rolling average.
Table 1--Proposed 30-Boiler-Operating-Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed SO2
Unit emission limit
(lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades: ..............
Sandow 4............................................ 0.20
Martin Lake 1....................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 2....................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 3....................................... 0.11
Monticello 3........................................ 0.06
Limestone 2......................................... 0.08
Limestone 1......................................... 0.08
San Miguel*......................................... 0.60
Scrubber Retrofits: ..............
Big Brown 1......................................... 0.04
Big Brown 2......................................... 0.04
Monticello 1........................................ 0.04
Monticello 2........................................ 0.04
Coleto Creek 1...................................... 0.04
Tolk 172B........................................... 0.06
Tolk 171B........................................... 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
to install any additional control in order to comply with this
emission limit.
We propose to find that these emission limits will result in
emission reductions that will achieve reasonable progress at Big Bend,
the Guadalupe
[[Page 74823]]
Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains. These emission limits reflect the
degree of emission reduction that can be achieved by seven
SO2 scrubber retrofits and seven SO2 scrubber
upgrades,\26\ but we do not prescribe how the facilities must meet
these emission limits. We determined that these emission limits are
necessary to achieve reasonable progress based on our four-factor
analysis, which demonstrates that the underlying controls are cost-
effective and result in significant visibility improvement. We propose
that those sources whose proposed emission limits can be achieved by
installing scrubber retrofits must comply with the emission limits
within five years of the effective date of our final rule. We propose
that those sources whose emission limits can be achieved by conducting
scrubber upgrades must comply with the emission limits within three
years of the effective date of our final rule, except for San Miguel,
for which we propose compliance within one year because that unit has
been recently meeting our proposed emission limit. Our proposed FIP
also includes new RPGs for Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains that we
believe reflect the visibility improvement that will result from the
aforementioned SO2 emission limits, as well as new
calculations of the natural visibility conditions for these Class I
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ As we explain later in our notice, San Miguel has already
upgraded its scrubber and we are proposing that it maintain an
emission rate consistent with recent monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to replace Texas' reliance on CAIR to satisfy the BART
requirement for EGUs with reliance on CSAPR.
Finally, we are also proposing to disapprove the portions of the
infrastructure SIP revisions submitted by Texas to address the
requirements of CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility. This provision of the CAA requires that each state's SIP
have adequate provisions to prohibit in-state emissions from
interfering with measures required to protect visibility in any other
state. We refer to this and similar provisions pertaining to other
states' air quality as the ``good-neighbor'' requirements. We propose
to disapprove portions of the Texas' infrastructure SIP revisions
addressing the ``good-neighbor'' visibility protection requirements for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO2
NAAQS, and the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. We propose to find that the
controls in our proposed FIP address the deficiencies in Texas'
regional haze SIP, in combination with the existing controls that Texas
has relied upon in its regional haze SIP, will serve to prevent
emissions from sources in Texas from interfering with measures required
to protect visibility in other states.
B. Oklahoma
We propose to partially disapprove the regional haze SIP that
Oklahoma submitted to us on February 19, 2010, to meet the requirements
of Section 308 of the Regional Haze Rule. Specifically, we propose to
disapprove Oklahoma's RPGs for 2018 on the 20-percent least impaired
and 20-percent most impaired days for the Wichita Mountains Class I
area. We propose to find that Oklahoma has not adequately demonstrated
that its RPGs provide for reasonable progress towards meeting the
national visibility goal. Specifically, we propose to find that
Oklahoma did not satisfy several of the requirements at Section
51.308(d)(1) with regard to setting RPGs, including the requirement to
adequately consult with other states that may reasonably be anticipated
to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita
Mountains and the requirement to adequately justify RPGs that are less
stringent than the URP.
To remedy the deficiencies identified above, we propose a FIP for
Oklahoma that includes revised RPGs for the Wichita Mountains that
reflect the visibility improvement that will result from the
SO2 emission limits in our long-term strategy for Texas
included in our proposed FIP. Our proposed FIP for Oklahoma does not
establish any additional requirements on sources within the state.
IV. Discussion of the Regional Haze Rule Requirements as They Relate to
Visibility Transport
A. Introduction
The Texas and Oklahoma regional haze SIPs reveal that sources in
Texas not only impact visibility in the Wichita Mountains National
Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma, but that the impact from sources in Texas
is several times greater than the impact from Oklahoma's own sources.
Additionally, the Oklahoma regional haze SIP demonstrates that, even if
every source in Oklahoma were fully controlled, the Wichita Mountains
would not meet the URP in 2018 absent additional emission reductions
from upwind sources. Oklahoma and Texas discussed the significant
contribution of sources in Texas to visibility impairment in Wichita
Mountains during the interstate consultation process required by the
Regional Haze Rule. Ultimately, however, Texas determined that no
additional controls at its sources were warranted during the first
planning period to help achieve reasonable progress at the Wichita
Mountains, and Oklahoma did not request any additional reductions from
Texas. As a result, Oklahoma set a reasonable progress goal for Wichita
Mountains that does not achieve the URP and which does not reflect any
emission reductions from Texas beyond those that will be achieved by
compliance with other requirements of the CAA. During the notice-and-
comment period on Oklahoma's proposed SIP, several commenters
criticized Oklahoma for not requesting additional reductions from
Texas. They argued that without such reductions, Oklahoma would not
make reasonable progress toward the national goal at the Wichita
Mountains. In responding to these comments, Oklahoma acknowledged that
sources in Texas had significant impacts on visibility in Wichita
Mountains, but maintained that it did not have the regulatory authority
to require emission reductions in other states. Oklahoma asserted that
only Texas and the EPA could require such reductions.
This situation demonstrates the difficulties states face when
working to address air pollution problems that do not respect state
borders. It also shows that some uncertainty exists as to the
respective roles and responsibilities of upwind and downwind states in
addressing visibility impairment in national parks and wilderness
areas. Consequently, we believe that it is necessary at this time to
provide clarification to the states on this issue, which hereafter will
be referred to generally as the issue of ``visibility transport.''
Specifically, this section describes the regulatory requirements found
at 40 CFR Sections 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3), which pertain to RPGs,
interstate consultation, and long-term strategies, and explains how
these requirements apply in the visibility-transport context. This
section also explains how our interpretation of these requirements is
consistent with the provisions of the CAA that seek to prevent
interstate transport of visibility-impairing pollutants,\27\ achieve
reasonable progress toward the national goal,\28\ and address regional
haze.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
\28\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2).
\29\ Id. Section 7492.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Statutory and Regulatory Background
Congress enacted Section 169A as part of the 1977 CAA Amendments,
[[Page 74824]]
declaring as a national goal ``the prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class
I areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \30\ The
term ``mandatory Class I Federal areas'' refers to international parks,
national wilderness areas and memorial parks that exceed 5,000 acres in
size, and national parks that exceed 6,000 acres in size, which were in
existence on August 7, 1977.\31\ Congress directed the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the federal land managers to review all
mandatory Class I Federal areas in the country and to identify those
where visibility was an important value.\32\ Congress then directed us
to confer with the Secretary of the Interior regarding the results of
his review and to promulgate a final list of mandatory Class I Federal
areas that would become subject to the protections of Section 169A.\33\
On November 30, 1979, we finalized a list of 156 mandatory Class I
Federal areas deserving of such protection.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Id. Section 7491(a)(1).
\31\ Id. Section 7472(a). Although we often use the term,
``Class I area'' within this document, we mean, ``Mandatory Class I
Federal areas.''
\32\ Id. Section 7491(a)(2).
\33\ Id.
\34\ ``National Visibility Goal for Federal Class I Areas;
Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas Where Visibility
Is an Important Value,'' 44 FR 69,122 (Nov. 30, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress also required us to issue regulations that would provide
guidelines to the states on appropriate techniques and methods for
identifying and measuring visibility impairment; modeling the extent to
which manmade air pollution causes or contributes to such impairment;
and preventing and remedying such pollution and impairment.\35\ In
addition, Congress required our regulations to direct both states that
contained mandatory Class I Federal areas, and states ``the emissions
from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any such area,'' to include three specific
components in their SIPs.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(b)(1).
\36\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first component consists of ``emission limitations, schedules
of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward meeting the national goal.'' \37\ In determining what
constitutes ``reasonable progress,'' Congress directed states to take
into consideration four statutory factors: (1) The costs of compliance,
(2) the time necessary for compliance, (3) the energy and non-air
quality impacts of compliance, and (4) the remaining useful life of any
existing source subject to such requirements.\38\ The second component
is a requirement that a specified group of older major stationary
sources ``procure, install, and operate, as expeditiously as
practicable . . . the best available retrofit technology,'' more
commonly referred to as BART.\39\ Like the emission limitations
required to make reasonable progress, the emission limitations
representing BART must be determined by taking into consideration a
list of statutory factors.\40\ Lastly, the third component consists of
``a long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making reasonable
progress toward the national goal.'' \41\ This section focuses
specifically on the first and third components: Reasonable progress and
long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Id.
\38\ Id. Section 7491(g)(1).
\39\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2)(A).
\40\ Id. Section 7491(g)(2).
\41\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to enacting Section 169A, Congress also amended Section
110 of the CAA to require that all SIPs ``contain adequate provisions
prohibiting . . . any source or other type of emissions activity within
the State from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will . . .
interfere with measures required to be included in the applicable
implementation plan for any other State . . . to protect visibility.''
\42\ A Senate Committee Report described this provision and similar
requirements as being ``intended to equalize the positions of the
States with respect to interstate pollution by making a source at least
as responsible for polluting another State as it would be for polluting
its own State.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
\43\ S. Rep. No. 95-127, at 41 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To comply with Congress's mandate, we issued a notice of proposed
rulemaking titled, ``Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas,''
on May 22, 1980.\44\ In that notice, we proposed a phased approach to
combating visibility impairment.\45\ In the first phase, we intended to
address visibility impairment attributable to ``a single source or
small group of sources,'' such as plume blight, which could be
identified using visual observation or other simple monitoring
techniques.\46\ We referred to this type of visibility impairment as
``reasonably attributable visibility impairment,'' or RAVI.\47\ Then,
once modeling and monitoring techniques had improved sufficiently, we
intended to engage in a second phase of rulemaking to address the more
complex problem of regional haze,\48\ which we defined as ``visibility
impairment that is caused by the emission of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area.'' \49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ ``Visibility Protection for Class I Areas,'' 45 FR 34762
(May 22, 1980).
\45\ 45 FR 34763/3.
\46\ Id.
\47\ 40 CFRCFR Section 51.301.
\48\ 45 FR 34763/3.
\49\ 40 CFRCFR Section 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We finalized our first phase of rulemaking on December 2, 1980.\50\
These regulations, hereafter referred to as the ``RAVI Rule,'' applied
only to the 36 states that contain mandatory Class I Federal areas.\51\
Notably, the RAVI Rule did not apply to upwind states, i.e., those
states, ``the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area,''
as required by Section 169A.\52\ Among other things, the RAVI Rule
authorized the federal land managers to determine whether visibility
impairment existed in any mandatory Class I Federal area.\53\ The RAVI
Rule also required states to revise their SIPs to assure reasonable
progress toward the national goal, to determine whether BART should be
installed at sources causing visibility impairment certified by the
federal land managers, and to implement long-term strategies for making
reasonable progress.\54\ Ultimately, however, we concluded that
``[p]reliminary indications are that few, if any, existing stationary
facilities will have to retrofit controls,'' and that ``many of the
basic elements of an acceptable [long-term] strategy already exist
within the framework of other air pollution programs.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ ``Visibility Protection for Federal Class I Areas,'' 45 FR
80084 (Dec. 2, 1980) (codified at 40 CFR Sections 51.300-307).
\51\ Id. at 80086/1.
\52\ See Id. at 80086/1 n.2 (``We did not identify, nor did any
commenters identify any State that did not contain a mandatory Class
I Federal area, but which could contain a source the emissions from
which could reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any mandatory Class 1 Federal area.'').
\53\ Id. at 80086/3.
\54\ Id. at 80086/1.
\55\ Id. at 80088/3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most states did not submit the SIP revisions required by the RAVI
Rule. To resolve a lawsuit brought by environmental litigants, we
promulgated FIPs for these states on November 24, 1987.\56\ Despite the
fact that the federal land managers had certified that visibility
impairment existed in nearly all mandatory Class I Federal areas, we
ultimately determined
[[Page 74825]]
that neither BART nor any other controls were necessary to address the
impairment because it was primarily in the form of regional haze and
could not be attributed to a single source or small group of sources at
that time.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ ``State Implementation Plans for Visibility Long-Term
Strategies, Integral Vistas, and Control Strategies,'' 52 FR 45132
(Nov. 24, 1987).
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following year, two decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeal
placed further emphasis on the fact that visibility impairment was
largely a regional problem. The first case, Vermont v. Thomas,\58\
involved the State of Vermont's challenge to our decision not to take
action on aspects of Vermont's SIP revision that were intended to
address regional haze. In its SIP revision, Vermont had concluded that
visibility impairment at the Lye Brook Wilderness Area was not caused
by plume blight, but rather was comprised of regional haze caused
primarily by sulfur dioxide emissions from out-of-state sources.\59\ As
such, only a reduction program that targeted those out-of-state sources
could assure reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.
Vermont therefore proposed a long-term strategy that included a
summertime ambient sulfate standard and a 48-state emission reduction
plan.\60\ Vermont also requested that we disapprove and revise the SIPs
of the upwind states that were contributing to regional haze in Lye
Brook and require SIP revisions from those upwind states not currently
subject to the RAVI Rule.\61\ We agreed with Vermont's assessment of
the visibility impairment at Lye Brook, but took no action on those
parts of Vermont's SIP revision aimed at controlling regional haze,
explaining that they were outside the scope of the RAVI Rule.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Vermont v. Thomas, 850 F.2d 99 (2d Cir. 1988).
\59\ Id. at 101.
\60\ Id.
\61\ Id.
\62\ ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Vermont; Visibility in Federal Class I Areas; Lye Brook
Wilderness,'' 52 FR 26973 (July 17, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its petition for review, Vermont argued that our decision not to
act on the SIP revision in its entirety violated the CAA and the RAVI
Rule.\63\ The Second Circuit upheld our interpretation, holding that
Vermont's proposed interstate measures were outside the scope of the
RAVI Rule and thus were not subject to federal enforcement under the
CAA. While the court sympathized with Vermont, recognizing ``that
without federal enforcement of Vermont's plan, little, if any, progress
will be made on regional haze at Lye Brook,'' the court determined
that, ``until such time as a federal regional haze program is in place,
Vermont may not impose its standards on upwind States.'' \64\ The court
concluded its opinion by stating that it hoped EPA would act quickly to
create a national program to address regional haze.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Vermont, 850 F.2d at 103-04.
\64\ Id. at 104.
\65\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second case, Maine v. Thomas,\66\ involved a citizen suit
brought by seven Northeastern states \67\ and six environmental groups
in which they sought to compel us to promulgate regulations addressing
regional haze. The plaintiffs alleged that we had a nondiscretionary
duty to issue regulations to achieve the national visibility goal by
August 7, 1979,\68\ and that we had violated that duty because the RAVI
Rule did not address regional haze and was therefore not a full
response to the CAA's directive.\69\ The district court rejected that
argument, explaining that we had affirmatively chosen to take a phased
approach to issuing visibility regulations when we promulgated the RAVI
Rule.\70\ The district court therefore viewed the plaintiffs' claim as
a challenge to the RAVI Rule, which was not cognizable under the CAA's
citizen-suit provision. Therefore, the court dismissed the suit for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.\71\ On appeal, the First Circuit
affirmed the district court's judgment under largely the same
reasoning.\72\ Like the Second Circuit, however, the court noted that
EPA had long delayed in promulgating the promised rulemaking to address
regional haze.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Maine v. Thomas, 690 F. Supp. 1106 (D. Maine 1988).
\67\ The States were Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
\68\ See 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(a)(4).
\69\ Id. at 1108.
\70\ Id. at 1109.
\71\ Id. at 1112.
\72\ Maine v. Thomas, 874 F.2d 883 (1st Cir. 1989).
\73\ Id. at 885-86.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reacting to our delay in promulgating regulations to address
regional haze and the courts' decisions in Vermont and Maine,\74\
Congress enacted Section 169B of the CAA as part of the 1990 CAA
Amendments.\75\ Congress designed Section 169B to provide regional
solutions to what was, by definition, a regional problem. To address
the technical limitations identified by us in the RAVI Rule, Congress
required us to ``conduct research to identify and evaluate sources and
source regions of both visibility impairment and regions that provide
predominantly clean air in Class I areas.'' \76\ This research had to
include an expansion of visibility monitoring in Class I areas, an
assessment of the current sources of visibility-impairing pollution,
the adaptation of regional air quality models for the assessment of
visibility, and studies of the atmospheric chemistry and physics of
visibility.\77\ Congress also provided us with the authority to
establish visibility transport regions and commissions whenever we had
reason to believe that ``current or projected interstate transport of
air pollutants from one or more States contributes significantly to
visibility impairment in Class I areas located in the affected
States.'' \78\ Once established, the visibility transport commissions
and their member states were required to assess the available
scientific and technical data regarding visibility impairment and to
report back to us with recommendations regarding how existing statutory
requirements for clean air corridors, new source review, and long-term
strategies could be employed to reduce such impairment.\79\ Finally,
Congress required us to carry out our overdue regulatory
responsibilities under Section 169A, which had to include ``criteria
for measuring `reasonable progress' toward the national goal'' and a
requirement that states revise their SIPs within 12 months.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. 2608 (1990) (statement of Sen.
Tim Wirth); 136 Cong. Rec. 2771 (1990) (statement of Rep. Ron
Wyden); 136 Cong. Rec. 2875 (statement of Sen. Brock Adams).
\75\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7492.
\76\ Id. Section 7492(a)(1).
\77\ Id.
\78\ Id. Section 7492(c)(1).
\79\ Id. Section 7492(d).
\80\ Id. Section 7492(e)(1) & (2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 31, 1997, we issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to
revise the existing visibility regulations to address regional haze,
commonly referred to as the ``Regional Haze Rule.'' \81\ In that
notice, we explained that ``[t]he role of regional transport of fine
particles in contributing to . . . regional haze impairment has been
well documented by many researchers and recognized as a significant
issue by many policy makers.'' \82\ Furthermore, we discussed how the
studies required by the 1990 CAA Amendments had revealed that, ``to
varying degrees, emissions from each of the contiguous 48 States
contribute to . . . visibility impairment in at least one mandatory
Class I Federal area.'' \83\ Consequently, we proposed to expand the
applicability of the visibility program to all states for the purpose
of
[[Page 74826]]
addressing regional haze.\84\ We explained that this expansion of
applicability was consistent with Section 169A(b)(2), which ``requires
States containing mandatory Class I Federal areas or having emissions
which `may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any such area' to revise their visibility
SIPs in order to make reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal.'' \85\ We noted, however, that the expanded
applicability of the visibility program should not be interpreted to
mean that control strategies would be necessary in all cases. Instead,
states should participate in regional air quality planning groups to
establish and refine their relative contributions to regional haze,
develop regional recommendations on state apportionment of emission
reductions and control measure responsibilities, and identify existing
SIP authorities or other proposed planning requirements necessary to
address states' contributions to visibility problems in other
states.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ ``Regional Haze Regulations,'' 62 FR 41138 (July 31, 1997).
\82\ Id. at 41139.
\83\ Id. at 41144-45.
\84\ Id. at 41144.
\85\ Id.
\86\ Id. at 41145.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy Congress's mandate that we establish criteria for
measuring reasonable progress, we proposed to set presumptive
``reasonable progress targets'' for each Class I area.\87\ Under this
framework, the reasonable progress targets would provide for
perceptible improvement of at least 1.0 deciview \88\ over a 10-year or
15-year period on the 20-percent haziest days and allow no degradation
from the baseline on the 20-percent clearest days.\89\ States could
satisfy their reasonable progress obligations under Section 169A for a
given Class I area by meeting the reasonable progress target for that
area.\90\ States could also develop alternative targets so long as they
justified those targets based on the four statutory factors.\91\
Finally, states would be required to provide a demonstration of
reasonable progress every three years and revise their SIPs as
necessary.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Id. at 41145-47.
\88\ As we note in the Regional Haze Rule (64 FR 35725, July 1,
1999), the ``deciview'' or ``dv'' is an atmospheric haze index that
expresses changes in visibility. This visibility metric expresses
uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the
entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely
hazy conditions.
\89\ ``Regional Haze Regulations,'' 62 FR 41138 (July 31, 1997)
at 41446.
\90\ Id.
\91\ Id.
\92\ Id. at 41147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To satisfy the CAA's long-term strategy requirement, we proposed
that states develop a procedure to determine natural and current
visibility conditions for each Class I area for the 20-percent haziest
and 20-percent clearest days.\93\ For Class I areas with existing
anthropogenic impairment greater than 1.0 deciview, states would be
required to adopt measures, including BART and a combination of local
and regional measures from non-BART sources, that would meet the
reasonable progress targets over a three-year period.\94\ We also
proposed that the long-term strategies explicitly address the
contribution by each state needed to meet reasonable progress targets,
explaining that ``each State is ultimately responsible for determining
its contribution to ensure reasonable progress in mandatory Class I
areas affected by its emissions sources and implementing appropriate
emissions control strategies.'' \95\ We further explained that it would
consider this information, as well as any relevant regional planning
analyses, in evaluating a state's long-term strategy.\96\ Finally, we
proposed requirements that would apply if a state did not meet its
reasonable progress targets within a three-year period or when a state
wished to develop alternative progress targets.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Id. at 41153.
\94\ Id.
\95\ Id.
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id. at 41153-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We finalized the Regional Haze Rule on July 1, 1999.\98\ In the
final rule, we reiterated that ``[s]uccessful implementation of the
regional haze program will involve long-term regional coordination
among States,'' and that ``States will need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of
emissions from one jurisdiction to air quality in another.'' \99\
Consistent with the proposal, we concluded that all states had sources
whose emissions were reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
regional haze in at least one Class I area and therefore required all
states to submit regional haze SIPs.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ ``Regional Haze Regulations,'' 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
\99\ Id. at 35728.
\100\ Id. at 35721.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to adverse comments, however, we also made significant
changes to the proposal. We eliminated the requirement for presumptive
reasonable progress targets of 1.0 deciview.\101\ Instead, the final
rule called upon states to establish ``reasonable progress goals,'' or
RPGs, for each Class I area.\102\ Like the reasonable progress targets,
the RPGs had to be expressed in deciviews, provide for improvement on
the 20-percent haziest days, and provide for no degradation on the 20-
percent clearest days.\103\ Unlike the reasonable progress targets,
however, the RPGs were to be set on a more flexible basis after
consideration of the statutory factors.\104\ To provide greater equity
between the RPGs set for the more impaired eastern states and the less
impaired western states, we also introduced a new analytical
requirement in the final rule.\105\ This requirement mandated that, for
each Class I area, states (1) determine the amount of progress needed
to reach natural background conditions in 60 years; (2) identify the
URP, over that 60-year period; (3) identify the amount of progress that
would result if the URP were achieved during the planning period; and
(4) identify the emissions measures that would be needed to achieve
that amount of progress and analyze whether the measures were
reasonable based on the statutory factors.\106\ If a state found that
the amount of progress necessary to achieve the URP (or some greater
amount) was reasonable, then the final rule required the state to adopt
that amount of progress as its RPG.\107\ If a state found that the
amount of progress necessary to achieve the URP was unreasonable,
however, then the state could set a less ambitious goal, but only after
providing an analysis and rationale supporting its determination based
on the statutory factors.\108\ Additionally, the final rule included a
new requirement whereby states establishing RPGs had to consult with
other states that were anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in the Class I area under consideration and describe in
their SIPs any actions taken to resolve disagreements over the
apportionment of emission measures necessary to achieve the RPGs.\109\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Id. at 35731.
\102\ Id.; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
\103\ 64 FR 35731 (July 1, 1999).
\104\ 64 FR 35731 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
\105\ 64 FR 35731 (July 1, 1999).
\106\ Id. at 35732; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
\107\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999).
\108\ Id.; 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
\109\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In regard to the long-term strategy requirement, we explained that
the RPGs and the long-term strategies were intricately linked. We
interpreted the term ``long-term strategy'' as ``the control measures
that are needed to ensure reasonable progress, together with a
demonstration that those
[[Page 74827]]
measures will provide for reasonable progress during the 10 to 15 year
period.'' \110\ We abandoned our proposal to require states to update
their long-term strategies every three years, providing instead for
longer ten-year revisions.\111\ We also modified the requirements
components of the long-term strategy. In brief, the final rule required
each state submitting a long-term strategy to (1) consult with other
states to develop coordinated emission management strategies,\112\ (2)
demonstrate that the SIP includes all measures necessary for the state
to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs
for the Class I areas it affects,\113\ (3) document the technical basis
the state used to determine its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations for the Class I areas it affects,\114\ (4) consider all
anthropogenic sources of emissions,\115\ and (5) consider a list of
seven other enumerated factors.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ 64 FR 35734 (July 1, 1999).
\111\ Id.; 40 CFR Section 51.308(f).
\112\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i).
\113\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
\114\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
\115\ 64 FR 35735 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
\116\ 64 FR 35736-37 (July 1, 1999); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1999, the Regional Haze Rule has been the subject of several
revisions and legal challenges. Because none of these revisions or
challenges impacted the regulatory provisions that are the focus of
this section, each is discussed only in brief. In American Corn Growers
v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit invalidated the Regional Haze Rule's BART
provisions because they required states to consider the visibility
benefits of controls on a group-basis, rather than a source-basis.\117\
In 2003, we revised the Regional Haze Rule to incorporate provisions
that would allow certain Western states and eligible Indian Tribes to
implement alternative measures in lieu of BART.\118\ Shortly
thereafter, in Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) v.
EPA, the D.C. Circuit invalidated aspects of our 2003 revisions for
using the same type of ``group BART'' approach that the court had
forbade in American Corn Growers.\119\ In 2005, we revised the Regional
Haze Rule a second time in order to remedy the defects with the Rule's
BART provisions that had been identified by the D.C. Circuit in
American Corn Growers.\120\ In that same rulemaking, we promulgated the
BART Guidelines to assist states in determining which sources are
subject to BART and the appropriate level of control for such
sources.\121\ Moreover, as noted above, we added a provision to the
Regional Haze Rule that allowed certain Eastern states to rely on the
CAIR in lieu of requiring BART at fossil fuel-fired EGUs.\122\ Then, in
2006, we revised the Regional Haze Rule a third time in order to remedy
the defects with the Rule's BART-alternative provisions that had been
identified by the D.C. Circuit in CEED.\123\ A few months later, the
D.C. Circuit upheld the 2005 revisions in their entirety in Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. EPA.\124\ The 2006 revisions were never challenged.
Finally, in 2012, we revised the Regional Haze Rule for a fourth time
to replace the provision allowing Eastern states to rely on CAIR in
lieu of BART with a provision allowing for reliance on CAIR's
successor, CSAPR.\125\ Challenges to the 2012 revisions are currently
stayed and remain pending before the D.C. Circuit.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Am. Corn Growers v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
\118\ ``Revisions to Regional Haze Rule to Incorporate Sulfur
Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Emissions Trading Program for Nine
Western States and Eligible Indian Tribes Within That Geographic
Area,'' 68 FR 33764 (June 5, 2003).
\119\ Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 298 F.3d 653 (D.C.
Cir. 2005).
\120\ ``Regional Haze Regulations and Guidelines for Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations,'' 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005).
\121\ See Id. at 39156-72 (codified at 40 CFR pt. 51, app. Y).
\122\ See Id. at 39156 (codified at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4)).
\123\ ``Regional Haze Regulations; Revisions to Provisions
Governing Alternative to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) Determinations,'' 71 FR 60612 (Oct. 13, 2006).
\124\ Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir.
2006).
\125\ ``Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing
Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal
Implementation Plans,'' 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012).
\126\ See, e.g., Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. EPA, No. 12-
1480 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During this same period, we also released several guidance
documents pertaining to regional haze and visibility transport, some of
which are helpful to the issues discussed in this section. In an August
3, 2006, document titled, ``Additional Regional Haze Questions,'' we
responded to questions submitted by states as they were developing
their initial regional haze SIP submissions.\127\ Several states had
questions regarding the interstate consultation process and the
respective obligations of upwind and downwind states in setting RPGs
and developing long-term strategies. For example, one state asked
whether there was a protocol for resolving disputes between upwind and
downwind states on apportionment and controls.\128\ In response, we
encouraged the early identification of any potential disputes to allow
all parties ample opportunity to address and document any
disagreements.\129\ One state asked what would happen if a downwind
state set a RPG that required an upwind state to make reductions that
it would not make.\130\ We responded by stating, ``If a State with a
Class I area determines that a contributing State is not doing what is
reasonable to meet the [RPG] set for the area, and has attempted to
resolve this issue, the State with the Class I area should notify EPA
and document this issue in its initial [regional haze] SIP.'' \131\ We
explained that such problems should be brought to our attention as
early in the process as possible.\132\ Finally, a third state asked
whether a downwind state's regional haze SIP could be disapproved
because an upwind state was not doing all it could to meet the RPG for
a downwind Class I area.\133\ We responded by reiterating the
regulatory requirements and noting that, ``If there is a disagreement
among States as to what constitutes reasonable progress, the question
of whether [a downwind State's] or [an upwind State's regional haze]
SIP could be disapproved will depend on the specific[s] of the
situation.'' \134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Additional Regional Haze
Questions (Aug. 3, 2006).
\128\ Id. at 10.
\129\ Id.
\130\ Id. at 11.
\131\ Id. at 11-12.
\132\ Id. at 12.
\133\ Id.
\134\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 1, 2007, we released a second document to provide guidance
to states on how to set their RPGs and how to decide those measures
necessary to meet the goals.\135\ In the guidance, we provided a
definition for the term ``reasonable progress goal,'' explaining that
RPGs are ``interim goals that represent incremental visibility
improvement over time toward the goal of natural background conditions
and are developed in consultation with other affected States and
Federal Land Managers.'' \136\ The guidance also reiterates that the
long-term strategy and BART emission limitations are inherently linked
to the RPGs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals
Under the Regional Haze Program (June 1, 2007).
\136\ Id. at 1-3.
The long-term strategy is the compilation of ``enforceable
emissions limitations,
[[Page 74828]]
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the
[RPGs],'' and is the means through which the State ensures that its
RPG will be met. BART emissions limits . . . are one set of measures
that must be included in the SIP to ensure that an area makes
reasonable progress toward the national goal, and the visibility
improvement resulting from BART (or a BART alternative) is included
in the development of the RPG.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ Id. at 1-4 (citing to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)).
The majority of the guidance focuses on providing an overview of
the process for developing RPGs, potential methods for identifying
which source categories should be evaluated for controls, and
suggestions for evaluating the four statutory factors with respect to
potentially affected stationary sources.\138\ The guidance reiterates
that the development of the RPG for each Class I area should be a
collaborative process, but acknowledges that the Regional Haze Rule
anticipated that states may not always agree on what measures would be
reasonable or on the appropriateness of a given goal.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ See generally id. at 3-1 to 5-3.
\139\ Id. at 2-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in a series of three memoranda released in 2006, 2009, and
2013, we provided guidance to the states regarding their obligations
under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility transport,
hereafter referred to as ``prong 4.'' \140\ In the 2006 memo, we
informed states that they could satisfy prong 4 for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS by making a simple SIP submission
confirming that it was not possible at the time to assess whether there
was any interference with measures in the SIPs of other states designed
to protect visibility until the states submitted their regional haze
SIPs the following year.\141\ In the 2009 memo, we more plainly stated
that states could satisfy prong 4 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS so long as they had fully approved regional haze SIPs.\142\ Most
recently, in the 2013 memo, we clarified states' prong 4 obligations
with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS, 2010 NO2 NAAQS, 2010
SO2 NAAQS, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.\143\ There, we
reiterated that states could satisfy prong 4 by confirming that they
had fully approved regional haze SIPs.\144\ We reasoned that a fully
approved regional haze SIP necessarily would ensure that emissions from
a state's sources were not interfering with measures required to be
included in other states' SIPs to protect visibility.\145\
Alternatively, we explained that a state could satisfy its prong 4
obligations by including in its infrastructure SIP a demonstration that
emissions within its jurisdiction do not cause interference.\146\ We
clarified that such a submission would need to include measures to
limit visibility-impairing pollutants and ensure that the reductions
were sufficient to comply with any mutually agreed upon RPGs for
downwind Class I areas.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7410(a)(2)(D)(i) has four separate
requirements or ``prongs,'' the last of which is that SIPs must
address emissions that interfere with another State's measures to
protect visibility.
\141\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, at 9-10 (Aug. 15, 2006).
\142\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
at 5 (Sept. 25, 2009).
\143\ Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards, U.S. Envtl.
Protection Agency, Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013).
\144\ Id. at 33.
\145\ Id.
\146\ Id. at 34.
\147\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Our Interpretation of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3)
With this background in mind, we turn now to the provisions of the
Regional Haze Rule that implement the CAA's reasonable progress and
long-term strategy requirements in the visibility-transport context.
Section 51.308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule requires states with
Class I areas, i.e., downwind states, to ``establish goals (expressed
in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility conditions.'' \148\ In establishing a RPG, a
downwind state must consider the four statutory factors outlined in
Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA--``the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources.'' \149\ This requirement is commonly referred to as a
four-factor analysis. States analyze the four factors to determine a
reasonable set of control measures that will reduce visibility-
impairing emissions. The visibility improvement that will result from
these emission reductions is then factored into the state's RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
\149\ Id. 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to conducting a four-factor analysis to determine what
control measures are reasonable for a downwind state's own sources, the
downwind state ``must consult with those States which may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in the
mandatory Class I Federal area,'' \150\ i.e., upwind states. The
purpose of the consultation requirement is to ensure that the upwind
states adopt control measures sufficient to address their apportionment
of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable progress and
that the downwind state's RPGs properly account for the visibility
improvement that will result from the reasonable control measures
identified and included in the upwind state's long-term strategy. Where
a downwind state and an upwind state cannot agree on the proper
apportionment of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable
progress, however, the downwind state ``must describe in its [SIP]
submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement.'' \151\ This
documentation is necessary so that we have sufficient information to
evaluate the downwind state's RPGs. Ultimately, we must decide, among
other things, ``whether the State's goal provides for reasonable
progress towards natural visibility conditions,'' \152\ or whether the
goal is inadequate due to an upwind state's failure to include
reasonable control measures in its long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ Id. n 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
\151\ Id.
\152\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule requires all states
(both downwind and upwind) to ``submit a long-term strategy that
addresses regional haze visibility impairment for each mandatory Class
I Federal area within the State and for each mandatory Class I Federal
area located outside the State which may be affected by emissions from
the State.'' \153\ As explained previously, a state's long-term
strategy is inextricably linked to the RPGs because it ``must include
enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals
established by states having mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ Id. 51.308(d)(3).
\154\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing its long-term strategy, a state must meet a number
of requirements, three of which pertain to visibility transport. First,
as a corollary to Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), upwind states ``must
consult with [downwind] State(s) in order to develop coordinated
[[Page 74829]]
management strategies.'' \155\ Second, where multiple states cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, each state
``must demonstrate that it has included in its implementation plan all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the progress goal for the area.'' \156\ This requirement
directly addresses situations where an upwind state agrees to achieve
certain emission reductions during the consultation process, and
downwind states rely upon those reductions when setting their RPGs, but
the upwind state ultimately fails to include sufficient control
measures in its long-term strategy to ensure that the emission
reductions will be achieved. In such a situation, we must disapprove
the upwind state's long-term strategy. However, the regulations do not
explicitly address situations where the control measures in an upwind
state's long-term strategy are sufficient to obtain its share of
reductions needed to meet a RPG included in a downwind state's SIP, but
the goal itself is flawed precisely because the upwind state never
proposed sufficient control measures to ensure reasonable progress in
the first place. To prevent such situations, we interpret the term
``progress goal'' in Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) as an approved or
approvable progress goal. Consequently, where a RPG in a downwind
state's SIP does not account for adequate visibility improvement from
an upwind state for this reason, we must disapprove both the downwind
state's goal and the upwind state's long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ Id. 51.308(d)(3)(i).
\156\ Id. 51.308(d)(3)(ii). Similarly, ``[i]f the State has
participated in a regional planning process, the State must ensure
it has included all measures needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed upon through that process.''
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, each state ``must document the technical basis, including
modeling, monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is
relying to determine its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each
mandatory Class I Federal area it affects.'' \157\ To reiterate,
Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA requires states to determine ``reasonable
progress'' by considering the four statutory factors.\158\ Therefore,
this provision requires states to consider both their own Class I areas
and downwind Class I areas when they develop the technical basis
underlying their four-factor analyses. This documentation is necessary
so that the interstate consultation process can proceed on an informed
basis and so that downwind states can properly assess whether any
additional upwind emission reductions are necessary to achieve
reasonable progress at their Class I areas. The regulations further
provide that, ``States may meet this requirement by relying on
technical analyses developed by the regional planning organization and
approved by all State participants.'' \159\ Thus, states have the
option of meeting this requirement by relying on four-factor analyses
and associated technical documentation prepared by a regional planning
organization on behalf of its member states,\160\ to the extent that
such analyses and documentation were conducted. In situations where a
regional planning organization's analyses are limited, incomplete or do
not adequately assess the four factors, however, then states must fill
in any remaining gaps to meet this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ Id. 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
\158\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(g)(1).
\159\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
\160\ See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS
20145, at *55 (10th Cir. Oct. 21, 2014) (explaining that 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(iii) ``permits a State conducting a reasonable-progress
determination'' ``to rely on [a regional planning organization's]
four-factor analysis.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997), an administrative
agency is entitled to interpret its own regulations, and that
interpretation will be entitled to judicial deference as long as the
interpretation is not ``plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the
regulation.'' \161\ Moreover, as the D.C. Circuit has explained, ``a
regulation must be interpreted as to harmonize with and further and not
to conflict with the objective of the statute it implements.'' \162\ We
believe that our clarification of the requirements of Sections
51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3), as provided above, is reasonable, consistent
with the overall framework of the Regional Haze Rule, and in harmony
with the objectives of the CAA's visibility provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452, 461 (1997).
\162\ Sec'y of Labor, Mine Safety & Health Admin. v. W. Fuels-
Utah, 900 F.2d 318, 320 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, we believe that our interpretation is consistent with the
Regional Haze Rule as a whole. Section 51.308(d) of the Regional Haze
Rule, which subsumes all of the provisions discussed above, provides
that states ``must address regional haze in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located within the State and in each mandatory Class I
Federal area located outside the State which may be affected by
emissions from within the State.'' \163\ Our interpretation gives this
``core requirement'' \164\ force by ensuring that downwind states
account for all reasonable emission reductions when setting their RPGs
and by ensuring that upwind states thoughtfully consider their impacts
on neighboring Class I areas when conducting their four-factor
analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ 40 CFR 51.308(d).
\164\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, our interpretation harmonizes and furthers the goals of
the CAA. Congress declared as a national goal ``the prevention of any
future, and the remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility''
in all Class I areas.\165\ We believe it would be impossible to achieve
this goal if upwind states did not have the same responsibility to
address their visibility-impairing emissions and achieve reasonable
progress in downwind Class I areas as the downwind states themselves.
Indeed, Section 169A(b)(2) explicitly required our implementing
regulations to ``require each applicable implementation plan . . . for
a State the emissions from which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area [i.e.,
upwind States] to contain such emission limits, schedules of compliance
and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
toward meeting the national goal.'' \166\ As explained previously, the
CAA requires states to determine what emission limits and other
measures are necessary to make reasonable progress by considering the
four statutory factors.\167\ Therefore, our interpretation of Section
51.308(d)(3)(ii) and (iii) ensures that the Regional Haze Rule requires
what the CAA requires--that upwind states consider impacts at downwind
Class I areas in their four-factor analyses and, where appropriate,
include emission limits and other measures to make reasonable progress
at those Class I areas in their long-term strategies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7491(a)(1).
\166\ Id. Section 7491(b)(2).
\167\ Id. Section 7491(g)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, consistent with our guidance,\168\ our interpretation
ensures that regional haze SIPs will be able to satisfy the CAA's
requirement that SIPs ``contain adequate provisions prohibiting . . .
any source or other type of emissions activity within the State from
emitting any air pollutant in
[[Page 74830]]
amounts which will interfere with measures required to be included in
the applicable implementation plan for any other State . . . to protect
visibility.'' \169\ Congress intended this provision of the CAA to
``equalize the positions of the States with respect to interstate
pollution,'' \170\ and our interpretation accomplishes this goal by
ensuring that downwind states can seek recourse from us if upwind
states are not doing enough to address visibility transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ See, e.g., Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards,
U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) (Sept. 13, 2013).
\169\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
\170\ S. Rep. No. 95-127, at 41 (1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we believe that our interpretation is consistent with the
long-standing recognition of Congress, the states, the courts, and us
that regional haze is a regional problem that requires regional
solutions. In 1987, the State of Vermont first envisioned a framework
similar to the one ultimately adopted in the Regional Haze Rule by
setting a goal sufficient to ensure reasonable progress (in that case,
a summertime ambient sulfate standard) and requesting that we require
upwind states to revise their SIPs to include measures that would
provide the emission reductions necessary to meet that goal.\171\ The
Second Circuit sympathized with Vermont's plight despite upholding our
inaction on Vermont's SIP.\172\ Consequently, Congress enacted Section
169B of the CAA in 1990, which required us to issue new regulations to
address regional haze.\173\ The Congressional record indicates that
Congress was motivated in part by the dilemma of Vermont and other
downwind states.\174\ After we promulgated the Regional Haze Rule in
1999, states were acutely aware of the complexities of the visibility-
transport problem, inquiring as to how disputes regarding the proper
appropriation of emission reductions between downwind states and upwind
states would be resolved.\175\ While we encouraged early collaboration
among states in the hopes that such disputes would be minimized, we
ultimately acknowledged that we might have to step in and disapprove
either a downwind state or an upwind state's SIP because it did not
adequately address interstate visibility impacts.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\171\ See Vermont v. Thomas, 850 F.2d 99, 101 (2d Cir. 1988).
\172\ Id. at 104.
\173\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7492(e)(1).
\174\ See, e.g., 136 Cong. Rec. 2608 (1990) (statement of Sen.
Tim Wirth); 136 Cong. Rec. 2771 (1990) (statement of Rep. Ron
Wyden); 136 Cong. Rec. 2875 (statement of Sen. Brock Adams).
\175\ See U.S. Envtl. Protection Agency, Additional Regional
Haze Questions, 10-12 (Aug. 3, 2006).
\176\ Id. at 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Texas Regional Haze SIP
On March 31, 2009, we received a regional haze SIP revision from
Texas. Prior to receiving Texas' submittal, we reviewed a draft of the
Texas regional haze SIP and submitted comments to the TCEQ in February
2008. Many of the issues we discuss below were originally identified in
that document. This includes comments relating to ensuring that Texas
include in its SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of the
emission reductions needed to meet the progress goals of Class I areas.
Additionally, we met with the TCEQ on July 24, 2013, to further discuss
Texas' regional haze program and impacts from Texas sources on Class I
areas. Provided below is a summary of our analysis of the various
elements of Texas' submission. For a more comprehensive analysis,
please see our TX TSD, which is located in our docket to this
rulemaking action.
A. Affected Class I Areas
In accordance with Section 51.308(d) of the Regional Haze Rule, the
TCEQ identified two Class I areas within Texas: Big Bend National Park,
in Brewster County, which borders the Rio Grande and Mexico, and the
Guadalupe Mountains National Park in Culberson County, which borders
New Mexico. The TCEQ is responsible for developing RPGs for these two
Class I areas. The TCEQ also determined that emissions from sources in
Texas impact visibility at a number of Class I areas outside of Texas.
The Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) source
apportionment modeling results, part of the state's SIP, indicate that
Texas emissions impact the visibility at a number of Class I areas in
other states, including the Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana, the
Great Sand Dunes in Colorado, Caney Creek and the Upper Buffalo in
Arkansas, the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma, and several Class I areas
in New Mexico. See the TX TSD for a summary of source apportionment
modeling results for Class I areas in other states impacted by
emissions from sources in Texas.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
As required by Sections 51.308(d)(2)(i) and 51.308(d)(2)(iii) of
the Regional Haze Rule, and in accordance with our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance,\177\ the TCEQ calculated baseline/current \178\
and natural visibility conditions for its two Class I areas, Big Bend
and the Guadalupe Mountains, on the most impaired and least impaired
days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003.
\178\ Because this is the first regional haze planning period,
baseline visibility conditions and current visibility conditions are
the same. In future planning periods, we expect that baseline and
current visibility conditions will be different due to reasonable
progress being made and other changes in conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
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). This equation sums the light extinction \179\ resulting from
individual pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. Our guidance
provides default natural conditions for the 20% worst and 20% best days
for each Class I area based on the IMPROVE equation. As documented in
our guidance, we allow states to use a ``refined'' approach or
alternative approaches to the guidance defaults to estimate the values
that characterize the natural visibility conditions of their Class I
areas. Our guidance also states that states may wish to use a more
refined approach to reduce uncertainty when baseline visibility is
already near natural conditions or when there is marked seasonality.
These alternative approaches can be implemented via alternative
estimates of natural concentrations. One alternative approach is to
develop and justify the use of alternative estimates of natural
concentrations of fine particle components. Another option open to
states is to use the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use
by the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\180\ The purpose of
this
[[Page 74831]]
refinement to the ``old IMPROVE equation'' was to provide more accurate
estimates of the various factors that affect the calculation of light
extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ Light extinction, in units of inverse megameters
(Mm-1), is the amount of light lost as it travels over
one million meters. The haze index, in units of deciviews (dv), is
calculated directly from the total light extinction,
bext, as follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10).
\180\ 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 federal
land managers) 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. The IMPROVE 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The new IMPROVE equation takes into account the most recent review
of the science,\181\ and it accounts for the effect of particle size
distribution on light extinction efficiency of sulfate
(SO4), nitrate (NO3), and organic carbon. It also
adjusts the mass multiplier for organic carbon (particulate organic
matter) by increasing it from 1.4 to 1.8. New terms are added to the
equation to account for light extinction by sea salt and light
absorption by gaseous nitrogen dioxide. Site-specific values are used
for Rayleigh scattering (scattering of light due to atmospheric gases)
to account for the site-specific effects of elevation and temperature.
Separate relative humidity enhancement factors are used for small and
large size distributions of ammonium sulfate and ammonium nitrate and
for sea salt. The terms for the remaining contributors, elemental
carbon (light-absorbing carbon), fine soil, and coarse mass, do not
change between the original and new IMPROVE equations. The default
natural conditions in our 2003 guidance were updated by the Natural
Haze Levels II Committee utilizing the new IMPROVE equation and
included some refinements to the estimates for the PM
components.182 183 These estimates are referred to as the
``NCII'' default natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\181\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in Appendix 5-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and in
numerous published papers. See for example: Hand, J.L., and Malm,
W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient
Light Extinction Coefficients--Final Report. March 2006. Prepared
for Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE), Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for
Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, available at:
http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htm and Pitchford, Marc., 2006,
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to
Natural Species Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis
Workgroup. September 2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
\182\ Pitchford, Marc, 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application
of the New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species Concentrations
Estimates. Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to
the RPO Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006,
available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
\183\ The second version of the natural haze level II estimates
based on the work of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee is
available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Docs/IMPROVE/Aerosol/NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_v2.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ chose to derive a ``refined'' estimate of natural
visibility conditions rather than using the default NCII values. In
calculating natural visibility conditions, the TCEQ used the new
IMPROVE equation and PM concentration estimates (i.e., the NCII values)
for most components, but assumed that 100% of the fine soil and coarse
mass concentrations in the baseline period should be attributed to
natural causes and that the corresponding estimates in the NCII values
should be replaced. The TCEQ noted there is some uncertainty with these
calculations in the amount of natural fine and coarse mass assumption.
The TCEQ also stated that, to the extent its assumption that 100% of
coarse mass and fine soil is natural is an overestimate, it expects
that its low organic carbon estimate will more than compensate for any
errors in this assumption at this time. This issue is discussed in more
detail in our TX TSD.
For the 20% worst days, the TCEQ calculated natural visibility
conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains of 10.09 dv and
12.26 dv, respectively. For the 20% best days, the TCEQ calculated that
natural visibility conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains
of 2.19 dv, and 2.10 dv, respectively.
In response to FLM comments, the TCEQ also performed an additional
calculation for the 20% worst days, assuming only 80% of fine soil and
course mass as natural, in order to demonstrate the sensitivity of its
approach to this assumption. Under this approach, the TCEQ estimated
natural conditions to be 9.2 dv for the 20% worst days at Big Bend,
compared to 10.09 dv using the assumption that 100% of fine soil and
course mass is natural, and 7.16 dv using the NCII method. For the
Guadalupe Mountains, the TCEQ's estimate was 11.0 dv under the 80%
assumption, compared with 12.26 dv under the 100% assumption and 6.65
dv using the NCII method. These values are summarized below:
Table 2--TCEQ Natural Visibility Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains Big Bend
---------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst days 20% Best days 20% Worst days 20% Best days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% fine soil and coarse mass.................. 12.26 2.10 10.09 2.19
80% fine soil and coarse mass................... 11.0 (\1\) 9.2 (\1\)
NCII default.................................... 6.65 0.99 7.16 1.62
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not calculated.
Ultimately, the TCEQ stated that it was including the 80%
assumption for illustration purposes only and based its calculations of
natural conditions on assuming that 100% coarse mass and fine soil
assumption are due to natural sources.
We agree that dust storms and other blown dust from deserts are a
significant contributor to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I
areas that may not be captured accurately by our default method.
However, we propose to find that the TCEQ has not adequately
demonstrated that all coarse mass and fine soil measured in the
baseline period can be attributed to 100% natural sources.
Anthropogenic sources of coarse mass and fine soil in the baseline
period could have included emissions associated with paved and unpaved
roads, agricultural activity, and construction activities. We also note
that the impact from dust at Big Bend is less certain than at Guadalupe
Mountains and a different assumption may be appropriate in estimating
natural conditions there. Given the significant uncertainty in the
assumptions used in the Texas methodology and the demonstrated
sensitivity to the assumption of 100% natural versus 80% soil and
coarse mass
[[Page 74832]]
from natural sources, we propose to disapprove Texas' calculation of
the natural visibility conditions for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Class
I areas.
In its regional haze SIP, the TCEQ stated that it will continue to
evaluate data, modeling, and any other sources of information in order
to further improve its estimates. Furthermore, the TCEQ plans to work
with us and the federal land managers to improve natural conditions
estimates for future regional haze SIP revisions. We encourage these
efforts.
As discussed elsewhere in this notice, we propose to rely on the
NCII default values that were used for every other Class I area in the
country for our proposed FIP to address this deficiency in the Texas
regional haze SIP, but we solicit comment on the acceptability of
alternate estimates in the range between the EPA default estimates and
Texas' estimates. The federal land managers commented during the
development of the Texas regional haze SIP that an assumption of 80%
would be more reasonable than an assumption of 100%. We note that with
any of the methodologies for calculating natural conditions discussed
above, Texas' Class I areas are not projected to meet the URP in 2018
according to the CENRAP modeling and are not projected to meet the goal
of natural visibility conditions by 2064.
2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
As required by Section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule,
the TCEQ calculated baseline visibility conditions for Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains. The baseline condition calculation begins with the
calculation of light extinction for each day with monitoring data,
using the IMPROVE equation. As with the natural visibility conditions
calculation, the TCEQ chose to use the new IMPROVE equation, as
described above.
The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000-
2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using available
monitoring data, as required under Section 51.308(d)(2). The TCEQ
averaged the data from 2001 through 2004 for Big Bend \184\ and
calculated the baseline conditions at Big Bend to be 17.30 dv on the
20% worst days, and 5.78 dv on the 20% best days. In calculating the
baseline conditions at the Guadalupe Mountains, the TCEQ averaged the
visibility data for 2000-2004, and calculated the baseline conditions
at the Guadalupe Mountains to be 17.19 dv on the 20% worst days, and
5.95 dv on the 20% best days. We have reviewed the TCEQ's estimation of
baseline visibility conditions at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains
and are proposing to find that the TCEQ has satisfied the requirements
of Section 51.308(d)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\184\ The TCEQ determined that the fourth quarter of 2000 for
Big Bend was not sufficiently complete for use in calculating a
baseline average for regulatory purposes, as it had only ten
complete days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Natural Visibility Impairment
To address Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), the TCEQ also calculated
the number of dv by which baseline conditions exceed natural visibility
conditions for the best and worst days at Big Bend and the Guadalupe
Mountains. The natural visibility impairment is calculated by
subtracting the natural visibility calculation from the baseline
visibility calculation. This information is summarized below:
Table 3--Natural Visibility Impairment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural
Class I area Baseline Natural visibility
visibility visibility impairment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days........................ Big Bend................ 17.30 10.09 7.21
Guadalupe Mts........... 17.19 12.26 4.93
20% Best Days......................... Big Bend................ 5.78 2.19 3.59
Guadalupe Mts........... 5.95 2.10 3.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the TCEQ's estimates of the natural visibility
impairment at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and we propose to
disapprove these estimates because this calculation depends on the
TCEQ's calculations for natural visibility conditions, which we also
propose to disapprove for the reasons discussed in the previous
section.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
Under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), as part of its RPGs
determination, the TCEQ analyzed and determined the URP needed to reach
natural visibility conditions by the year 2064. Also in establishing
its RPGs, the TCEQ considered the uniform rate of improvement in
visibility and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve this
rate for the period covered by the SIP. In so doing, the TCEQ compared
the baseline visibility conditions to the natural visibility conditions
for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, and determined the URP needed
to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. The TCEQ constructed
the URP consistent with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule and
our 2003 Tracking Progress Guidance \185\ by plotting a straight
graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment to the
level of visibility conditions representing no anthropogenic impairment
in 2064 for both Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the baseline visibility values and natural visibility values
discussed above, the TCEQ calculated the URP for Big Bend to be 0.12
dv/year, and that for the Guadalupe Mountains to be 0.08 dv/yr. This
information is summarized below:
Table 4--Summary of Uniform Rate of Progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility metric Big Bend Guadalupe Mts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Conditions............. 17.30 dv.......... 17.19 dv.
Natural Visibility.............. 10.09 dv.......... 12.26 dv.
Total Improvement by 2064....... 7.21 dv........... 4.93 dv.
[[Page 74833]]
Uniform Rate of Progress........ 0.12 dv/year...... 0.08 dv/year.
Improvement needed by 2018...... 1.7 dv............ 1.2 dv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ notes that the URP calculations above have some degree of
uncertainty due to its assumptions in calculating the natural
visibility.
Based on the estimated cost and visibility benefit from
NOX and SO2 controls identified during the TCEQ's
four-factor analysis described below in Section V.C.2, the TCEQ
estimated the costs and emission reduction measures of SO2
and NOX required to enable the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
Bend to achieve the URP. However, it appears that in estimating the
emission reductions and costs to meet its URPs in Table 10-9 of the
Texas Regional Haze SIP, the TCEQ used estimates of visibility benefits
from an earlier draft of the Texas Regional Haze SIP. In that draft
SIP, the TCEQ estimated the visibility benefit from a certain set of
controls to be 0.05 dv at each Texas Class I area.\186\ Based on TCEQ's
final estimation of the visibility benefit from the TCEQ control set,
we have updated the TCEQ's calculations. See our TX TSD for more
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ ``SIP Narrative comparison of changes from proposal to
adoption'' available at: http://www.tceq.texas.gov/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/haze/4HazeSIPcompare_rev.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Errors in its calculation aside, we note that while the TCEQ has,
in establishing its RPG, correctly followed the procedures for
analyzing and determining the rate of progress needed to attain natural
visibility conditions by the year 2064, we propose to find the TCEQ has
calculated this rate of progress on the basis of, and compared baseline
visibility conditions to, a flawed estimation of natural visibility
conditions for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, as we describe
above. Therefore, we propose to disapprove the TCEQs calculation of the
URP needed to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. In
addition, as we discuss in Section V.C, we identify problems with the
TCEQ's reasonable progress four factor analysis, which the TCEQ
partially relied upon in consideration of the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve the natural visibility conditions. For these
reasons, we must also propose disapproval of the TCEQ's estimation of
the emission reduction measures needed to achieve the URP for the
period covered by the SIP, under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
Under Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Texas may not adopt a RPG that
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from
implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable
planning period.
The RPGs established by Texas are based on CENRAP 2018 modeling
projections. The modeling projections conducted by CENRAP contain
projections of the visibility conditions that are anticipated to be
realized at each Class I area between the 2002 base year and the 2018
future year. These projections are based on the emission reductions
resulting from federal and state control programs that are either
currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction
schedules that predate 2018, including the long-term strategies of
Texas, Oklahoma, and other states, and presumptive emission reductions
expected to result from the submitted Oklahoma BART rule. Since
CENRAP's 2018 modeling projections are based on local, state, and
federal control programs that are either currently in effect or with
mandated future-year emission reduction schedules, we believe that the
TCEQ's RPGs represent at least as much visibility improvement as is
expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA
(i.e., requirements other than RH) during the applicable planning
period. We therefore propose to approve Texas' submission as meeting
Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi) because its RPGs for the Guadalupe Mountains
and Big Bend do not represent less visibility improvement than is
expected to result from the implementation of other requirements of the
CAA during this planning period.
C. Evaluation of Texas' Reasonable Progress Goals
As required by Section 51.308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule, the
TCEQ has established RPGs for its two Class I areas, Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains. These RPGs must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days over the period of the
implementation plan and ensure no degradation in visibility for the
least impaired days over the same planning period.
1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
The TCEQ states that its RPGs are derived from the CENRAP modeling
\187\ and reflect emission reductions programs already in place,
including CAIR and additional refinery SO2 reductions as a
result of our refinery consent decrees. The TCEQ states that these RPGs
assume that either CAIR will remain in place or will be replaced by a
comparable program to reduce visibility impairing pollution from
Electric Generating Units (EGUs) in Texas and in the eastern United
States. The following tables \188\ summarize the TCEQ RPGs:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\187\ The TSD for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling To
Support Regional Haze State Implementation is found in Appendix 8.1
of the Texas regional haze SIP.
\188\ Reproduced from Tables 10-2 and 10-3 of the Texas regional
haze SIP.
Table 5--Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Worst Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improvement Date natural
Baseline Projected 2018 projected by Improvement by visibility
Class I area conditions visibility 2018 using RPG 2018 at URP attained at
(dv) (RPG) (dv) (dv) (dv) RPG rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend........................ 17.30 16.6 0.7 1.7 2155
Guadalupe Mountains............. 17.19 16.3 0.9 1.2 2081
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74834]]
Table 6--Texas Reasonable Progress Goals for 20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Projected 2018
Class I area conditions visibility Improvement by
(dv) (RPG) (dv) 2018 (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend........................................................ 5.8 5.6 0.2
Guadalupe Mountains............................................. 5.9 5.7 0.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the results of Texas' required reasonable progress four-
factor analysis (described in the following section), and the results
of the CENRAP modeling and additional information developed by CENRAP,
the TCEQ adopted the CENRAP modeled 2018 visibility conditions as the
RPGs for the Big Bend and Guadalupe Mountains Class I areas. The TCEQ
established a RPG of 16.6 dv for Big Bend and 16.3 dv for Guadalupe
Mountains for the 20% worst days for 2018. This represents a 0.7 dv and
0.9 dv improvement in visibility over the baseline conditions at Big
Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, respectively. Although Texas' RPGs do
provide for some improvement in visibility for the most impaired days
over the period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for
the least impaired days over the same period, we believe the overall
RPG goals that Texas established for its own Class I areas of Big Bend
and Guadalupe Mountains do not provide for reasonable progress based on
the four reasonable progress factors that a state is required to
consider in selecting a RPG under (d)(1)(i)(A). For the reasons
discussed below, we propose to find that the RPGs identified for the
Texas Class I areas are not reasonable. We address our proposed finding
regarding whether the Texas regional haze SIP satisfies the
requirements under Section 51.308(d)(1) to set RPGs below.
2. Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor Analysis
In establishing a RPG for a Class I area located within a state,
Texas is required by CAA Section 169A(g)(1) and Section
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to ``[c]onsider the costs of compliance, the time
necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors
were taken into consideration in selecting the goal.'' This requirement
is often referred to as the reasonable progress ``four factor
analysis.'' In addition to this explicit statutory and regulatory
requirement, the Regional Haze Rule also establishes an analytical
requirement to ensure that Texas carefully consider the suite of
emission reduction measures necessary to attain the URP. Under Section
51.308(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Haze Rule provides that we will
consider both Texas' consideration of the four factors in Section
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) and its analysis of the URP ``[i]n determining
whether the State's goal for visibility improvement provides for
reasonable progress.'' As explained in the preamble to the Regional
Haze Rule, the URP analysis was adopted to ensure that states use a
common analytical framework and to provide an informed and equitable
decision making process to ensure a transparent process that would,
among other things, guarantee that the public would be provided with
the information necessary to understand the emission reductions needed,
the costs of such measures, and other factors associated with
improvements in visibility.\189\ The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule
\190\ also states that the URP does not establish a ``safe harbor'' for
the state in setting its progress goals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\189\ 64 FR 35733 (July 1, 1999).
\190\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999).
If the State determines that the amount of progress identified
through the [URP] analysis is reasonable based upon the statutory
factors, the State should identify this amount of progress as its
reasonable progress goal for the first long-term strategy, unless it
determines that additional progress beyond this amount is also
reasonable. If the State determines that additional progress is
reasonable based on the statutory factors, the State should adopt
that amount of progress as its goal for the first long-term
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
strategy.
In establishing its RPGs for 2018 for the 20% worst days, the TCEQ
relied on the improvements in visibility that are anticipated to result
from federal, state, and local control programs. Based on the emission
reductions from these measures, CENRAP modeled the projected visibility
conditions anticipated at each Class I area in 2018 and the TCEQ used
these results to establish its RPGs. The TCEQ states it developed its
RPGs after considering the regulatory factors required under Section
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), discussed above. The TCEQ focused its control
strategy analysis on point source emissions of SO2 and
NOX, as the sources of these pollutants are the main
anthropogenic pollutants that affect visibility at Class I areas in
Texas. It examined visibility impairment at the Texas Class I areas and
Class I areas in nearby states. The TCEQ stated that source
apportionment modeling results, summarized in Chapter 11 of the Texas
regional haze SIP, demonstrate that NOX and SO2
are the main anthropogenic pollutants that affect visibility at the
Class I areas in Texas and Class I areas in surrounding states. Source
apportionment modeling also indicated that sulfur emissions that impact
visibility are dominated by point sources, while impacts from
NOX emissions are more evenly distributed between area,
mobile and point sources. The following table \191\ summarizes the
source category contributions from the 2002 base case CENRAP source
apportionment modeling for the five Class I areas whose visibility is
most impacted by Texas emissions. In evaluating the emission inventory
projections, Texas concluded that for SO2, point sources are
responsible for over 90% of the projected 2018 statewide emissions, and
for NOX, point sources comprise over 45% of the projected
statewide emissions. The TCEQ noted that NOX emissions are
more evenly distributed among point, mobile, and area sources, and that
states have very limited authority to reduce mobile source emissions
and are already addressing road and non-road mobile emissions. The TCEQ
noted the largest category of area source NOX is upstream
oil and gas production, and it is taking all steps it has determined
are reasonable at this time to control these sources as part of the
Dallas-Fort Worth ozone SIP and is investing $4,000,000 in a grant
program to assist with the retrofitting of gas-fired, rich burn
compressor engines. The TCEQ also noted uncertainty in upstream oil and
gas emission estimates. Therefore, the TCEQ reasoned that since point
sources
[[Page 74835]]
are the single largest pollution category for SO2 and
NOX, it should concentrate its RPG strategy on analyzing
controls for point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ Reproduced from Table 3 in Appendix 10-1 of the Texas
regional haze SIP.
Table 7--Percentage Source Category Contributions to SO4 and NO3 at the Five Class I Areas Texas Most Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend Guadalupe Mountains
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Mobile Area Point Mobile Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4..................................................... 67.1 2.8 6.9 75.6 3.5 8.5
NO3..................................................... 26.6 28.6 14.3 29.2 36.5 13.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains Salt Creek White Mountain
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Mobile Area Point Mobile Area Point Mobile Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4.................................................. 78.2 3.7 9.2 73.8 3.9 8.1 75.2 4.1 8.1
NO3.................................................. 28.1 44.7 13.4 35.8 29.9 17.1 27.9 40.3 12.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Having narrowed the scope of the control analysis to point sources
of NOX and SO2, the TCEQ developed a list of
potential controls and costs associated with those controls to inform
their four factor analysis. It used the control strategy analysis
developed by CENRAP as the starting point for its analysis. CENRAP
contracted with Alpine Geophysics to conduct an evaluation of possible
additional point-source add-on controls for sources in CENRAP states.
The Alpine Geophysics evaluation relied on AirControlNET,\192\ a
database tool we released in 2006 to enable cost-benefit analyses of
potential emissions control measures and strategies. Alpine Geophysics
prepared cost estimates for potential add-on controls for
NOX and SO2 reductions in 2005 dollars for point
sources in CENRAP states. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources and
Kansas Department of Health and Environment staff developed Area-of-
Influence (AOI) data for each Class I area in every CENRAP member
state, as well as distance calculations for each source to each Class I
area for inclusion in the Alpine Geophysics analysis. Available
SO2 and NOX control strategies in the
AirControlNET dataset were applied to EGU and non-EGU sources to
develop a master list of available incremental control strategies for
the CENRAP states.\193\ The TCEQ reviewed this information for Texas
sources and made changes based on additional information and past
experience. The TCEQ also added some additional sources from source-
types not included in the CENRAP AirControlNET dataset. This work
resulted in a list of potential add-on controls for reducing
SO2 and NOX at Texas point sources, an estimate
of the costs associated with each control, and identification of the
AOIs for each Class I area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\192\ Additional information and a copy of the AirControl NET
software can be found at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/AirControlNET.htm
\193\ Lists of NOX and SO2 controls
meeting cost thresholds ranging from $1,500/ton to $10,000/ton
developed by Alpine Geophysics are available in the docket to this
action (See spreadsheets titled ``nox_cost_ton_--2_'' and
``so2_cost_ton'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ states its analysis focused on moderate cost controls for
sources it believed were likely to contribute to visibility impairment
at Class I areas. In an effort to further narrow the list of potential
controls, the TCEQ followed the screening process summarized below and
as detailed in Section 10-1.3 of Appendix 10-1 of the Texas regional
haze SIP:
Identified controls at sources with potential control
strategy costs greater than $2,700 per ton SO2 or
NOX were initially screened out.
Remaining sources were reduced by eliminating the ones the
TCEQ believed were so far away from any of the ten Class I areas, that
any reduction in their emissions would likely not have a perceptible
impact on visibility.
Remaining sources were further reduced by eliminating the
ones for which a ratio of the estimated projected 2018 base annual
emissions (tons) of SO2 or NOX to distance
(kilometers), to any Class I area, did not exceed five.
Any source with predicted 2018 emissions less than 100
tons per year was excluded.
Separate from the above described screening process, the TCEQ also
excluded additional NOX controls on cement kilns from
consideration, as it concluded it had already required all the measures
it had determined reasonable to control NOX emissions from
these sources in the latest Dallas-Fort Worth ozone SIP revision. The
TCEQ reasoned, based on a study performed for the Dallas-Fort Worth
ozone SIP revision,\194\ that a 35 to 50% NOX control range
was the most appropriate control level to address ozone formation. The
TCEQ developed a source cap that required a reduction of approximately
9.69 tons per day (tpd) of NOX emissions from the cement
kilns in Ellis County starting March 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ Assessment of NOX Emission Reduction Strategies
for Cement Kilns--Ellis County Final Report, TCEQ Contract No. 582-
04-65589, Work Order No.05-06, Prepared by: ERG, Inc., 10200
Alliance Road, Suite 190, Cincinnati, Ohio 45242-4716. Available at:
http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/assets/public/implementation/air/sip/agreements/BSA/CEMENT_FINAL_REPORT_70514_final.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The types of controls considered by the CENRAP study, based on
industrial categories, are listed below:
SO2 Control at 24 Facilities From 15 Sites
Natural Gas Transmission--Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD)
Crude Petroleum--Sulfur recovery and/or tail gas treatment
Inorganic chemical plants--coal washing and Spray Dryer
Absorber (SDA) on boilers, increase efficiency of sulfuric acid plants
Electric Generating Units (EGU)--coal washing and FGD wet
scrubbing
Carbon black--FGD
NOX Control for 24 Facilities at 15 Sites
Natural Gas Transmission--Low NOX Burners
(LNB), Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) + LNB
EGU--LNB with Close Coupled Over-Fired Air (LNC1), and
with both LNC1 and Separated Over-Fired Air (LNC3)
Flat Glass--LNB, SCR
Paper Mills SNCR and Oxygen Trim (OT) with water injection
Chemical Plant Boiler--SCR
The total cost of controls and the resulting emission reductions
were calculated by summing up the
[[Page 74836]]
individual costs of those identified controls located within the AOI of
Big Bend or the Guadalupe Mountains. The TCEQ also performed this
calculation for eight additional Class I areas in other states impacted
by Texas' emissions: Breton Island, Caney Creek, Carlsbad Caverns, Salt
Creek, Upper Buffalo, Wheeler Peak, White Mountain, and the Wichita
Mountains. The annualized costs \195\ that would result from the
imposition of the above controls within each Class I area's AOI are
shown below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\195\ Annualized costs are the total yearly costs, typically the
sum of the yearly capital cost (amortized over the life of the
control) and the yearly operational cost. In this instance, the TCEQ
relied upon our AirControlNET model which for these types of
controls typically assumed a 30 year control life.
Table 8--Annualized Cost of Controls for Each Class I Area
[Controls at facilities within each class I area's AOI]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area NOX SO2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend.......................... $24,100,000 $215,900,000
Breton Island..................... 27,000,000 231,000,000
Caney Creek....................... 28,600,000 245,900,000
Carlsbad Caverns.................. 24,100,000 255,500,000
Guadalupe Mountains............... 33,800,000 254,900,000
Salt Creek........................ 27,000,000 251,900,000
Upper Buffalo..................... 24,100,000 233,800,000
Wheeler Peak...................... 22,700,000 229,500,000
White Mountains................... 23,000,000 244,500,000
Wichita Mountains................. 28,100,000 269,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of these controls are in more than one AOI. The TCEQ reviewed
the total cost of all state-wide point source controls identified by
the process described above, as follows for 13 facilities with
SO2 controls and 15 facilities with NOX controls.
Table 9--Total Estimated Cost of Texas Control Set 196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Reduction (tpy) Estimated cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2).............. 155,873 $270,800,000
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)............. 27,132 53,500,000
-------------------------------------
Total Costs................... ................. $324,300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 196 TCEQ used the results of the 2018 CENRAP state-wide
photochemical grid modeling analyses (that includes the 2018 modeling
and a CENRAP control case modeling scenario) to estimate the visibility
benefit that would result in 2018 from controlling those sources in
Texas identified by it following the process described above. CENRAP
developed a modeling scenario to estimate the effectiveness of a
specific suite of controls on facilities in the CENRAP states. CENRAP
based its control sensitivity analysis on a maximum estimated cost of
$5,000 per ton of emissions of NOX or SO2 reduced
estimated in the Alpine Geophysics report and evaluated only those
point sources predicted to emit 100 tons or more of SO2 or
NOX in the year 2018.\197\ Similar to the Texas analysis,
CENRAP further refined the sources for analysis, considering controls
only for those sources with emissions of NOX or
SO2 greater than or equal to five tons per year per
kilometer of distance to the nearest Class I area. This distance-
weighing criterion limited the sensitivity evaluation to sources with
the greatest likely influence on visibility. The CENRAP control
sensitivity modeling run included emission reductions beyond CAIR and
BART in the CENRAP states at all point sources where the cost-
effectiveness and Q/D \198\ criteria discussed above were met, and
projected the resulting visibility conditions in 2018 at the CENRAP
Class I areas. This modeling was developed as a starting point for
discussion and development of refined analyses as needed.\199\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ Reproduced from Table 4 in Appendix 10-1 of the Texas
regional haze SIP.
\197\ See Section 2.14 of the Technical Support Document for
CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans, September 12, 2007.
\198\ Q/D is the ratio of annual emissions over distance to a
Class I area.
\199\ ``The results of the modeling were not intended to be
prescriptive; instead, they were intended to be a starting point for
control discussions that would require much greater refinement.''
CENRAP TSD, page 2-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ used the CENRAP control sensitivity analysis and the
CENRAP 2018 visibility projection modeling as the starting point for
estimating the visibility benefit of implementing only the controls
identified by it above for Texas point sources. The TCEQ used the
results of this modeling analysis and the source apportionment modeling
results to determine an ``effectiveness ratio'' for NOX and
SO2 reductions, which it states provides an estimate of
improvement in visibility for every ton of NOX and
SO2 reduced in order to produce ``an order of magnitude
estimate of the likely visibility improvements resulting from the point
source.'' See Appendix 10-2 and 10-4 of the Texas regional haze SIP and
our TX TSD for additional information on the methodology Texas used to
develop this estimate.
The TCEQ summarizes the estimated visibility improvement that would
result in 2018 from the imposition of all the above controls as follows
\200\:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ Table 5 in Appendix 10-1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
[[Page 74837]]
Table 10--TCEQ Projected Visibility Improvement to Selected Class I
Areas From the Imposition of Potential Controls
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility
Class I area improvement (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend............................................. 0.16
Breton Island........................................ 0.05
Caney Creek.......................................... 0.33
Carlsbad Caverns..................................... 0.22
Guadalupe Mountains.................................. 0.22
Salt Creek........................................... 0.18
Upper Buffalo........................................ 0.16
Wheeler Peak......................................... 0.04
White Mountains...................................... 0.24
Wichita Mountains.................................... 0.36
------------------------------------------------------------------------
After identification of potential controls for multiple sources,
estimation of aggregate costs associated with those controls and
estimation of the overall visibility improvement anticipated from
implementation of those controls as described above, the TCEQ then
weighed the four statutory factors in determining the reasonableness of
additional controls and selecting the RPGs for Big Bend and Guadalupe
Mountains. In general, the cost of compliance was the key factor
considered by the TCEQ. It determined that the time necessary for
compliance was not a critical factor for the determination of
applicable additional controls for Texas sources. It stated that to the
extent energy impacts are quantifiable for a particular control, they
were included in its cost estimates. However, it stated that
``including [energy and non-air quality environmental] impacts on a
source-by-source basis would have added further weight against finding
that the potential additional controls were reasonable to apply.''
\201\ The TCEQ also stated that for the purposes of initial analysis,
no limited remaining useful life was assumed. The TCEQ describes the
cost of compliance as a factor used to determine whether compliance
costs for sources are reasonable compared to the emission reductions
and visibility improvement they will achieve. The TCEQ weighed the four
reasonable progress factors as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ Page 10-8 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Cost of Compliance
The TCEQ concluded that at a total estimated cost of over $300
million and (in its view) no perceptible visibility benefit, it was not
reasonable to implement additional controls. All units in Texas that
met the emissions over distance threshold were assessed. The TCEQ
states it adopted its $2,700 cost threshold to limit the proposed
controls group to cost-effective measures. Annualized cost values, and
emission reductions based on proposed efficiencies listed in
AirControlNET, were used. Modifications for Texas included the
consideration of flue gas desulfurization for carbon black units.
b. Time Necessary for Compliance
The TCEQ determined that the time necessary for compliance was not
a critical factor for the determination of applicable additional
controls for its sources. It noted that in our CAIR regulatory impact
statement, we estimated that approximately 30 months is required to
design, build, and install SO2 scrubbing technology for a
single EGU boiler. The TCEQ stated that the total time for a single
facility to comply with one of the NOX caps would be about
five years. It estimated that completion by 2018 would still be
anticipated. For mobile sources, MOBILE and NONROAD model runs were
completed for the 2018 emissions inventory. These model runs
incorporated the degree of fleet and expected engine replacement prior
to 2018. The completion of other proposed controls were anticipated by
2018.
c. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance
The TCEQ stated that to the extent energy impacts are quantifiable
for a particular control, they were included in its cost estimates.
However, it stated that ``including [energy and non-air quality
environmental] impacts on a source-by-source basis would have added
further weight against finding that the potential additional controls
were reasonable to apply. Source-by-source review of the non-air
quality impacts of the potential controls would possibly have led to a
different determination about the unreasonableness of the set of
potential additional controls.'' \202\ The TCEQ noted that scrubbers,
SCR systems, and Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) systems
installed under the EGU control strategies would require electricity to
operate fans and other ancillary equipment. However, it noted that
estimates were given that the electricity and steam required by
controls installed to meet SO2 and NOX emission
caps would be less than 1% of the total electricity and steam
production of EGUs. TCEQ noted that Scrubbers, coal washing, and spray
dryers would require additional safeguards for fuel handling and waste
handling systems to avoid additional non-air environmental impacts such
as increased effluents in waste water discharges and storm water
runoff. The TCEQ expected that solid waste disposal and wastewater
treatment costs would be less than five percent of the total operating
costs of pollution control equipment. It noted that these factors would
have to be considered specific to individual sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ Texas Regional Haze SIP, page 10-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Remaining Useful life
The TCEQ noted that CENRAP considered the remaining useful life in
modeling for mobile sources that assumes reduced emissions per vehicle
mile traveled due to the turnover of the on-road mobile source fleet.
It noted that for sources with a relatively short remaining useful
life, this consideration would have weighed more heavily against a
determination that controlling those sources would have been
reasonable. The TCEQ believed that this factor was not critical for its
sector analyses for the 2018 timeline and did not assume any limited
useful equipment life. Only units that were scheduled for shutdown
under enforceable decrees were eliminated from the 2018 inventory and
further analysis.
e. TCEQ Noted Uncertainty in Visibility Projections Due to CAIR
The TCEQ noted that the majority of the emission reductions
underlying the predicted visibility improvements in 2018 resulting from
controls already in effect or scheduled to become effective will result
from the CAIR program in particular. The CAIR program allows interstate
trading of allowances, and does not put specific emission limits on
specific sources. Further, it notes that because emission allowances
can be purchased by EGUs, visibility improvement may be less or more
that that predicted by the CENRAP's modeling. CENRAP used our
Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to predict the emission reductions
expected from CAIR in 2018. The TCEQ assumed that any replacement for
CAIR will include interstate trading of emissions allowances. The TCEQ
presents a comparison \203\ of its baseline 2002 SO2
emissions, the CAIR budget for EGUs in 2015 and the IPM predicted
SO2 emissions for the 2018 planning year:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ Reproduced from Table 10-7 in the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
[[Page 74838]]
Table 11--Comparison of Texas 2002 Baseline SO2 Emissions, 2015 CAIR
EGUs Budget and 2018 IPM Predicted SO2 Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas SO2
SO2 emissions emissions
(tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current (2002 base case)................................ 550,000
EPA's CAIR budget for Texas EGUs for 2015............... 225,000
IPM projection CENRAP modeled for 2018.................. 350,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ notes that the IPM model analysis used by CENRAP predicts
that by 2018 EGUs in Texas will purchase approximately 125,000 tpy of
emissions allowances from out of state. This represents more than 50%
of Texas' total CAIR SO2 budget. The TCEQ states that it
requested that key EGUs in Texas review and comment on the predictions
of the IPM model. However, no EGU made an enforceable commitment to any
particular pollution control strategy and preferred to retain the
flexibility offered by the CAIR program.
f. The TCEQ Reasonable Progress Conclusion
The TCEQ's assessment of reasonable progress rested primarily on
its calculation of the total cost of the controls it analyzed versus
the visibility benefits at the ten Class I areas it analyzed. It
concluded, ``At a total estimated cost exceeding $300 million and no
perceptible visibility benefit, Texas has determined that it is not
reasonable to implement additional controls at this time.'' \204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\204\ Texas Regional Haze SIP, page 10-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(d)(1)(iii) requires that in determining whether the
state's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable
progress towards natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will
evaluate the demonstrations developed by the state pursuant to Sections
51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). We perform that evaluation beginning in
the next section.
3. Our Analysis of Texas' Reasonable Progress Four Factor Analysis
We agree with the TCEQ's decision to focus the analysis of the four
statutory factors on point sources, as the CENRAP modeling results and
the TCEQ's analysis in Chapter 11 and appendix 10-1 of the Texas
regional haze SIP indicate that the predominant anthropogenic
pollutants that affects the state's ability to meet the URP goals in
2018 on the worst 20% days at the Texas Class I areas are largely due
to sulfate and nitrate, primarily from point sources. We agree with the
TCEQ's assessment that the cost of compliance is the dominant factor,
and its incorporation of the other factors into the cost, where
applicable. We note, however, that because the TCEQ did not evaluate
controls on a source-by-source basis, source-specific factors related
to the evaluation of the reasonable progress four factor analysis could
not be considered. We also agree with the TCEQ's decision to consider
visibility benefits in weighing the factors and to assist in its
consideration of the cost of compliance. While visibility is not an
explicitly listed factor to consider when determining whether
additional controls are reasonable, the purpose of the four-factor
analysis is to determine what degree of progress toward natural
visibility conditions is reasonable. Therefore, we believe it is
appropriate to consider the projected visibility benefit of the
controls when determining if cost-effective controls are warranted to
make reasonable progress. However, the TCEQ did not discriminate
between and analyze controls on those source(s) with the highest
potential visibility benefit at each Class I area. We disagree with the
set of potential controls identified by the TCEQ and how it analyzed
and weighed the four reasonable progress factors in a number of key
areas.
a. The TCEQ's Cost-Effectiveness Threshold Approach
The TCEQ eliminated controls with an estimated cost-efficiency
greater than $2,700/ton from any further analysis, regardless of their
potential visibility benefits. Given the large number of sources and
their large geographic distribution, some consideration of location and
emissions data is needed before controls should have been eliminated
from further analysis. The TCEQ supports its selection of this value
with reference to ``EPA estimated cost of implementing CAIR was up to
$2,700/ton.'' However, although we demonstrated that CAIR was
acceptable in lieu of BART, CAIR was not designed as a reasonable
progress strategy. A state should look beyond BART for additional
reductions when developing its long-term strategy to achieve reasonable
progress at its Class I areas.\205\ As a result of the application of
this $2,700/ton threshold, potentially cost-effective controls were not
evaluated at sources that may result in meaningful visibility benefits
at Guadalupe Mountains or Big Bend. For example, potential
SO2 controls for the Tolk Station were estimated in the
Alpine Geophysics analysis to cost an average of approximately $3,100/
ton and result in nearly 20,000 tpy reduced across the two units.
Applying the $2,700/ton threshold, the TCEQ did not consider potential
controls on any EGUs in West Texas to improve visibility at the two
Class I areas located in West Texas despite the potential visibility
benefits from controlling these large point sources. Sensitivity
analysis performed by CENRAP suggests to us that a threshold in the
range of $4,000/ton to $5,000/ton would be reasonable for purposes of
identifying potential cost-effective controls for further
analysis.\206\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\205\ Per Section 51.308(e)(5), ``After a State has met the
requirements for BART or implemented emissions trading program or
other alternative measure that achieves more reasonable progress
than the installation and operation of BART, BART-eligible sources
will be subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section
in the same manner as other sources.''
\206\ See ``Sensitivity Run Specifications for CENRAP
Consultation,'' available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The TCEQ's Weighing of the Four Factors for Individual Sources
The TCEQ constructed a large potential control set consisting of a
mix of large and small sources, located at various distances from Class
I areas, with a large geographical distribution. Because of the
variation in size, type, and location of these sources, the potential
to impact visibility and potential benefit from controls at a given
Class I area can vary greatly between the identified sources. This
potential control set identified by the TCEQ included controls on some
sources that would likely result in significant visibility benefits,
but also included controls on many sources with much less anticipated
visibility benefits. Because it only estimated the visibility benefit
of all the controls together, the TCEQ was not able to assess the
potential benefit of controlling individual sources with significant,
and potentially cost-effective, visibility benefits. Also, we believe
that individual benefits were masked by the inclusion of those controls
with little visibility benefit that only served to increase the total
cost figures. For example, the TCEQ identified SO2 controls
at Big Brown to be approximately $1,500/ton, significantly less than
its $2,700/ton threshold. These controls were estimated to achieve
greater than 40,000 tpy SO2 emission reductions. Despite
this evidence in the record of an identified cost-effective control
that results in large emission reductions, and source apportionment
modeling identifying large impacts from
[[Page 74839]]
EGU sources in northeast Texas, the TCEQ did not separately evaluate
the visibility benefit from the implementation of this control, or
appropriately weigh the four reasonable progress factors in determining
the reasonableness of this individual control.
Because individual sources were not considered by the TCEQ, we
found it is necessary to conduct an additional analysis to determine
whether this approach materially affected the outcome of the TCEQ
analysis. As we demonstrate in detail in our FIP TSD, by analyzing
sources individually, we believe we have identified a small number of
sources that are responsible for much of Texas' collective visibility
impact on the Texas' Class I areas, which if controlled, would provide
for visibility benefit at Texas' Class I areas. That modeling is
summarized below.
Our preliminary modeling study identified those facilities with the
largest impacts on the Texas Class I areas on the 20% worst days in
2018.\207\ This modeling includes the same projections the TCEQ used to
account for predicted reductions due to CAIR. The projected impacts
\208\ in 2018 from the top ten facilities in Texas that impact
visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are summarized in
Tables 12 and 13 below (see our FIP TSD for more details). Texas point
sources combined are projected in 2018 to contribute approximately 8%
(3.56 Mm-\1\) to the total visibility impairment at Big
Bend, and 9% (3.84 Mm-\1\) to the total visibility
impairment at Guadalupe Mountains. These results below show that some
facilities can have large impacts on certain days and significant
impacts on the 20% worst days, even including facilities like Big Brown
which is more than 700 km from Big Bend and more than 800 km from the
Guadalupe Mountains. We note that Texas decided to invite states to
consult using the CENRAP Particulate Matter Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT) results and included states with > 0.5 inverse
megameter impact (from all sources in the state) on one of Texas' Class
I areas.\209\ These results also suggest that controlling a small
number of sources will result in visibility benefits at both Class I
areas, and that rather than evaluating controls at all facilities
identified by Texas combined, a subset of those facilities (and some
additional facilities not identified) may be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\207\ As discussed later in this TSD, this study also looked at
impacts from Texas sources on Class I areas in other States.
\208\ We occasionally present visibility in extinction, rather
than deciviews (dv). Light extinction, in units of inverse
megameters (Mm-\1\), is the amount of light lost as it
travels over one million meters. The haze index, in units of
deciviews (dv), is calculated directly from the total light
extinction, bext, as follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10). Extinction is an
appropriate measure for the visibility impairment contribution from
individual sources because it avoids the sensitivity of the
logarithmic transformation for calculating deciviews to the overall
level of visibility impairment including the impacts of other
sources.
\209\ See Appendix 4-1: Summary of Consultation Calls.
Table 12--2018 Phase 1 EPA Source Apportionment Modeling Results, top ten Facilities in Texas That Impact
Visibility at Big Bend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Contribution
Extinction (Mm- to total Max extinction
Rank Facility name 1) 20% worst visibility during 20%
days impairment 20% worst days
worst days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... SOMMERS DEELY S......... 0.276 0.57 1.193
2..................................... COLETO CREEK PL......... 0.216 0.44 0.937
3..................................... BIG BROWN............... 0.212 0.44 0.923
4..................................... RELIANT ENERGY *........ 0.103 0.21 0.441
5..................................... LIGNITE-FIRED P **...... 0.101 0.21 0.428
6..................................... MONTICELLO STM.......... 0.096 0.20 0.413
7..................................... W A PARISH STAT......... 0.090 0.18 0.385
8..................................... BIG SPRING CARB......... 0.084 0.17 0.356
9..................................... SANDOW STEAM EL......... 0.080 0.16 0.342
10.................................... MARTIN LAKE ELE......... 0.080 0.16 0.342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the Limestone facility.
** This is the San Miguel facility.
Table 13--2018 Phase 1 EPA Source Apportionment Modeling Results, top ten Facilities in Texas That Impact
Visibility at Guadalupe Mountains
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Contribution
Extinction (Mm- to total Max extinction
Rank Facility name 1) 20% worst visibility during 20%
days impairment 20% worst days
worst days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................................... TOLK STATION............ 0.302 0.65 1.004
2..................................... BIG BROWN............... 0.235 0.50 0.809
3..................................... BIG SPRING CARB......... 0.226 0.48 0.775
4..................................... SOMMERS DEELY S......... 0.208 0.44 0.688
5..................................... HARRINGTON STAT......... 0.184 0.39 0.606
6..................................... MONTICELLO STM.......... 0.114 0.24 0.391
7..................................... WAHA PLANT.............. 0.113 0.24 0.387
8..................................... RELIANT ENERGY *........ 0.111 0.24 0.372
9..................................... MARTIN LAKE ELE......... 0.104 0.22 0.351
10.................................... COLETO CREEK PL......... 0.066 0.14 0.227
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This is the Limestone facility.
[[Page 74840]]
c. The TCEQ's Cost of Compliance Analysis Assumed Future CAIR
Reductions as a Baseline
We based our determination that CAIR was better than BART in part
on a finding that CAIR resulted in an overall improvement in visibility
determined by comparing the average differences over all affected Class
I areas. We noted at the time that BART is one component of a long-term
strategy to make reasonable progress, but it is not the only component.
\210\ Thus, when assessing reasonable progress, a state should look
beyond BART for additional reductions when determining what long-term
strategy will achieve reasonable progress at its Class I areas. A
critical decision point in performing cost analysis for potential
controls is the determination of an emission baseline. As we state
above, the TCEQ projected that Texas EGUs would purchase approximately
125,000 tpy of emissions allowances from out of state. The TCEQ relied
on the IPM predictions as discussed above to estimate 2018 emission
levels for EGUs. The TCEQ also notes that there is uncertainty in the
size and distribution in emissions in the future projections.
Nevertheless, the TCEQ utilized this future projection of 2018
emissions as the starting point for its estimation of emission
reductions and the associated costs of additional controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\210\ 70 FR 39137 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, Big Brown Unit 1's SO2 emissions in 2002
were 34,448 tpy. The IPM predictions that were incorporated into the
2018 emission level assume that a roughly 1/3 reduction in these
emissions will occur in response to CAIR by switching to a coal with a
lower sulfur content, resulting in a 2018 SO2 emission level
of 23,142 tpy. The TCEQ's cost-effectiveness calculation for post-
combustion controls on Big Brown Unit 1 was based on reducing that
projected 2018 SO2 emission level of 23,142 tpy by 90%,
resulting in a reduction of 20,828 tpy. This results in a cost of
$32,766,310/yr, or a cost-effectiveness calculation of $1,573/ton.
However, the installation of a scrubber would allow Big Brown
flexibility in fuel choice thus allowing the unit to continue to burn
the higher average sulfur fuel it currently burns, instead of moving to
the low sulfur coal predicted by IPM.
Big Brown Unit 1 SO2 emissions in 2012 were 32,100 tons.
The issue of scrubber efficiency aside, a reduction of 90% from these
actual emission levels would result in an SO2 reduction in
the range of 29,000 to 31,000 tpy. While the numerator ($) in the cost-
effectiveness metric of $/ton will increase slightly beyond what was
estimated by Alpine Geophysics due to an increased sulfur loading to
the scrubber, the denominator (tons) would increase by roughly 50%,
thus improving (lowering) the overall cost-effectiveness of controlling
Big Brown Unit 1 significantly.\211\ Estimates for scrubbers at
Monticello are similarly impacted by the cost-methodology used by Texas
in estimating cost-effectiveness on a cost-per-ton basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\211\ See our cost-effectiveness calculations for retrofitting
Big Brown and other Texas EGU with scrubbers in section VII.F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that in performing its control analysis, the TCEQ should
have given greater consideration to the flexibility in the CAIR trading
program and the resulting uncertainty in the projected emissions. In
other words, the TCEQ could have recognized that implementation of
reasonable controls under the Regional Haze Rule would likely not be in
addition to anticipated reductions due to CAIR predicted by IPM, but
would replace or complement any controls predicted by IPM.
d. The TCEQ's Assumptions of SO2 Control Efficiency of
Scrubbers
We note that the control efficiency of scrubbers evaluated by
CENRAP and Texas, based on the data from AirControlNET, was assumed to
be 90%. As we discuss in detail in our FIP TSD, we establish that
SO2 scrubbers are capable of achieving emission reductions
of at least 95% for dry scrubbers and 98% for wet scrubbers. These
additional reductions would further reduce the price on a $/ton basis
and increase the visibility benefit anticipated due to controls.
e. The TCEQ's Evaluation of Potential Visibility Improvements
In considering whether compliance costs for sources were
reasonable, the TCEQ compared those costs to the emission reductions
and visibility improvement those sources would achieve. While
visibility is not an explicitly listed factor to consider when
determining whether additional controls are reasonable, the purpose of
the four-factor analysis is to determine what degree of progress toward
natural visibility conditions is reasonable. Therefore, we consider it
appropriate to consider the projected visibility benefit of the
controls when determining if the controls are needed to make reasonable
progress. We discuss this in more detail in our FIP TSD.
In evaluating and dismissing the estimated visibility benefit from
the control set identified by the TCEQ, the TCEQ states that the
estimated benefit is not perceptible (less than 1 dv) and that it is
less than 0.5 dv, the threshold used under BART requirements used to
determine if a facility contributes to visibility impairment. The 0.5
dv BART threshold referred to applies to the maximum anticipated
visibility impact on a single day due to the short-term maximum actual
baseline emissions from a single facility, compared to clean background
conditions. The reasonable progress analysis presented by the TCEQ
contemplates the visibility benefit anticipated for an average tpy
emission reduction (as opposed to the impact from the total short-term
maximum emissions from the sources) averaged across the 20% worst days,
which would be anticipated to be significantly lower. See our FIP TSD
for a detailed discussion of the different metrics and modeling
typically used for BART and reasonable progress analyses. Furthermore,
in a situation where the installation of BART may not result in a
perceptible improvement in visibility, the visibility benefit may still
be significant, as explained by the Regional Haze Rule: \212\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\212\ 70 FR 39130 (July 6, 2005)
Even though the visibility improvement from an individual source
may not be perceptible, it should still be considered in setting
BART because the contribution to haze may be significant relative to
other source contributions in the Class I area. Thus, we disagree
that the degree of improvement should be contingent upon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
perceptibility.
As we stated in our Oklahoma final decision: \213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\213\ 76 FR 81739 (Dec. 28, 2011).
Given that sources are subject to BART based on a contribution
threshold of no greater than 0.5 deciviews, it would be inconsistent
to automatically rule out additional controls where the improvement
in visibility may be less than 1.0 deciview or even 0.5 deciviews. A
perceptible visibility improvement is not a requirement of the BART
determination because visibility improvements that are not
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
perceptible may still be determined to be significant.
f. The TCEQ's ``Order of Magnitude Estimate'' for Visibility
Improvement
The TCEQ produced an ``order of- magnitude estimate'' of the
visibility improvements resulting from the level of aggregate emission
reductions that would result from its point source control strategy
using PSAT results and effectiveness ratios. This methodology assumes
that all emission reductions within a PSAT region have the same
[[Page 74841]]
effectiveness in reducing visibility impairment. The estimated
effectiveness factor applied equally to all emission reductions located
in the East Texas source region, including Sommers Deely Spruce (440 km
from Big Bend and 680 km from Guadalupe Mountains) and Monticello (850
km from Big Bend and 920 km from Guadalupe Mountains). Given the large
difference in distances between these two facilities and the Class I
areas, it is reasonable to expect that the effectiveness of emission
reductions could vary greatly between the two. We propose to find that
the TCEQ's analysis is insufficient to determine the visibility benefit
of controlling the source or subset of sources with the most effective
controls for improving visibility conditions at a Class I area or a
number of Class I areas and that the potential visibility benefits from
controlling these sources may be significant. Our own source
apportionment modeling has confirmed that individual sources within the
CENRAP modeling PSAT regions had significantly different impacts,
leading us to believe that TCEQ's reliance on an aggregate analysis
materially affected its conclusion that existing and scheduled controls
would achieve reasonable progress.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\214\ See the FIP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Upgrades to Existing Controls
The CENRAP analysis and the additional analysis performed by the
TCEQ did not consider the reasonableness of control upgrades or
increased utilization of existing controls. We note that the
AirControlNET database does not include general information for the
cost and effectiveness of scrubber upgrades as the cost and reductions
from these potential upgrades are typically very specific to the
existing equipment and site-specific conditions. Many Texas EGU's are
equipped with older vintage scrubbers and/or have scrubber bypasses
that divert a portion of the exhaust gas around the control equipment.
In some cases, excess scrubbing capacity is simply not being utilized.
Texas includes many of these sources with controls in the maps showing
area of influence and ``high priority'' sources for other state's Class
I areas, as well as in the table of sources within the Class I areas
AOI, in their correspondence with other states (see Appendix 4.3 of the
TX regional haze SIP). However, Texas did not provide any analysis of
the four factors on these partially controlled sources or include these
sources in a Q/D analysis to identify those sources with the largest
potential to impact visibility due to emissions and distance. There are
a number of EGUs with existing controls with 2018 projected emissions
large enough to have a Q/D many times greater than threshold (Q/D > 5)
used by Texas. Furthermore, even with these existing controls, some of
these EGUs are among the largest SO2 sources in the state.
For example, the Martin Lake facility has a Q/D for Guadalupe Mountains
(958 km away) greater than 37 using the projected 2018 SO2
emissions.\215\ The 2018 projected emissions includes predicted
emission reductions due to CAIR at many of these controlled facilities,
suggesting some increase in control efficiency and/or burning fuels
with a lower average sulfur content is already included in the 2018
projections. Absent any additional analysis, however, it is not
possible to determine whether additional reductions beyond those
included in the 2018 emission inventory for these facilities are cost-
effective, result in visibility benefits at the Class I areas and are
reasonable. For example, emissions at Martin Lake unit 1 in the CENRAP
emission inventory are projected to decrease from 24,832 tpy in 2002 to
11,351 tpy in 2018. As we discuss in our FIP TSD, based on coal data
submitted to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, upgrading the
existing scrubber to 95% control efficiency would result in an
approximate emission reduction of an additional 7,000 tpy beyond those
reductions projected to occur due to CAIR. Scrubber upgrades across all
three Martin Lake units could result in emission reductions of
approximately 21,000 tpy beyond the level of control assumed in the
2018 projections. Given the size of these sources, the size of the
impact from Texas emissions, and the source apportionment data
indicating the large impact from SO2 emissions from EGUs, we
believe it was unreasonable for Texas to not perform any analysis on
these sources or request additional information from the facilities
concerning potential upgrades. As documented in our FIP TSD, scrubber
upgrades are often very cost-effective on a cost per ton basis. Our
analysis in the FIP TSD demonstrates that many of these older
SO2 scrubbers can be cost-effectively upgraded. The
importance of this omission becomes clear from our analysis that shows
that for a cost-effectiveness of approximately $600/ton or less, over
100,000 tpy of SO2 emission reductions can be achieved from
a small number of scrubber upgrades, resulting in cost-effective
visibility benefits at Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in other
states. Thus, we propose to find that this omission by TCEQ materially
affected the outcome of its four-factor analysis. See our FIP TSD for a
detailed discussion of the visibility benefits anticipated from
scrubber upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\215\ We note that recent actual emissions at the facility are
roughly twice as large as the 2018 projected value. Based on 2002
emissions, the Q/D for Guadalupe Mountains for SO2
emissions is approximately 69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Our Conclusion Regarding the TCEQ's Analysis of the Four Reasonable
Progress Factors
For the reasons described above, we propose to disapprove Texas'
analysis of the reasonable progress factors under Section
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
4. Texas' Assertion That its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii) provides that for the period of the SIP,
if Texas establishes a RPG that provides for a slower rate of
improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain
natural conditions by 2064, it must demonstrate based on the factors in
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) that the rate of progress for the SIP to
attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the
progress goal it adopted is reasonable. As part of its SIP assessment,
Texas must provide to the public for review the number of years it
would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement
continues at the rate of progress it selected as reasonable. In
determining whether the Texas' goals for visibility improvement provide
for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, the
Administrator will evaluate the demonstrations developed by it pursuant
to Section 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii).
a. The TCEQ's Evaluation
Texas' RPGs for the 20% worst days establish a slower rate of
progress than the URP for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. The
TCEQ calculated that under the rate of progress selected as reasonable,
natural visibility conditions (as calculated by Texas) would not be
attained at Big Bend until 2155 and at the Guadalupe Mountains until
2081. In Appendix 10-3 of its regional haze SIP, the TCEQ includes
calculations based on our default natural conditions, estimating
attainment of natural visibility conditions at the Big Bend in 2215 and
Guadalupe Mountains in 2167.
The TCEQ believes the RPGs it established for Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains on the 20% worst
[[Page 74842]]
days are reasonable, and that it is not reasonable to achieve the glide
path in 2018. In support of this conclusion, it included a discussion
of the pollutant contributions and the sources of visibility impairment
at these Class I areas (see Section 10.6. and Chapter 11 of the Texas
Regional Haze SIP and Table 14 below). In considering the four
reasonable progress factors under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(i)(A), as discussed
in Section V.C.2, above, the TCEQ also took other factors into
consideration in determining that it is not reasonable to achieve the
glide paths in 2018 and that the RPGs adopted by the state are
reasonable. The TCEQ indicated that the ability to meet the URP or make
additional progress towards reaching natural visibility conditions is
impeded primarily by the following: the significant contribution of
emissions from Mexico and other international sources; the uncertainty
in the effect of CAIR; and the poor cost-effectiveness of additional
reasonable point source controls.
The TCEQ noted that the CENRAP PSAT analysis indicates that 52% of
the impairment at Big Bend and 25% of the impairment at Guadalupe
Mountains is from Mexico and further south. Substantial reductions in
emissions from outside the United States are needed to meet the goal of
natural visibility at the Texas Class I areas. As discussed elsewhere
in this notice, the TCEQ considered the URP and the emission reductions
necessary to meet the URP in establishing the RPG.
Table 14--CENRAP's PSAT Contribution to Visibility in the Texas Class I
Areas on the Worst 20% Days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe
Contribution by area Big Bend (%) Mountains (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas................................... 24.8 34.8
Mexico.................................. 26.7 16.5
Boundary Conditions..................... 25.7 8.7
Other U.S............................... 11.9 18.9
Miscellaneous........................... 5.8 9.6
Neighboring States...................... 5.1 11.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, with respect to reductions at Texas sources, the TCEQ
noted a wide range of measures and programs in place in Texas that
result in emission reductions that often go beyond federal
requirements. Chapter 11 and Appendices 11-2 (Federal and Texas
Programs Related to On-Road and Non-Road Mobile Sources) and 11-3
(Major Point Source NOX Rules and Reductions Promulgated in
Texas Since 2000) detail additional rules and programs that minimize
emissions that can cause or contribute to local and regional visibility
impairment. In Section 10.2 of the Texas regional haze SIP, the TCEQ
identifies the following programs:
Opacity limits on grandfathered facilities;
Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements that
typically go beyond EPA's New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for
new and modified sources;
Extensive NOX emission limits on existing and
new sources including major, minor and area sources including some on a
statewide basis;
Texas Emission Reduction Program (TERP), which provides
financial incentives to accelerate the implementation of new, cleaner
diesel engine technologies in on-road and non-road applications; and
Air Check Texas Repair and Replacement Assistance Program,
which provides financial incentives for scrapping older gasoline-
powered on-road vehicles.
The TCEQ noted that the established RPGs reflect emission reduction
programs already in place, including CAIR, additional refinery
SO2 reductions as a result of refinery consent decrees,
Texas ozone SIP revisions, and the Texas Clean Air Act. It noted that
the majority of the emission reductions underlying the predicted
visibility improvements are from the CAIR program or its eventual
replacement. The TCEQ assumes that any replacement for CAIR will
include interstate trading of emissions allowances and therefore there
is uncertainty regarding how visibility will be improved at individual
Class I areas. The TCEQ states that because emission allowances can be
purchased by EGUs relatively close to the Texas Class I areas from EGUs
far from the Texas Class I areas, the visibility improvement, may not
be as great as predicted by the CENRAP's modeling. Conversely, nearby
EGUs may elect to control beyond their emission caps and sell emission
allowances out of state, resulting in reduced emissions closer to the
Texas Class I areas.
The TCEQ concluded that ``given the significant impact from
international emissions, the uncertainty in the impact of CAIR, and the
poor cost-effectiveness of additional, reasonable point source
controls, the TCEQ has determined that additional controls for regional
haze are not appropriate at this time.'' \216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\216\ Section 10.7 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Our Evaluation
We agree that there is uncertainty regarding the size and location
of reductions at Texas EGUs due to implementation of CAIR/CSAPR. While
reductions at certain facilities within Texas would result in
improvements in visibility conditions at the Texas Class I areas or
Class I areas in other states, similar reductions at other facilities
may have no impact on visibility conditions at the Class I area.
Furthermore, reductions that are seasonal in nature due to decreased
operation during the fall and/or winter reduce annual emissions,
contribute towards CAIR/CSAPR compliance, but will not lead to improved
visibility during the 20% worst days, which typically occur during the
summer months. For example, in recent years the Monticello units have
been shut down for several non-summer months, which has resulted in
reduced annual emissions, while having no impact on summer time
emissions or visibility impacts during the summer months. The CENRAP
source apportionment results include the projected reductions due to
CAIR compliance and show that even after these reductions, impacts from
Texas points sources remain the most significant portion of the total
visibility impairment with available controls at Big Bend and
Guadalupe. Analysis of recent emissions from Texas EGUs shows that in
many cases current emission levels are above those predicted in the
2018 CENRAP modeling. In fact, in the case of Martin Lake, current
annual emissions are roughly twice those included in the 2018 modeling,
and we are not aware of
[[Page 74843]]
any upcoming controls or changes in operation to suggest that future
actual emissions will decrease to those predicted levels.
We also agree with the TCEQ's conclusion that it is not reasonable
to meet the URP for the Texas Class I areas for this planning period.
We agree with the TCEQ that emissions and transport from Mexico and
other international sources will limit the rate of progress achievable
on the 20% worst days and that efforts to meet the goal of natural
visibility by 2064 would require further emission reductions not only
within Texas, but also large emission reductions from international
sources.
We also note the more recent IMPROVE monitored data at the Big Bend
and Guadalupe Mountains indicate that more progress than anticipated by
the CENRAP modeling has occurred.\217\ The most recent five-year (2009-
2013) average conditions for the 20% worst days is 16.3 dv at Big Bend
and 15.3 dv at Guadalupe Mountains. This is below the level anticipated
in the CENRAP projection for 2018 of 16.6 dv for Big Bend and 16.3 dv
for Guadalupe Mountains. We believe that this observed improvement from
the baseline conditions is the result of meteorological conditions,
reduction in the impacts from SO2 emissions, and a reduction
in the impacts from coarse material. More recent emission inventory
data shows reductions in emissions in most states beyond what was
projected in the 2018 modeling, including large reductions in emissions
from the Eastern United States. Emissions from non-EGU Texas point
sources are lower than have been projected in the modeling. We note
that additional reductions are still needed to meet or exceed the URP
goals for 2018 as calculated by us in Section VII.M below. As discussed
above, emission reductions at some of the sources that impact
visibility the most are still above the emission level projected in the
model and we believe that cost-effective controls are likely available
at these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\217\ Available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, for the reasons we have discussed above, although we agree
with the TCEQ that a rate of improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility conditions by 2064 is not reasonable, we do not believe that
the rate of improvement the TECQ has selected is reasonable, because we
disagree with its four factor analysis and the analysis of emission
measures needed to meet the URP. Therefore we propose to disapprove the
TCEQ's RPGs for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains under Section
51.308(d)(1)(ii). In so doing, we rely on the specific directive in
Section 51.308(d)(1)(iii): ``In determining whether the State's goal
for visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions, the Administrator will evaluate the
demonstrations developed by the State pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
and (d)(1)(ii) of this section.'' We also propose to disapprove the
Texas' RPGs for the 20% best days. We propose to find that visibility
on these days will be better than Texas projects, given additional
controls in our proposed FIP.
5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
Pursuant to Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), Texas consulted with other
states which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at its two Class I areas. In any situation in
which Texas cannot agree with another such state or group of states
that a goal provides for reasonable progress, Texas must describe in
its submittal the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In
reviewing Texas' SIP submittal, the Administrator will take this
information into account in determining whether Texas' goal for
visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions.
The TCEQ held three conference calls in July, 2007 to which
Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Oklahoma were invited. The
TCEQ used CENRAP generated products, such as regional photochemical
modeling results and visibility projections, and source apportionment
modeling to assist in identifying neighboring states' contributions to
the visibility impairment at its Class I areas. Specifically, the TCEQ
used the results from the CENRAP particulate matter source
apportionment technology (PSAT) modeling to determine that New Mexico,
Oklahoma, Kansas, and Louisiana contribute to visibility impairment at
the Texas Class I areas. The TCEQ invited those states with a > 0.5
inverse megameter impact on one of its Class I areas to its
consultations. Other participants that attended one or more of the
calls included CENRAP, us, and the federal land managers. The TCEQ
invited tribes in all of the CENRAP states to the consultation calls,
but no tribes participated in the consultation on Big Bend and
Guadalupe Mountains. These calls are summarized in Appendix 4-1 of the
Texas regional haze SIP.
The first consultation call primarily addressed technical papers
that discussed the natural conditions, the impacts of dust storms in
Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, our IPM emission projections, and
the URP and RPGs for the Texas Class I areas. The second and third
consultation calls consisted of discussions between the states and
federal land managers regarding the dust storm technical papers. The
TCEQ presented the URPs for its Class I areas, discussed controls that
are in place in Texas, and its decision that no additional controls
would be included in its regional haze SIP. The federal land managers
suggested that the TCEQ revise the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit process to include FLM notification
provisions. Texas committed to further consultations with the federal
land managers to address their concerns about the Texas PSD program.
The TCEQ discussed the CENRAP PSAT modeling results with the
attendees. It noted that the BRAVO study indicated that for
SO4, which has the largest visibility impact of all
pollutants at Big Bend, approximately \1/3\ comes from Mexico, \1/3\
from Texas, and \1/3\ from the Midwest and South beyond Texas. It noted
that these results are somewhat inconsistent with CENRAP PSAT modeling
results, which indicate that slightly more than half of the visibility
impairment at Big Bend comes from Mexico and other areas outside the
U.S.
New Mexico and the federal land managers discussed that despite the
Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico sharing
the same monitor, these Class I areas appeared to have significantly
different calculated natural visibility values, individually prepared
by the two states.\218\ The federal land managers and we both expressed
a desire to review the TCEQ's natural visibility calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\218\ Note that we discuss the difference between the natural
visibility value calculated by New Mexico for Carlsbad Caverns and
that calculated by Texas for the Guadalupe Mountains elsewhere in
our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ concluded its consultations by noting that other states'
visibility impacts on Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are
relatively small. Texas sources are responsible for 25% and 35% of the
visibility impairment at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains,
respectively. Neighboring states combined contribute only 5% of the
visibility impairment at Big Bend and 11.5% at the Guadalupe Mountains.
As a result of these
[[Page 74844]]
consultations, the TCEQ did not request any additional reductions from
other states.
Citing the source apportionment results and results of the BRAVO
study, in Section 11.3 of the Texas regional haze SIP, Texas requests
in its SIP that we initiate and pursue federal efforts to reduce
impacts from international transport. Due to large contributions from
international sources, the TCEQ concludes it will be impossible to
reach natural conditions without significant reductions in Mexico and
other countries, in parallel with reductions within Texas and the rest
of the United States. The TCEQ notes that Class I areas in other states
will also benefit from reductions in emissions from international
sources. We acknowledge that emissions from Mexico significantly impact
the visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. As we state in
the Regional Haze Rule,\219\ ``the EPA does not expect States to
restrict emissions from domestic sources to offset the impacts of
international transport of pollution. We believe that States should
evaluate the impacts of current and projected emissions from
international sources in their regional haze programs, particularly in
cases where it has already been well documented that such sources are
important.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\219\ 64 FR 35736 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reviewed the CENRAP PSAT data for the Texas Class I areas
referred to during the consultation calls, as well as the technical
papers discussed during those calls and the summary of the calls in
Appendix 4-1 of Texas' SIP submittal. Approximately half of the 2002
visibility impairment at Big Bend is due to Mexico and other
international sources captured in the modeled boundary conditions, one
quarter of the impairment is due to Texas sources and the remaining
quarter is due to all the remaining sources combined, with the largest
contributions in this group from the Eastern United States (2.5%) and
Louisiana (2.8%). Examining only contributions due to point sources in
2002, Texas point sources contribute 10% of the total visibility
impairment at Big Bend and Mexico point sources contribute 16.9%. The
largest impact from a nearby state is Louisiana at a little more than
2% contribution. All other nearby states contribute less than 1% to the
total visibility impairment at Big Bend. The source apportionment
results for 2018 projections at Big Bend show similar levels of
contribution with a slight decrease in Texas and Eastern United States
contributions. Mexico and other international sources contribute
approximately one quarter of the visibility impairment and Texas
contributes about one third of the visibility impairment at the
Guadalupe Mountains in 2002. The next largest contributing source
regions are New Mexico (7.3%, 4.7% from natural sources), Kansas
(3.3%), the Eastern United States (3.2%), Western United States (3.0%),
and Oklahoma (2.5%). Examining only contributions due to point sources
in 2002, Texas point sources contribute 8.7% of the total visibility
impairment and Mexico point sources contribute 6.8%. The largest impact
from a nearby state is New Mexico at a little more than 1%
contribution. All other nearby states contribute less than 1% to the
total visibility impairment at Guadalupe Mountains. The source
apportionment results for 2018 projections at Guadalupe Mountains show
similar levels of contribution with a slight decrease in eastern United
States contributions. PSAT results show an overwhelming contribution
from international sources and Texas sources and the technical papers
shared by Texas suggest that dust storms significantly impact a number
of the worst 20% days at these Class I areas.
We find that the TCEQ appropriately identified those states with
the largest impacts on Texas Class I areas and invited them for
consultation. We agree with Texas' determination that was not
reasonable to request additional controls from other states at this
time. Given the small contributions from individual nearby states,
especially when only considering anthropogenic sources that can be
easily controlled in comparison with the size of impacts from Texas
sources and international sources, we find that it was reasonable for
the TCEQ to have focused the analysis of additional controls on sources
within Texas. We propose to find that Texas has satisfied the
requirement under Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv) to consult with other states
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at its two Class I areas.
D. Evaluation of Texas' BART Determinations
As part of its strategy to address BART, the TCEQ adopted a BART
rule on January 10, 2007, as 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter M.\220\
This rule identifies potentially affected sources as those belonging to
one of 26 BART source industry categories; having a Potential to Emit
(PTE) of 250 tpy or more of any visibility impairing pollutant; and not
operating prior to August 7, 1962, and being in existence on August 7,
1977. It uses a value of 0.5 dv as the visibility contribution
threshold. It also incorporates the BART model plant and de minimis
exemption criteria discussed below, and exempts EGUs that participate
in CAIR from undergoing a BART review for NOX and
SO2. It specifies that all non-exempt sources must undergo a
BART review, according to the BART Guidelines. Lastly, it provides that
BART controls must be installed and operational within 5 years
following our approval of this SIP. We have reviewed the Texas BART
rule and propose to approve it, with the exception of Texas' reliance
on CAIR to meet BART, as discussed in more detail in Section V.D.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\220\ The Texas BART Rule is present in Appendix 9-2 of the
Texas regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas exercised its option under Section 51.308(e)(4) (as it read
at that time) that participation in CAIR is equivalent to BART. This
exempted EGUs impacted by CAIR from a BART analysis for SO2
and NOX. As a result, the TCEQ did not evaluate BART-
eligible EGUs that are included in CAIR for SO2 and
NOX. This EGU BART exemption does not extend to particulate
matter. As explained further in Section V.D.3, we earlier issued a
limited disapproval of Texas' regional haze SIP based on its reliance
on CAIR. We are now proposing a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with
reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR as an alternative to BART for
SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs in the regional
haze plan for Texas.
As discussed in more detail in our BART Rule,\221\ 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. The TCEQ addressed these steps as
follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\221\ 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. The TCEQ identified the
BART-eligible sources in Texas by utilizing the three eligibility
criteria in the BART Guidelines \222\ and our regulations (Section
51.301): (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(s) began operation on or after August 6, 1962, and was in
existence on
[[Page 74845]]
August 6, 1977; and (3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing
pollutant from subject units are 250 tons or more per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\222\ 70 FR 39158-39161 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ did not have a comprehensive database of potential
emissions from facilities, so it used annual emissions reporting with
some adjustments. The TCEQ's State of Texas Air Reporting System
(STARS) database was used to determine which sources were potentially
BART-eligible. In addition to NOX and SO2, the
TCEQ also screened its database for sources of Volatile Organics (VOC)
and coarse particulate matter (PM10) greater than 200 tpy.
The TCEQ used PM10 as a conservative value for direct
PM2.5. However, because this database does not contain all
information necessary to determine BART eligibility, the TCEQ also
surveyed companies regarding their potential to emit and construction
dates in order to complete the BART eligibility determination. In order
to reduce the number of companies requiring clarification, the TCEQ
chose to adopt a model plant analysis approach based on our model
plants \223\ in order to eliminate smaller sources of NOX
and SO2 sources from being surveyed and potentially subject
to BART. Regarding the use of the model plant approach, the BART
Guidelines state:\224\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\223\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
\224\ 70 FR 39163 (July 6, 2005).
Based on our analyses, we believe that a State that has
established 0.5 deciviews as a contribution threshold could
reasonably exempt from the BART review process sources that emit
less than 500 tons per year of NOX or SO2 (or
combined NOX and SO2), as long as these
sources are located more than 50 kilometers from any Class I area;
and sources that emit less than 1000 tons per year of NOX
or SO2 (or combined NOX and SO2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
that are located more than 100 kilometers from any Class I area.
Since the STARS database includes reported actual emissions instead
of potential to emit, the TCEQ added some conservatism to the inclusion
of sources. The TCEQ modified its model plant approach and reduced the
emission threshold to 375 tpy for sources greater than 50 km and 750
tpy for sources greater than 100 km to capture sources that might not
have been above the BART Guideline's emissions threshold, based only on
their 2002 emissions levels.
As a result of the BART eligibility screening analysis, 254 sites/
facilities (approximately 12% of the 2,165 facilities in the Texas 2002
emissions inventory) were identified as being potentially BART-eligible
based on their county's minimum distance to Class I areas and their
actual emissions. The TCEQ then sent surveys to these sites to request
additional information in identifying construction or reconstruction
dates and whether the potential to emit of potential BART eligible
equipment exceeded the BART eligibility threshold of 250 tpy. As a
result of the BART eligibility survey, the TCEQ determined that the
following sites \225\ numbered 1 through 120 were BART-eligible. During
TCEQ's review of BART eligible sources another 6 facilities were
identified as potentially BART eligible (numbered 121-126):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\225\ Reproduced from Table 9-2 of the Texas regional haze SIP
with additional sources later identified added.
Table 15--Potential BART-Eligible Sources Based on Results of TCEQ Survey
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. Account Source Regulated entity SIC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................... AC0017B Abitibi Consolidated RN100220110 2621
Corp.
2...................... TG0044C AEP Texas............... RN101531226 4911
3...................... CD0013K AEP Texas Central RN102560687 4911
Company.
4...................... NE0024E AEP Texas Central RN100642040 4911
Company.
5...................... NE0026A AEP Texas Central RN100552181 4911
Company.
6...................... JI0030K AEP Texas North Company. RN100215557 4911
7...................... CB0003M Alcoa Alumina & RN100242577 2819
Chemicals.
8...................... MM0001T Alcoa Inc............... RN100221472 3334
9...................... HT0011Q Alon USA Lp............. RN100250869 2911
10..................... ED0034O Ash Grove (Formerly RN100225978 3241
North Texas Cement).
11..................... HG0558G Atofina Chemicals Inc... RN100209444 2869
12..................... BL0021O BASF Corporation........ RN100218049 2869
13..................... GB0001R BP Amoco Chemical RN102536307 2869
Company.
14..................... GB0004L BP Products North RN102535077 2911
America In Texas.
15..................... GH0003Q Cabot Corporation....... RN100221761 2895
16..................... BG0045E Capitol Cement Div RN100211507 3241
Capitol.
17..................... GH0004O Celanese Chemical....... RN101996395 2869
18..................... MH0009H Celanese Limited........ RN100258060 2869
19..................... ED0011D Chaparral Steel RN100216472 3312
Midlothian.
20..................... BJ0001T Chemical Lime Ltd....... RN100219856 3274
21..................... HG0310V Chevron Phillips RN103919817 2869
Chemical.
22..................... BL0758C Chevron Phillips RN100825249 2869
Chemical.
23..................... HW0013C Chevron Phillips RN102320850 2869
Chemical Co.
24..................... NE0027V Citgo Refining & RN102555166 2911
Chemicals.
25..................... BG0057U City Public Service..... RN100217975 4911
26..................... BG0186I City Public Service..... RN100217835 4911
27..................... HW0018P Conoco Phillips RN102495884 2911
(Formerly Phillips 66).
28..................... CR0020C Copano Processing LP.... RN101271419 1321
29..................... AB0012W DCP (Formerly Duke RN100218684 1321
Energy Field Services).
30..................... HW0008S Degussa Engineered RN100209659 2895
Carbons.
31..................... HGA005E DOW..................... RN104150123 2869
32..................... HG0126Q DOW..................... RN100227016 2869
33..................... CI0022A Dynegy Midstream RN100222900 1321
Services.
34..................... HH0042M Eastman Chemical Company RN100219815 2869
35..................... HG0218K E.I. Dupont de Nemours & RN100225085 2869
Co.
36..................... OC0007J E.I. Dupont de Nemours & RN100542711 2869
Co.
37..................... EE0029T El Paso Electric Co..... RN100211309 4911
[[Page 74846]]
38..................... TH0004D Electric Utility Dept... RN100219872 4911
39..................... CG0012C Enbridge Pipelines...... RN102166964 1321
40..................... MQ0009F Entergy Gulf States Inc. RN100226877 4911
41..................... OC0013O Entergy Gulf States Inc. RN102513041 4911
42..................... BL0113I Equistar................ RN100218601 2869
43..................... BL0268B Equistar Chemicals LP... RN100237668 2821
44..................... HG0033B Equistar Chemicals LP... RN100542281 2869
45..................... HG0228H Exxon Chemical Co....... RN102212925 2869
46..................... JE0065M Exxon Mobil Chemical Co. RN100211903 2821
47..................... HG0229F ExxonMobil Chemical Co.. RN102574803 2869
48..................... HG0232Q ExxonMobil Corp......... RN102579307 2911
49..................... JE0067I ExxonMobil Oil Corp..... RN102450756 2911
50..................... NE0120H Flint Hills Resources... RN102534138 2911
51..................... NE0122D Flint Hills Resources LP RN100235266 2911
52..................... JE0052V Huntsman Corporation.... RN100219252 2869
53..................... JE0135Q Huntsman Petrochemical RN100217389 2869
Corp.
54..................... EB0057B Huntsman Polymers....... RN101867554 2869
55..................... BL0002S INEOS Olefins & Polymers RN100238708 2869
56..................... CG0010G International Paper Co.. RN100543115 2621
57..................... OCA002B Invista................. RN104392626 2869
58..................... VC0008Q Invista (Formerly Du RN102663671 2869
Pont De Nemours).
59..................... WE0005G Laredo Power............ RN100213909 4911
60..................... MB0123F Lehigh Cement Company... RN100218254 3241
61..................... NE0025C Lon C Hill Power........ RN100215979 4911
62..................... BC0015L Lower Colorado River RN102038486 4911
Authority.
63..................... FC0018G Lower Colorado River RN100226844 4911
Authority.
64..................... HG1575W Lyondell Chemical....... RN100633650 2869
65..................... HG0048L Lyondell Citgo Refining. RN100218130 2911
66..................... GB0055R Marathon Ashland RN100210608 2911
Petroleum.
67..................... HH0019H NORIT Americas Inc...... RN102609724 2819
68..................... GB0037T NRG Texas (Formerly RN101062826 4911
Texas Genco LP).
69..................... ED0051O Owens Corning........... RN100223585 3296
70..................... HG1451S Oxyvinyls LP............ RN102518065 2821
71..................... HG0175D Pasadena Refining....... RN100716661 2911
72..................... JE0042B Premcor Refining Group.. RN102584026 2911
73..................... MC0002H Regency Tilden Gas RN100216621 2819
(Formerly Enbridge).
74..................... HG0697O Rhodia Inc.............. RN100220581 2819
75..................... HG0632T Rohm & Haas Texas....... RN100223205 2869
76..................... HG0659W Shell Oil Co............ RN100211879 2911
77..................... HW0017R Sid Richardson Carbon... RN100222413 2895
78..................... HT0027B Sid Richardson Carbon Co RN100226026 2895
79..................... BL0038U Solutia Inc............. RN100238682 2869
80..................... TF0012D Southwestern Electric RN100213370 4911
Power.
81..................... GJ0043K Southwestern Electric RN102156916 4911
Power.
82..................... ME0006A Southwestern Electric RN100542596 4911
Power.
83..................... PG0040T Southwestern Public RN100224641 4911
Service.
84..................... PG0041R Southwestern Public RN100224849 4911
Service.
85..................... LN0081B Southwestern Public RN100224765 4911
Service.
86..................... JE0091L Sun Marine Terminal..... RN100214626 4226
87..................... WN0042V Targa................... RN102552387 1311
88..................... CY0019H Targa (Formerly Dynegy RN102551785 1311
Midstream).
89..................... OC0019C Temple-Inland........... RN100214428 2621
90..................... CI0012D Texas Genco LP.......... RN100825371 4911
91..................... FG0020V Texas Genco LP.......... RN100888312 4911
92..................... HK0014M Texas Lehigh Cement Co.. RN102597846 3241
93..................... HG0562P Texas Petrochemicals LP. RN100219526 2869
94..................... BL0082R The Dow Chemical Co..... RN100225945 2869
95..................... JE0039N The Goodyear Tire And RN102561925 2822
Rubber Co.
96..................... NE0022I Ticona Polymers Inc..... RN101625721 2869
97..................... JE0005H Total Petrochemicals.... RN102457520 2911
98..................... ED0066B TXI Operations LP....... RN100217199 3241
99..................... FI0020W TXU Big Brown Company LP RN101198059 4911
100.................... DB0251U TXU Electric Company.... RN101559854 4911
101.................... FB0025U TXU Generation Company RN102285855 4911
LP.
102.................... HQ0012T TXU Generation Company RN100664812 4911
LP.
103.................... MB0116C TXU Generation Company RN102566494 4911
LP.
104.................... MM0023J TXU Generation Company RN102147881 4911
LP.
105.................... MO0014L TXU Generation Company RN102285848 4911
LP.
106.................... RL0020K TXU Generation Company RN102583093 4911
LP.
107.................... TA0352I TXU Generation Company RN100693308 4911
LP.
108.................... WC0028Q TXU Generation Company RN102183969 4911
LP.
109.................... YB0017V TXU Generation Company RN102563426 4911
LP.
[[Page 74847]]
110.................... TF0013B TXU Generation Company RN102285921 4911
LP.
111.................... GB0076J Union Carbide Corp...... RN100219351 2869
112.................... CB0028T Union Carbide RN102181526 2869
Corporation.
113.................... HR0018T Valence Midstream Ltd... RN100213685 1321
114.................... GB0073P Valero Refining Co Texas RN100238385 2911
115.................... NE0043A Valero Refining Company. RN100211663 2911
116.................... MR0008T Valero McKee............ RN100210517 2911
117.................... WH0014S Vetrotex Wichita Falls RN100218601 3229
Plant.
118.................... VC0003D Victoria Power.......... RN100214980 4911
119.................... JB0016M Vintage Petroleum Inc... RN100214592 1311
120.................... JC0003K Westvaco................ RN102157609 2631
121 \226\.............. JE0343H BMC Holdings Inc........ ............................. ......
122.................... AG0024G Pueblo Midstream Gas ............................. ......
Corp.
123.................... GBA007G INEOS................... ............................. ......
124.................... HG0130C Valero Refining Texas LP ............................. ......
125.................... JH0025O Johns Manville ............................. ......
International.
126.................... PE0024Q Regency Gas Services.... ............................. ......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the TCEQ's development of their list of BART-
eligible facilities (ultimately 126 sources) and we propose to conclude
that the TCEQ has adequately identified all sources that are BART
eligible in the state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\226\ Numbers 121-130 were not included in TCEQ's initial list
of 120 sources potentially subject to BART but were added during
their review and development of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Identification of 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 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. Sources that are not
exempted by the state are required to conduct a full BART analysis and
the state then makes a determination of what is BART for each of these
subject to BART sources.
a. Modeling Methodology
Consistent with the BART Guidelines, the TCEQ chose to evaluate
sources and determine if they were exempt from being subject to BART.
When exempting sources from BART because they do not cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area, the BART
Guidelines suggest three sub-options for determining that certain
sources are not subject to BART: \227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\227\ 70 FR 39162-3 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The use of model plants to exempt sources with common
characteristics.
A cumulative modeling analysis to show that groups of
sources are not subject to BART.
An individual source attribution approach.
The TCEQ utilized all of these options to determine which sources
were subject to BART. These BART exemption exercises are explained
below. The BART Guidelines direct states to address SO2,
NOX and direct PM (including both PM10 and
PM2.5) emissions as visibility-impairing pollutants, and
states must exercise their ``best judgment to determine whether VOC or
ammonia emissions from a source are likely to have an impact on
visibility in an area.'' \228\ Ammonia (NH3) emissions in
Texas are primarily due to area sources, such as livestock and
fertilizer application.\229\ Because these are not point sources, they
are not subject to BART. CENRAP modeling demonstrated that VOCs from
anthropogenic sources are not significant visibility-impairing
pollutants at the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. The TCEQ further
investigated VOC and direct PM impacts with the photochemical modeling
as discussed below. We have reviewed this information and propose to
agree with the TCEQ's decision to address only SO2,
NOX and PM as visibility impairing pollutants because VOC
emissions from anthropogenic sources are not significant visibility-
impairing pollutants at Class I areas in Texas and surrounding states
and NH3 emissions in Texas are primarily due to area
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\228\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
\229\ See Tables 7-1 and 7-3 of the Texas regional haze SIP.
Area sources comprise approximately 94% of the total 2002 ammonia
emissions, and approximately 93% of the total projected 2018 ammonia
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART Guidelines provide that states may choose to use the
CALPUFF \230\ 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 we believe CALPUFF is
the best regulatory modeling application currently available for
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility
impairment.\231\ The TCEQ consulted with us and FLM representatives and
used both the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx)
\232\ and CALPUFF modeling systems to determine whether individual
sources in Texas were subject to or exempt from BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\230\ 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.
\231\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
\232\ CAMx model code and user's guide can be found at http://www.camx.com/download/default.aspx.Model code used in our analysis
is available with the modeling files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that
states may choose to consult with us and their regional planning
organization to address any
[[Page 74848]]
issues prior to modeling. The CENRAP states, including Texas, developed
the ``CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines.'' \233\ Stakeholders, including
EPA, FLM representatives, industrial sources, trade groups, and other
interested parties, actively participated in the development and review
of the CENRAP protocol. CENRAP provided readily available modeling data
bases for use by states to conduct their analyses. We note that the
original CALPUFF meteorological databases generated by CENRAP did not
include observations as our guidance recommends,\234\ therefore sources
were evaluated using the 1st High values instead of the 8th High
values. The use of the 1st High modeling values was agreed to by us,
representatives of the Federal Land Managers, and CENRAP stakeholders.
We propose to find the chosen model and the general modeling
methodology for the initial CALPUFF based screening modeling with
CENRAP meteorological data acceptable. We further discuss both refined
analyses using CALPUFF and CAMx modeling systems below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\233\ CENRAP BART Modeling Guidelines, T. W. Tesche, D. E.
McNally, and G. J. Schewe (Alpine Geophysics LLC), December 15,
2005, available at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/aqdnew/RulesAndPlanning/Regional_Haze/SIP/Appendices/index.htm.
\234\ 40 CFR part 51, Appendix W: Guideline on Air Quality
Models Parts 8.3(d) and 8.3.1.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 dv change or more should be considered to
`cause' visibility impairment.'' \235\ 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 dv.'' 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 of a Class I area
justifies this approach. Texas adopted a contribution threshold of 0.5
dv for determining which sources are subject to BART. For BART eligible
EGUs that were originally covered by CAIR for NO2 and
SO2, TCEQ used this threshold for PM impacts. For CALPUFF
modeling that used the non-guideline CENRAP meteorological data and
CAMx modeling we agreed to use the 1st High or maximum impact for
evaluation with the threshold value. For the refined CALPUFF modeling
that used meteorological data that did meet our guidelines we agreed
with the use of the 98th percentile value. We agree with Texas'
selection of this threshold value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\235\ 70 FR 39104, 39161 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ first performed cumulative modeling analyses using the
CAMx model. TCEQ's CAMx modeling utilized the existing CENRAP
photochemical modeling databases and CAMx modeling tools of Particulate
Source Apportionment Tagging (PSAT) with Plume-in-Grid (PiG) treatment
to assess contribution of groups of sources initially and later
individual sources. As a result of this modeling, several BART-eligible
sources were eliminated from further consideration due to their
insignificant impacts on visibility at Class I areas. The remaining
sources were required to perform source-specific screening modeling
analyses using either the CALPUFF or the CAMx model setup developed by
the TCEQ. TCEQ also utilized model plant approaches to screen out some
sources. BART-eligible sources that were not eliminated due to any of
the modeling analyses were then given the option of either reducing
their emissions from their BART-eligible units using an enforceable
mechanism, such as a permit, or performing a BART analysis. The
following sections describe this process.
c. Cumulative Modeling Using CAMx PSAT
Due to the large number of sources the TCEQ initially conducted a
cumulative modeling analysis to eliminate groups of sources from being
subject to BART, as described in its CAMx modeling protocol and its
CAMx modeling report.\236\ In addition to the cumulative CAMx modeling,
the TCEQ developed its model plants based on the CAMx modeling
results.\237\ CAMx also gave a more sophisticated way to evaluate VOC
emissions from BART sources and determine if they needed to be
evaluated further. The TCEQ also used the CAMx modeling and source
grouping to assess the BART sources' direct PM emissions impacts. It
relied on CAIR coverage for NOX and SO2 emissions
from EGUs subject to CAIR, so it only assessed impacts of VOCs and
direct PM from these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\236\ Screening Analysis of Potentially BART-Eligible Sources in
Texas, and Final Report, Screening Analysis of Potential BART-
Eligible Sources in Texas, located in Appendices 9-4 and 9-5 of the
Texas Regional Haze SIP, respectively.
\237\ See the CAMx modeling report, Addendum I, BART Exemption
Screening Analysis, and Addendum II, BART Exemption Screening
Analysis, located in Appendices 9-5 and 9-6 of the Texas Regional
Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The TCEQ's CAMx modeling determined that visibility impacts at
Class I areas due to all VOC emissions from BART eligible sources was
well below the 0.5 dv threshold. The TCEQ CAMx modeling screened direct
PM emissions from 37 EGUs using groupings and some individual source
analyses. Of these, 35 of the 37 sources screened out from BART for
direct PM emissions with the two remaining sources being from Account
TF0012D--SWEPCO Welsh and Account TF0013B--TXU Monticello. The TCEQ
also evaluated VOC emissions from non-EGU sources and screened out all
but one non-EGU facility, the exception being Account CG0010G--
International Paper facility. We have reviewed the TCEQ's analysis as
further discussed in our BART TSD, and we propose to concur with the
TCEQ's screening out of all BART sources from further screening or BART
evaluation for VOC and direct PM emissions except for the International
Paper, Monticello and Welsh accounts that were further evaluated for
screening to be discussed later.
The TCEQ also developed a Texas model plant for PM based on the
previously discussed PM modeling for evaluation of two additional
sources that were not in the original CAMx grouping modeling for PM. As
further discussed in our BART TSD and the TCEQ's regional haze SIP, two
accounts were screened out from being subject to BART. They were
Account CI0012D--Texas Genco LP and Account HW004D--Agrium. We have
reviewed this analysis and propose to concur with TCEQ's analysis and
conclusion to screen out these two facilities from being subject to
BART for their potential PM impacts.
For SO2 and NOX BART screening, the TCEQ
screened out many sources that were BART eligible and determined that
they were eliminated from being subject to BART using either the
cumulative CAMx modeling analyses or the Texas model plants approach
based on sources in the CAMx groupings that screened out or using our
model plants.
[[Page 74849]]
The 94 non-EGU sources were broken into groups of sources (initially 5-
10 sources per group approximately). Further analysis used the same
sources and broke them into smaller groups for further evaluation and
screening. From this second round of CAMx source grouping, the TCEQ
developed model plants from the sources in the groups that screened
out. The TCEQ's model plant analyses is further discussed in our BART
TSD and the Texas regional haze SIP submittal.
If the technical analysis indicated a source was screened out, the
TCEQ requested each source to certify that they agreed with the
modeling analyses and data inputs (emissions, stack parameters, etc.).
BART-eligible sources that were not eliminated from being subject to
BART using these methods were required to conduct their own screening
modeling analysis using either CALPUFF or CAMx modeling on an
individual basis, using protocols developed by the TCEQ. As part of
this analysis, the TCEQ also utilized our model plants and more
facility specific information to screen out some facilities. Using
these three techniques (CAMx grouping modeling, Texas model plants, and
our model plants), the TCEQ screened out 72 facilities that were BART
eligible based on their NOX and/or SO2 emissions
from being determined as subject to BART and a full five factor
analysis. Table 17 below summarizes all the BART-eligible sources that
were eliminated and how each source was eliminated. For sources
eliminated from being subject to BART using the cumulative CAMx
modeling analyses, CAMx based model plants and our model plants it is
indicated in the column titled ``Cum. Model CAMx''. For full details
see our BART TSD. We have reviewed the evaluation of facilities in
TCEQ's cumulative/grouping CAMx modeling analyses, the TCEQ's Texas
Model Plants analyses, and the TCEQ's analyses using our Model Plants;
and we propose to concur with the screening out from a full BART
analysis of the 72 facilities indicated in Table 17 under the column
titled ``Cum. Model CAMx'' based on estimated/modeled impacts from
NOX and SO2 from each facility.
Many of the facilities not screened out by the TCEQ were further
evaluated with individual facility impact modeling using either CALPUFF
or CAMx. We discuss the TCEQ's individual facility analysis in the
following sections.
d. Individual Source Apportionment Modeling Using CALPUFF
As previously discussed CENRAP developed a CALPUFF modeling
protocol and the meteorological modeling files (CALMET files) for
conducting individual facility impact analysis from NOX and
SO2 emissions. The CENRAP CALMET data set did not include
observations, so CALPUFF modeling that used the CENRAP CALMET data had
to use the 1st High value from the modeling instead of the 8th High.
TCEQ contacted the sources that did not previously screen out and gave
them the option to do additional analysis with CALPUFF and/or CAMx.
Facilities submitted individual source modeling protocols for their
facilities and submitted them to TCEQ, us, and FLM representatives for
review and comment. For the CALPUFF modeling, some sources used the
CENRAP CALMET data and the 1st High metric for evaluation against the
screening level of 0.5 del-dv (delta, or change in deciviews) and other
sources developed CALMET with inclusion of meteorological observations
data and used the 8th High modeling value instead. The TCEQ received
and reviewed the additional individual source attribution modeling
using the CALPUFF model.\238\ The 29 BART-eligible sources that were
eliminated from being subject to BART based on CALPUFF modeling results
are listed in the column labeled ``CALPUFF'' in Table 17, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\238\ The TCEQ CALPUFF modeling protocol, Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) Modeling Protocol to Determine Sources
Subject to BART in the State of Texas, and a summary report for each
modeling demonstration are included in Appendix 9-8 of the Texas
regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have reviewed the modeling reports and files provided for these
29 modeling efforts. Seventeen facilities screened out using the CENRAP
No-Observation data set and followed the approved CENRAP protocol,
including model setup/flags, post processing procedures, and accepted
versions of the CALPUFF modeling suite at the time. Twelve facilities
screened out using the refined CALMET data set using the CENSARA MM5
data and incorporating land and upper air meteorological data. From the
discussion on PM screening above, there were three facilities that did
not screen out (International Paper, TXU--Monticello, and AEP Welsh)
which were evaluated in these model runs and these facilities were 3 of
the 29 screened out here. We have reviewed the TCEQ's individual source
apportionment CALPUFF modeling analysis, and we propose to concur with
TCEQ's conclusion to screen these 29 sources from being subject to
BART.
e. Individual Source Apportionment Modeling Using CAMx
Some facilities desired to do a single source analysis with CAMx.
To standardize the modeling and evaluation, TCEQ developed ``The CAMx
modeling guideline, Guidance for the Application of the CAMx Hybrid
Photochemical Hybrid Photochemical Grid Model to Assess Visibility
Impacts of Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas,'' as a standard
protocol for refined single facility assessment with CAMx using the
platform used for earlier screening modeling. The modeling emission
inventory files were updated to the latest available at the time and
the individual sources used their short-term allowable emission rate
instead of the doubling of annual emissions to approximate short-term
actuals. Six facilities conducted CAMx single facility screening
analysis and all were less than 0.5 del-dv impacts based on the 1st
High modeling value as agreed to in the Modeling Protocols at the time.
The TCEQ included the modeling reports and the modeling protocol for
this CAMx modeling of individual facility attribution.\239\ In Table 17
below, the column labeled ``Single Source CAMx'' indicates the BART-
eligible sources that were eliminated from being subject to BART based
on individual facility attribution CAMx modeling results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\239\ TCEQ's CAMx modeling guideline, Guidance for the
Application of the CAMx Hybrid Photochemical Grid Model to Assess
Visibility Impacts of Texas BART Sources at Class I Areas is
included in Appendix 9-8 of the Texas regional haze SIP. Both it and
modeling summary reports for each modeling demonstration are
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These analyses used the maximum impact value on any day to compare
against the 0.5 del-dv threshold. We have reviewed the modeling reports
for these six facilities, and we propose to concur that the CAMx
modeling and the evaluation was conducted in accordance with the
modeling protocol approved by us at that time. When we approved the
protocols, we did not consider the difference between CAMx and CALPUFF
modeling and the natural conditions (``clean'') versus 2018 dirty
background. In hindsight, we could have recommended using the ``Clean''
background approach in addition to the 2018 based analysis as we are
using in our FIP action discussed below. We note that all six of these
facilities were included in the sources that we evaluated in our
initial Q/D screening for our FIP analysis (which included all Texas
sources in TCEQ's emission database) as discussed below and all had a
Q/D ratio to any Class I area that
[[Page 74850]]
was less than 10 and were not further evaluated. Sources that had a
ratio of less than 10 have a lower potential impact level in general.
In light of our concurrence of the protocol and metrics to be used at
the time of the Texas Regional Haze SIP development (2006-2007), we are
not proposing to disapprove this aspect of TCEQ's analysis.
f. TCEQ-Granted BART Exemptions
In addition to all the BART exemption modeling discussed above, the
TCEQ also eliminated sources from being subject to BART based on
further model plant analysis, using the BART Guideline approach.\240\
Sources that emitted less than 500 tons per year of NOX or
SO2 (or combined NOX and SO2), located
more than 50 kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that emitted
less than 1,000 tons per year of NOX or SO2 (or
combined NOX and SO2) located more than 100
kilometers from any Class I area were eliminated from being subject to
BART, consistent with the BART Guidelines.\241\ The TCEQ also exempted
a number of other sources for other reasons, including for having a PTE
of less than 250 tons per year of any visibility impairing
pollutant,\242\ not having any emitting units in any of the 26 BART
categories, unit shut downs, and de minimis levels of emissions.\243\
The results of the TCEQ's granted exemptions are listed in column
titled ``Exemption Requested'' in Table 17 below. We have reviewed the
screening analysis for these 22 facilities and concur with the TCEQ
screening them out from being subject to BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\240\ 70 FR 39162 (July 6, 2005).
\241\ 70 FR 39119 (July 6, 2005)
\242\ 70 FR 39157 (July 6, 2005).
\243\ 70 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005). ``Any de minimis values that
you adopt may not be higher than the PSD applicability levels: 40
tons/yr for SO2 and NOX and 15 tons/yr for
PM10. These de minimis levels may only be applied on a
plant-wide basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequent to the 2002 base year inventory, some BART-eligible
sources reduced their permitted emissions and requested exemptions from
the TCEQ. These nine sources did screen out/obtain exemptions based on
the limits and model plant approaches or reducing PTE below BART
thresholds. See Table 17 and the BART TSD for details. Documentation of
the emission reductions is in the Texas regional haze SIP, Appendix 9-
11: Documentation of Emission Reductions. The sources and the estimated
reductions were also presented in our BART TSD and Table 16 below.
Reduction estimates are conservative because they are from the 2002
actual emissions level to a new potential to emit level below the 2002
actuals. Since facilities typically operate at less than their
allowable emission rate on an annual basis we concur that the estimates
of actual emission reductions for most of the sources is conservative.
Capitol Cement shut down their BART units.
Table 16--Post 2002 Emission Reductions at Texas BART Sources
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Reduced SO2 Reduced PM Reduced from
No. Regulated entity Source Account from baseline from baseline baseline 2002
2002 (tpy) 2002 (tpy) (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................. RN100211507............. CAPITOL CEMENT DIV........... BG0045E................. 1,328 1,193 100
2................. RN100227016............. DOW.......................... HG0126Q................. 694 0 0
3................. RN102450756............. EXXONMOBIL OIL............... JE0067I................. 2.7 290 0
4................. RN102609724............. NORIT AMERICAS INC........... HH0019H................. 16.6 +5.4 0
5................. RN100216621............. REGENCY TILDEN GAS (FORMERLY MC0002H................. 2 2,276 0.2
ENBRIDGE PIPELINE).
6................. RN102551785............. TARGA (FORMERLY DYNEGY CY0019H................. 336 0.3 0.5
MIDSTREAM SERVICES).
7................. RN102561925............. THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER JE0039N................. 89.1 +11.3 2.9
CO.
8................. RN100213685............. VALENCE MIDSTREAM LTD........ HR0018T................. 247.1 2,743.5 5.6
9................. RN100218601............. VETROTEX AMERICA ST. GOBAIN.. WH0014S................. 62.6 16.4 59.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total estimated reductions in PTE of haze emissions = 9,485.2 tpy...... ........................ 2,778.1 6,535.9 168.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the conclusion of the BART exemption modeling, model
plant analysis, and granted exemptions, all 126 BART-eligible sources
were found to be exempted from BART.
g. Summary of Our Review of Texas' BART Screening Analyses and
Determinations
The TCEQ analyzed 126 facilities that were potentially BART
eligible or needed additional information to rule out their BART
eligibility. We have reviewed the different modeling techniques that
the TCEQ utilized in evaluating and screening out these sources and we
propose to concur with the analysis. The TCEQ's analysis was done in
accordance with our 2005 BART Guidelines, our modeling Guidelines on
Air Quality Models (40 CFR part 51 App. W), our and Interagency Work
Group on Air Quality Monitoring's (IWAQM) modeling guidance for CALPUFF
and visibility analysis (several documents) and other pertinent
modeling guidance. CALPUFF modeling was conducted pursuant to modeling
protocols that were shared and reviewed by us and Federal Land Manager
representatives and included the initial CENRAP modeling protocol, the
TCEQ's refined modeling protocol, and source specific modeling
protocols. The TCEQ and six sources also performed modeling analyses
with CAMx based on the TCEQ's modeling protocols (initial TCEQ group/
source modeling and refined single source protocols for six
facilities). We initially had some concern in early 2007 that some
sources may have screened out in the initial CAMx group modeling and
model plant source screening in late 2006 based on using the 98th
percentile threshold rather than the threshold that was later agreed to
in February 2007 of using the maximum (high 1st high instead of the.
8th high). As discussed and analyzed at the time (February 2007) and
detailed in our BART TSD, we think that the sources that screened out
were analyzed in groups, and it is reasonable to conclude that no one
source would have been above either threshold if refined modeling had
been conducted. Subsequent screening using
[[Page 74851]]
these sources and the model plant approach are also valid since each
source would be below 0.5 del-dv based on the analysis as further
discussed in our BART TSD. Therefore, we propose to concur with the
sources that the TCEQ screened out using the model plant approaches.
We also reviewed the results of the CALPUFF and CAMx single-source
modeling, and we propose to concur with the screening of those
facilities. We propose to concur with the TCEQ's screening analysis
overall and its conclusions as discussed above and in the BART TSD. The
final list of all BART-eligible sources and the different screening
techniques that provided the reason for not considering the source to
be subject to BART for its VOC, direct PM, NOX and
SO2 appears in the following table.
Table 17--Summary of Screening Analysis for Each BART-Eligible Facility That Was Evaluated for Impacts at Class I Areas and Removed
[Screened out]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reason for removal
BART- -------------------------------------------------------
Account Company eligible Cum. model Single Exemption
CAMx CAL-PUFF source CAMx requested
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................... TG0044C.................... AEP TEXAS...................... y y ............ ............ ............
2................... CD0013K.................... AEP TEXAS CENTRAL COMPANY_La y y ............ ............ ............
Palma.
3................... NE0024E.................... AEP TEXAS CENTRAL y y ............ ............ ............
COMPANY_Barney M Davis.
4................... NE0026A.................... AEP TEXAS CENTRAL y y ............ ............ ............
COMPANY_Nueces Bay.
5................... JI0030K.................... AEP TEXAS NORTH COMPANY_W.T.U.- y y ............ ............ ............
FT. PHANTOM.
6................... CB0003M.................... ALCOA ALUMINA & CHEMICALS...... y y ............ ............ ............
7................... BL0002S.................... INEOS OLEFINS & POLYMERS....... y y ............ ............ ............
8................... HG0558G.................... ATOFINA CHEMICALS INC.......... y y ............ ............ ............
9................... BL0021O.................... BASF CORPORATION............... y y ............ ............ ............
10.................. GB0001R.................... BP AMOCO CHEMICAL COMPANY...... y y ............ ............ ............
11.................. MH0009H.................... CELANESE LIMITED............... y y ............ ............ ............
12.................. ED0011D.................... CHAPARRAL STEEL MIDLOTHIAN..... y y ............ ............ ............
13.................. BJ0001T.................... CHEMICAL LIME LTD.............. y y ............ ............ ............
14.................. HG0310V.................... CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL...... y y ............ ............ ............
15.................. HW0013C.................... CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL CO... y y ............ ............ ............
16.................. BG0057U.................... CITY PUBLIC SERVICE_Sommers y y ............ ............ ............
Deely Spruce.
17.................. BG0186I.................... CITY PUBLIC SERVICE_V.H y y ............ ............ ............
Brauning.
18.................. CR0020C.................... COPANO PROCESSING LP........... y y ............ ............ ............
19.................. CI0022A.................... DYNEGY MIDSTREAM SERVICES...... y y ............ ............ ............
20.................. WN0042V.................... TARGA.......................... y y ............ ............ ............
21.................. HG0218K.................... EI DUPONT...................... y y ............ ............ ............
22.................. EE0029T.................... EL PASO ELECTRIC CO............ y y ............ ............ ............
23.................. TH0004D.................... ELECTRIC UTILITY DEPT.......... y y ............ ............ ............
24.................. MQ0009F.................... ENTERGY GULF STATES INC_Lewis y y ............ ............ ............
Creek.
25.................. OC0013O.................... ENTERGY GULF STATES INC_Sabine. y y ............ ............ ............
26.................. BL0113I.................... EQUISTAR....................... y y ............ ............ ............
27.................. BL0268B.................... EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP.......... y y ............ ............ ............
28.................. HG0033B.................... EQUISTAR CHEMICALS LP.......... y ............ y y ............
29.................. HG0228H.................... EXXON CHEMICAL CO.............. y y ............ ............ ............
30.................. JE0065M.................... EXXON MOBIL CHEMICAL CO........ y y ............ ............ ............
31.................. HG0229F.................... EXXONMOBIL CHEMICAL CO......... y y ............ ............ ............
32.................. NE0122D.................... FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP....... y y ............ ............ ............
33.................. JE0052V.................... HUNTSMAN CORPORATION........... y y ............ ............ ............
34.................. JE0135Q.................... HUNTSMAN PETROCHEMICAL CORP.... y y ............ ............ ............
35.................. EB0057B.................... HUNTSMAN POLYMERS.............. y ............ y ............ ............
36.................. GBA007G.................... INEOS.......................... ............ ............ ............ ............ y
37.................. NE0120H.................... FLINT HILLS RESOURCES LP....... y y ............ ............ ............
38.................. WE0005G.................... LAREDO POWER................... y y ............ ............ ............
39.................. MB0123F.................... LEHIGH CEMENT COMPANY.......... y y ............ ............ ............
40.................. NE0025C.................... LON C HILL POWER............... y y ............ ............ ............
41.................. BC0015L.................... LOWER COLORADO RIVER y y ............ ............ ............
Authority_Lower Colorado River.
42.................. FC0018G.................... LOWER COLORADO RIVER y y ............ ............ ............
AUTHORITY_Fayette.
43.................. HG1575W.................... LYONDELL CITGO REFINING........ y y ............ ............ y
44.................. HG1451S.................... OXYVINYLS LP................... y y ............ ............ ............
45.................. JE0042B.................... PREMCOR REFINING GROUP......... y y ............ ............ ............
46.................. HG0632T.................... ROHM & HAAS TEXAS.............. y y ............ ............ ............
47.................. BL0038U.................... SOLUTIA INC.................... y y ............ ............ ............
48.................. GJ0043K.................... SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC POWER.... y y ............ ............ ............
[[Page 74852]]
49.................. ME0006A.................... SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC y y ............ ............ ............
POWER_Wilkes.
50.................. PG0040T.................... SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC y y ............ ............ ............
SERVICE_Nichols.
51.................. PG0041R.................... SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC y y ............ ............ ............
SERVICE_Harrington.
52.................. TF0012D.................... SOUTHWESTERN ELECTRIC y ............ ............ y ............
POWER_Welsh.
53.................. JE0091L.................... SUN MARINE TERMINAL............ y y ............ ............ ............
54.................. CI0012D.................... TEXAS GENCO LP_Cedar Bayou..... y y ............ ............ ............
55.................. FG0020V.................... TEXAS GENCO LP_W A Parrish..... y y ............ ............ ............
56.................. GB0037T.................... NRG Texas_PH Robinson.......... y ............ y ............ ............
57.................. HG0562P.................... TEXAS PETROCHEMICALS LP........ y y ............ ............ ............
58.................. BL0082R.................... THE DOW CHEMICAL CO............ y y ............ ............ ............
59.................. NE0022I.................... TICONA POLYMERS INC............ y y ............ ............ ............
60.................. ED0066B.................... TXI OPERATIONS, L.P............ y ............ y ............ ............
61.................. FI0020W.................... TXU BIG BROWN COMPANY LP....... y y ............ ............ ............
62.................. DB0251U.................... TXU ELECTRIC COMPANY_North Lake y y ............ ............ ............
Steam.
63.................. FB0025U.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Valley Steam.
64.................. HQ0012T.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Decordova.
65.................. MB0116C.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Tradinghouse.
66.................. MM0023J.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Sandow.
67.................. MO0014L.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Morgan Creek.
68.................. RL0020K.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Martin Lake.
69.................. TA0352I.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY LP_Eagle y y ............ ............ ............
Mtn.
70.................. WC0028Q.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Permian Bsn.
71.................. YB0017V.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y y ............ ............ ............
LP_Graham.
72.................. TF0013B.................... TXU GENERATION COMPANY y ............ y ............ ............
LP_Monticello.
73.................. GB0076J.................... UNION CARBIDE CORP............. y y ............ ............ ............
74.................. CB0028T.................... UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION...... y y ............ ............ ............
75.................. GB0073P.................... VALERO REFINING CO TEXAS....... y y ............ ............ ............
76.................. VC0003D.................... VICTORIA POWER................. y y ............ ............ ............
77.................. JB0016M.................... VINTAGE PETROLEUM, INC......... y y ............ ............ ............
78.................. LN0081B.................... SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE.... y y ............ ............ ............
79.................. AC0017B.................... ABITIBI CONSOLIDATED CORP...... y ............ ............ ............ y
80.................. MM0001T.................... ALCOA INC...................... y ............ y ............ ............
81.................. HT0011Q.................... ALON USA LP.................... y ............ y ............ ............
82.................. ED0034O.................... ASH GROVE...................... y ............ y ............ ............
83.................. JE0343H.................... BMC HOLDINGS INC............... ............ ............ ............ ............ y
84.................. GB0004L.................... BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA IN y ............ ............ y ............
TEXAS.
85.................. GH0003Q.................... CABOT CORPORATION.............. y ............ y ............ ............
86.................. BG0045E.................... CAPITOL CEMENT DIV CAPITOL..... y ............ ............ ............ y
87.................. GH0004O.................... CELANESE CHEMICAL.............. y ............ ............ y ............
88.................. BL0758C.................... CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL...... y ............ ............ ............ y
89.................. NE0027V.................... CITGO REFINING & CHEMICALS..... y ............ ............ y ............
90.................. HW0018P.................... CONOCOPHILLIPS................. y ............ y ............ ............
91.................. AB0012W.................... DCP............................ y ............ y ............ ............
92.................. HW0008S.................... DEGUSSA ENGINEERED CARBONS..... y ............ y ............ ............
93.................. MR0008T.................... DIAMOND SHAMROCK REFINING...... y ............ ............ ............ y
94.................. HGA005E.................... DOW............................ y ............ ............ y ............
95.................. HG0126Q.................... DOW............................ y ............ ............ ............ y
96.................. HH0042M.................... EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY....... y ............ y ............ ............
97.................. OC0007J.................... EI DUPONT DENEMOURS & CO....... y ............ ............ ............ y
98.................. MC0002H.................... ENBRIDGE PIPELINE.............. ............ ............ ............ ............ y
99.................. CG0012C.................... ENBRIDGE PIPELINES............. y ............ ............ ............ y
100................. HG0232Q.................... EXXONMOBIL CORP_Baytown........ y ............ y ............ ............
[[Page 74853]]
101................. JE0067I.................... EXXONMOBIL OIL CORP_Beaumont... y ............ y ............ ............
102................. CG0010G.................... INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO......... y ............ y ............ ............
103................. OCA002B.................... INVISTA........................ y ............ y ............ ............
104................. VC0008Q.................... INVISTA........................ y ............ y ............ ............
105................. JH0025O.................... JOHNS MANVILLE INTERNATIONAL... ............ ............ ............ ............ y
106................. HG0048L.................... LYONDELL CITGO REFINING........ y ............ ............ y ............
107................. GB0055R.................... MARATHON ASHLAND PETROLEUM..... y ............ ............ ............ y
108................. HH0019H.................... NORIT AMERICAS INC............. y ............ y ............ y
109................. ED0051O.................... OWENS CORNING.................. y ............ ............ ............ ............
110................. HG0175D.................... PASADENA REFINING.............. y ............ y ............ ............
111................. AG0024G.................... PUEBLO MIDSTREAM GAS CORP...... ............ ............ ............ ............ y
112................. PE0024Q.................... REGENCY GAS SERVICES........... ............ ............ ............ ............ y
113................. HG0697O.................... RHODIA, INC.................... y ............ y ............ ............
114................. HG0659W.................... SHELL OIL CO................... y ............ y ............ ............
115................. HW0017R.................... SID RICHARDSON CARBON.......... y ............ y ............ ............
116................. HT0027B.................... SID RICHARDSON CARBON.......... y ............ y ............ ............
117................. CY0019H.................... TARGA.......................... y ............ ............ ............ y
118................. OC0019C.................... TEMPLE-INLAND.................. y ............ y ............ ............
119................. HK0014M.................... TEXAS LEHIGH CEMENT CO......... y ............ y ............ ............
120................. JE0039N.................... THE GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO y ............ y ............ y
121................. JE0005H.................... TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS........... y ............ y ............ ............
122................. HR0018T.................... VALENCE MIDSTREAM LTD.......... y ............ y y y
123................. NE0043A.................... VALERO REFINING COMPANY........ y ............ ............ ............ ............
124................. HG0130C.................... VALERO REFINING TEXAS LP....... ............ ............ ............ ............ y
125................. WH0014S.................... VETROTEX WICHITA FALLS PLANT... y ............ ............ ............ y
126................. JC0003K.................... WESTVACO....................... y ............ y ............ ............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Subject to BART EGUs
As explained above in Section I.C, in an earlier action, we issued
a limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP based on
deficiencies arising from its reliance on CAIR to meet certain regional
haze requirements.\244\ In the same rulemaking, we found that CSAPR,
like CAIR, provides for greater reasonable progress towards the
national goal than would BART. This finding applied only to EGUs in the
states in the CSAPR region and only to the pollutants subject to the
requirements of CSAPR.\245\ The docket for this earlier limited
disapproval of Texas' regional haze SIP may be found at Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2011-0729. In that action, we did not disapprove the
reasonable progress targets for 2018 that have been set by the states
in their SIPs. The reasonable progress goals in the SIPs were set based
on modeled projections of future conditions that were developed using
the best available information at the time the analysis was done. Given
the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(vi) that states must take into
account the visibility improvement that is expected to result from the
implementation of other Clean Air Act requirements, states set their
reasonable progress goals based, in part, on the emission reductions
expected to be achieved by CAIR. As CAIR has now been remanded by the
D.C. Circuit, the assumptions underlying the development of the
reasonable progress targets have changed; however, because the overall
EGU emission reductions from CSAPR are larger than the EGU emission
reductions that would have been achieved by CAIR, we expect CSAPR to
provide similar or greater benefits than CAIR. Given these
considerations, we concluded not to disapprove the reasonable progress
goals in any of the regional haze SIPs for their reliance on CAIR,
including those for Texas. In this earlier action, we did not
promulgate a FIP for Texas in order to allow more time for us to assess
the Texas regional haze SIP submittal due to the variety and number of
BART-eligible sources and the complexity of the SIP.\246\ At this time,
we propose a FIP to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the
trading programs of CSAPR as an alternative to BART for SO2
and NOX emissions from EGUs in the regional haze plan for
Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\244\ 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
\245\ Texas is subject to the requirements of the CSAPR trading
program for both NOX and SO2. See 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011).
\246\ 77 FR 33654 (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Previously, CSAPR was stayed by the D.C. Circuit pending resolution
of litigation. We moved to have that stay lifted in light of the
Supreme Court decision. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, Case
No. 11-1302, Document No. 1499505 (D.C. Cir. filed June 26, 2014). In
our motion, we asked the Court to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by
three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and
2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets
apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). Under the tolled
compliance deadline schedule proposed by us in its motion to lift the
CSAPR stay, CAIR would sunset at the end of 2014 and be replaced by
CSAPR beginning January 1, 2015. On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit
granted our request to lift the legal stay on the implementation of
CSAPR. Therefore, our proposed FIP to replace Texas' reliance on CAIR
with reliance CSAPR is consistent with the Court's ruling.
3. Texas' BART Rule
Texas also promulgated and submitted rule sections that add
[[Page 74854]]
engineering and control requirements for BART on certain affected
sources. The full SIP submittal is available in the docket for this
proposal at www.regulations.gov. Texas' BART rules are codified at 30
TAC 116.1500-116.1540. The rules establish definitions, applicability,
exemptions, BART, and exemption from BART. Our technical analysis of
the provisions in Texas' BART rules can be found in the TX and BART
TSDs in the docket for this rulemaking. On September 22, 2006, we
provided substantive comments on Texas' proposed BART rules.\247\ In
its final adoption of the rules, the TCEQ adequately addressed all of
our comments. However, at the time of our comments, CAIR had not yet
been vacated by the D.C. Circuit. One provision in Texas' BART rule, 30
TAC 116.1510(d), provides an exemption from BART based on CAIR.
Specifically, it states ``BART-eligible electric generating units
participating in the Clean Air Interstate Rule Trading Program are not
subject to the requirements of Section 116.1520 or Section116.1530 of
this title for NOX and SO2.'' \248\ As discussed
in Section I.C, we have already issued a limited disapproval of the
Texas regional haze SIP for its reliance on CAIR. However, we
determined that CSAPR provides for greater reasonable progress towards
the national goal than would BART and Texas is included in CSAPR for
NOX and SO2. Therefore, our proposed FIP to
replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on the trading programs of CSAPR
as an alternative to BART includes a FIP to replace Texas' reliance on
CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d) with reliance on CSAPR. We propose to
approve the remainder of the provisions in the Texas BART rules and
Texas' application of the BART rules regarding the identification of
all BART eligible sources within the state and the screening of BART
sources from full BART analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\247\ See Letter from Thomas Diggs, EPA, to Lola Brown, TCEQ
(Sept. 22, 2006), attachment W-16 in the TCEQ's March 19, 2009, SIP
submittal.
\248\ 30 TAC 116.1510(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Long-Term Strategy
Section 51.308(d)(3) provides that Texas' long-term strategy
include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals
established by states having mandatory Class I areas. There are a
number of requirements a state must meet when establishing its long-
term strategy. These requirements include: (1) states must consult with
downwind states to develop coordinated management strategies that
address regional haze visibility impairment; \249\ (2) where multiple
states cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area,
each state must demonstrate that it has put all measures necessary to
obtain its share of emission reductions needed to meet the progress
goal for the Class I area; \250\ and (3) each state must provide and
document the technical basis on which the state is relying to determine
its share of emission reductions necessary to achieve reasonable
progress for each Class I area it affects.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\249\ Section 51.308(d)(3)(i).
\250\ Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
\251\ Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii)-(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Texas' Long-Term Strategy Consultation
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that where Texas has emissions
that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment
in any mandatory Class I area located in another state or states, it
must consult with the other state(s) in order to develop coordinated
emission management strategies. Texas must consult with any other state
having emissions that are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I area within it.
Regarding this requirement, the TCEQ makes the following statement
in its SIP: \252\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\252\ Page 4-2 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
The TCEQ reviewed CENRAP modeling to assess which Class I areas
in other States might be impacted by Texas' emissions. Modeling
indicated that Texas impacts Breton Wilderness Area in Louisiana,
the Great Sand Dunes in Colorado, and several Class I sites in New
Mexico. The TCEQ also consulted the adjacent States in which the
modeling data indicated no significant impact by Texas, including
Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.\253\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\253\ We assume the statement that modeling data indicates ``no
significant impact by Texas'' on Class I areas in Arkansas and
Oklahoma is an oversight in the Texas regional haze SIP.
As we summarize below, CENRAP visibility modeling in fact
demonstrates that Texas sources are responsible for a significant
portion of the visibility impacts to Class I areas in a number of
states on the worst 20% days for both 2002 and 2018, including Arkansas
and Oklahoma.\254\ Furthermore, as we discuss below, both Oklahoma and
Texas mutually acknowledged that Texas sources significantly impact the
visibility at the Wichita Mountains. Regardless, Texas participated in
consultation calls with Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma and through
letters with Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana, Missouri, and New Mexico.
The TCEQ identified the significant point sources within each AOI and
shared this information with nearby states during the consultation
process (see Appendix 4-3 of the Texas regional haze SIP for
consultation letters).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\254\ See Table 1 of the TX TSD for a summary of CENRAP source
apportionment modeling results for Class I areas in other States
impacted by emissions from sources in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to this review and in response to comments from us and the
federal land managers in March 2008, Texas wrote consultation letters
to Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana, and Colorado to
ask whether emission reductions projected in Texas by 2018 are
sufficient to meet Texas' apportionment of the impact reduction needed
to meet the RPG for each Class I area in each state.
The TCEQ also requested recipients of the letters to confirm they
were not expecting any additional emission reductions from Texas
sources. These letters and associated documents are included in
Appendix 4-3 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP. Texas stated in the record
that it had completed its consultation with Louisiana, Arkansas,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Colorado, and none of these states has asked it
for further emission reductions to help the it meet its reasonable
progress goals for its Class I area(s). Appendix 4-3 to the Texas
regional haze SIP contains the official communications from these
states to Texas. The following is a summary of the state-by-state
review of Texas' consultation under Section 51.308(d)(3)(i):
Colorado (Great Sand Dunes, Rocky Mountains) TCEQ sent Colorado a
letter on March 25, 2008 with information of impacts of Texas sources
on Colorado Class I areas. On June 19, 2008, Colorado responded in a
letter in which it presented its own impact analyses and stated that
Texas sources are below the criteria identified in the Colorado SIP
(based on regional apportionment modeling used to develop the Colorado
SIP, PSAT.). In a June 24, 2008, letter, Colorado's Department of
Public Health and Environment responded that no further emission
reductions were requested of Texas at this time.
Louisiana (Breton). On November 29, 2007, the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) sent an email that stated it determined
that emissions from Texas do not contribute to visibility impairment at
Breton Wilderness Class I Area in Louisiana. LDEQ stated that it will
continue to monitor all state and federal rules and control measures
and will include the necessary emission factors in future
[[Page 74855]]
modeling. TCEQ sent LDEQ a letter on March 25, 2008, with information
of impacts of Texas sources on Breton.
New Mexico: (Carlsbad Caverns, Salt Creek, White Mountain, Wheeler
Peak). On August 8, 2008, TCEQ sent a letter to NMED. As of the date of
the submission of the Texas regional haze SIP, New Mexico had not
replied. New Mexico's regional haze SIP provides additional
clarification on its consultations. New Mexico acknowledges that the
long-term strategies adopted by Colorado, Arizona, and Texas in their
SIPs and approved by us will include emission reductions from a variety
of sources that will reduce visibility impairment in New Mexico's Class
I areas.\255\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\255\ New Mexico Regional Haze SIP, Page 4 at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/documents/Proposed_RH_SIP_309g_03312011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri (Hercules-Glades, Mingo) and Arkansas (Caney Creek, Upper
Buffalo). On August 26, 2007, Missouri and Arkansas invited states
including Texas to a series of consultation calls concerning visibility
at their four Class I areas. During these calls, a URP was developed
for each Class I area in Arkansas and Missouri (Caney Creek and Upper
Buffalo in Arkansas, and Hercules Glades and Mingo in Missouri). The
participating states also determined that the projected 2018 CENRAP
modeling and other findings based on existing and proposed controls
arising from local, state, and federal requirements indicated that the
two Class I areas in Arkansas and the two Class I areas in Missouri are
on the glidepath and are projected to meet the URP goals for the first
implementation period ending in 2018. Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and Missouri Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) both determined that additional emission reductions
from other states were not necessary to address visibility impairment
at Caney Creek, Upper Buffalo, Hercules-Glades, and Mingo for the first
implementation period ending in 2018, and all states participating in
its consultations agreed with this.\256\ The TCEQ sent Missouri and
Arkansas letters on March 25, 2008, with information of impacts of
Texas sources on Missouri and Arkansas Class I areas. On April 21,
2008, Missouri responded with a letter that stated it had reviewed the
TCEQ analysis and attachments and they provided results generally
consistent with the CENRAP and Missouri modeling and data analysis used
in developing its plan. Missouri indicated at this time, that emission
reductions from Texas were adequate. In an April 21, 2008, letter,
Missouri's Department of Natural Resources responded that no further
emission reductions were requested of Texas. Arkansas responded on June
10, 2008. It concurred with the CENRAP PSAT modeling assessment, and
those results were used to set Arkansas' RPGs for its 2 Class I areas.
Arkansas stated it was not depending on additional reductions at this
time to meet its RPGs. In a June 10, 2008, letter, the ADEQ responded
that no further emission reductions were requested of Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\256\ See Appendix 4_3d of the Texas regional haze SIP for July
23, 2007, letter from ADEQ and MDNR to participants in the Central
Class I Areas Consultation Process summarizing this series of
consultation calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma (Wichita Mountains). The TCEQ attended Oklahoma's three
consultation calls held in August and September 2007. On August 3,
2007, ODEQ sent TCEQ a letter that noted the Wichita Mountains is not
projected to be on its glide path and that, from ``the work done
through the CENRAP process, it is clear that Wichita Mountains suffers
from significant anthropogenic impacts from Texas.'' The letter
requested that the ODEQ be able to comment on BACT determinations for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) sources that
significantly impact the Wichita Mountains and requested that Class I
impact reviews be required for all proposed PSD sources within 300
kilometers of a Class I area. The letter cited several CAA visibility
provisions related to PSD visibility requirements and the visibility
transport requirement under Section 110 of the CAA. The ODEQ asked that
the TCEQ ``fully consider its comments'' about applicable CAA
provisions. In a response letter dated October 15, 2007, the TCEQ
agreed that the modeling shows Texas to be a ``significant source of
visibility impairing pollution on the Wichita Mountains.'' The TCEQ
agreed to notify the ODEQ, along with the relevant FLM, whenever
modeling indicates that a proposed source significantly impacts Wichita
Mountains. The TCEQ also responded to the ODEQ's PSD comments on
potential impacts of new and modified sources. The TCEQ did not agree
to the ODEQ's 300 kilometer PSD review request, and cited the need for
us to adopt significant impact levels for Class I reviews so that there
is a consistent approach to requiring Class I reviews. During the
interim, the TCEQ committed to working with the federal land managers
on mutually acceptable criteria for determining when a proposed PSD
source should conduct a Class I review. The TCEQ also stated, in
conjunction with work being done through CENRAP, that there will be
significant reductions in the next few years and visibility at Wichita
Mountains would improve as a result of those reductions.
The TCEQ sent Oklahoma another consultation letter, dated March 25,
2008. In that letter, the TCEQ provides a detailed assessment, based on
CENRAP modeling, of the impact of Texas sources on the visibility at
the Wichita Mountains. Specifically, the letter contained information
related to the 2002 visibility impacts and the 2018 projected
visibility impacts from all source areas on the one Class I area in
Oklahoma and the impacts apportioned to be from Texas' sources. TCEQ
indicated that CENRAP produced these results using particulate matter
source apportionment technology (PSAT) modeling and relative response
factors according to our regional haze modeling guidance. The data were
from the August 27, 2007, version of the PSAT tool that Environ
produced for CENRAP. The TCEQ also provided a table of sources of
particular interest to Wichita Mountains, identified by the TCEQ due to
their emissions and location within the AOI, developed as part of the
CENRAP planning process. This table included 2002 and 2018 projected
annual emissions from CENRAP, as well as the sources distance from
Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ concluded by requesting ODEQ's concurrence
on that assessment, and, ``that your State is not depending on any
additional reductions from Texas sources in order to meet your
reasonable progress goal(s).''
On May 12, 2008, the ODEQ responded to that letter and concurred
with the ``information in that letter.'' The ODEQ stated that it
developed its RPG through CENRAP deliberation. It also stated that it
does not anticipate reductions beyond those that Texas already planned
to implement and upon which the CENRAP studies relied. However, the
ODEQ stated that its RPG falls short of the uniform rate of improvement
necessary to reach the default natural visibility conditions in 2064.
The ODEQ stated that reaching its progress goal requires constraints on
emissions from new, modified, and existing sources. Referring back to
its August 2007 letter, the ODEQ restated its request that the TCEQ
perform an analysis of any new or modified PSD subject source within
300 km of the Wichita Mountains to conduct an analysis for its impact
on the Wichita Mountains, following FLM guidance, as appropriate. It
restated its request to review BACT determinations for proposed sources
projected to
[[Page 74856]]
significantly contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita
Mountains. The TCEQ committed to provide the ODEQ the opportunity to
comment on control determinations for Texas facilities that having the
potential to significantly impair visibility at the Wichita Mountains.
The ODEQ asked to be informed of actual emission reductions achieved
from CAIR. Please see our description of the Texas-Oklahoma
consultations, based on the information in Oklahoma's record, in our OK
TSD and as summarized in Section VI.B.2, for additional consultation
details.
a. Our Review of Texas' Long-Term Strategy State Consultation
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that Texas consult with other
states if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s), and that Texas
consult with other states if those states' emissions are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at Big Bend and
Guadalupe Mountains. The TCEQ's consultations with other states that
impact Texas Class I areas are described in Section V.C.5 above.
During consultation, Colorado and Louisiana determined that Texas
impacts on their Class I areas were not significant enough to warrant
additional controls for this planning period. Based on the 2018 CENRAP
projections, Missouri and Arkansas \257\ established RPGs for their
Class I areas that provide for a slightly greater rate of improvement
in visibility than needed to attain the URP, and determined that the
projected emission reductions included in the model were adequate, and
that it was not reasonable to request additional controls from Texas at
this time. We find these consultations acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\257\ We note, however, that we disapproved Arkansas' RPGs
because it did not perform an adequate four-factor analysis of their
own sources and because we disapproved BART determinations in the
State. See 76 FR 64186 (October 17, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CENRAP source apportionment modeling indicates that Texas
emissions, particularly SO2 emissions from point sources,
impact a number of Class I areas outside of Texas. Texas SO2
emissions are projected in 2018 to have the largest visibility impacts,
in terms of both absolute contribution to extinction and percent
contribution to total extinction, at the Wichita Mountains in
Oklahoma.\258\ As we discuss above, both the ODEQ and the TCEQ agreed
that sources in Texas significantly impact the visibility at the
Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma, and that the impacts from point sources
in Texas are several times greater than the impact from Oklahoma point
sources. Furthermore, the ODEQ asserted in its consultations with the
TCEQ, and elsewhere in its regional haze SIP, that it would not be able
to reach natural visibility by 2064 without additional reductions from
Texas sources. During consultations, the ODEQ specifically requested
additional information on controls identified through the CENRAP
process that were cost-effective and had the potential to result in
visibility improvements due to their location and size. In addition,
the ODEQ had information that other sources with existing controls
still have a large potential to impact visibility and should be
analyzed for control upgrades.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\258\ See Tables 25 and 26 below and our TX TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, however, Texas determined that no additional controls
at its sources were warranted during the first planning period to help
achieve reasonable progress at the Wichita Mountains, and Oklahoma did
not specifically request any additional reductions from Texas sources.
As a result, Oklahoma set RPGs for the Wichita Mountains that do not
reflect any reasonable emission reductions from Texas beyond those that
will be achieved by compliance with other requirements of the CAA.
During the notice-and-comment period on Oklahoma's proposed SIP,
several commenters criticized Oklahoma for not requesting additional
reductions from Texas. They argued that without such reductions,
Oklahoma would not make reasonable progress toward the national goal at
the Wichita Mountains. In responding to these comments, Oklahoma
acknowledged that sources in Texas had significant impacts on
visibility in the Wichita Mountains, but maintained that it did not
have the regulatory authority to require emission reductions in other
states. Oklahoma asserted that only Texas and we could require such
reductions. We believe that the technical analysis developed by Texas
did not provide the information necessary to identify reasonable
reductions from its sources, and inform consultations in order to
develop coordinated management strategies with Oklahoma. As a result,
we believe that Texas did not incorporate those potential reasonable
reductions into its long-term strategy and those reductions were not
included in the reasonable progress goal established by Oklahoma for
Wichita Mountains. Consequently, we propose to find that the TCEQ did
not adequately address the requirement in Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) to
``consult with the other State(s) in order to develop coordinated
emission management strategies.''
2. Texas' Share of Reductions in Other States' Progress Goals
Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if Texas emissions cause or
contribute to impairment in another state's Class I area, it 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 progress goal for that Class I area. Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also
requires that since Texas 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 Regional Haze Rule, Texas' commitment
to participate in CENRAP bind it to secure emission reductions agreed
to as a result of that process, unless it proposes a separate or
supplemental process and performs its consultations on the basis of
that process.
While the content of state SIPs cannot be dictated by a regional
planning organization, the Regional Haze Rule contemplated that a
coordinated regional effort would likely produce results the states
would find beneficial in developing their regional haze SIPs. Any state
choosing not to follow the recommendations of a regional body would
have to provide a specific technical basis that its strategy
nonetheless provides for reasonable progress based on the statutory
factors and would be responsible for the content of that demonstration.
The technical data prepared through the regional planning organization
process is typically designed to inform the member states of their
apportionment of the visibility impact at Class I areas, project future
visibility conditions, and to provide high-level information on
potential control strategies to inform consultations and the four-
factor analysis necessary to establish RPGs. These analyses may require
additional supplementation or refinement by the states in development
of their regional haze SIPs to address impacts and potential controls
of specific sources or source categories.
Participation in a regional planning organization does not
automatically satisfy a state's obligation to ``demonstrate that it has
included in its implementation plan all measures necessary to obtain
its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress goal''
for a Class I area. As mentioned in section IV above, the
[[Page 74857]]
control measures in an upwind state's long term strategy should be
sufficient to obtain its share of reductions needed to meet an
approved, or approvable, progress goal in a downwind state's SIP. In
this instance, the CENRAP technical analysis was sufficient to
demonstrate that Texas as a whole, and particular source categories
such as EGU point sources, had a significant impact on the visibility
at the Wichita Mountains and other Class I areas. The analysis also
estimated that large emission reductions could be achieved at some of
these sources by implementing potentially cost-effective controls. The
TCEQ recognized that some aspects of CENRAP's technical analysis were
limited and therefore attempted to supplement that analysis, which it
used as the technical basis for both its reasonable progress and long-
term strategy demonstrations, as we describe in Section V.C. As it
states with regard to the development of its long-term strategy on page
10-4 of its regional haze SIP, ``[t]he TCEQ used the control strategy
analysis completed by the CENRAP as the starting point for the analysis
of additional controls.'' In fact, the TCEQ went beyond the CENRAP
analysis by contemplating additional controls, applying a lower cost-
effectiveness threshold and estimating the visibility benefit from the
identified control set. The TCEQ incorporated this supplemental
analysis in the development of its RPG and its long-term strategy. It
used this analysis to inform its decision not to control any additional
sources, including those that impact the visibility at the Wichita
Mountains and other Class I areas in other states.
However, we believe the technical analysis developed by CENRAP and
supplemented by the TCEQ did not provide the information needed to
evaluate the reasonableness of controls on those sources with the
largest potential to impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains. See
Sections V.C.2 and V.C.3, as well as the TX TSD for a detailed
description and our review of the CENRAP and TCEQ analyses. We believe
this information was critical for ODEQ to use in setting the RPG and
critical for TCEQ when determining its fair share of reductions.
We propose to find that Texas did not develop an adequate technical
basis to inform consultations with Oklahoma and to identify reasonable
reductions from its sources. As a result, we find that Texas did not
incorporate those reasonable reductions into its long-term strategy.
Texas' ``share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress
goal'' for the Wichita Mountains was not properly established because
of the inadequacies in its technical analyses, which compromised its
consultations with Oklahoma. For these reasons we propose to find that
TCEQ did not adequately meet the requirement in Section
51.308(d)(3)(ii).
3. Texas' Technical Basis for Its Long-Term Strategy
Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that Texas document the
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions
information, on which it is relying to determine its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable
progress in each mandatory Class I area it affects. It may meet this
requirement by relying on technical analyses developed by the regional
planning organization and approved by all state participants. Texas
must identify the baseline emissions inventory on which its strategies
are based. The baseline emissions inventory year is presumed to be the
most recent year of the consolidated periodic emissions inventory.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires that Texas identify all
anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment considered by it in
developing its long-term strategy. Texas should consider major and
minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
The TCEQ addressed the requirements of Sections 51.308(d)(3)(iii)-
(iv) mainly by relying on technical analyses developed by CENRAP and
approved by all state participants, but it also performed an additional
analysis building upon the work of the regional planning organization
in order to evaluate additional controls, as described in Section
V.C.2. The emissions inventory used in the regional haze technical
analyses was developed by CENRAP with assistance from Texas. The 2018
emissions inventory was developed by projecting 2002 emissions and
applying reductions expected from federal and state regulations
affecting the emissions of the visibility-impairing pollutants
NOX, PM, SO2, and VOCs. By analogy, with regard
to development of the long-term strategy, the BART Guidelines direct
states to exercise judgment in deciding whether VOCs and NH3
impair visibility in their Class I area(s).\259\ CENRAP performed
modeling sensitivity analyses, which demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of VOC and NH3 do not significantly impair
visibility in the CENRAP region. Therefore, Texas did not consider
NH3 among visibility-impairing pollutants and did not
further evaluate NH3 and VOC emissions sources for potential
controls under BART or reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\259\ 70 FR 39114 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Texas' 2002 Emission Inventory
The TCEQ and CENRAP developed an emission inventory for five
inventory source classifications: Point, area, non-road and on-road
mobile sources, and biogenic sources for the baseline year of 2002.
Texas' 2002 emissions inventory provides estimates of annual emissions
for haze producing pollutants by source category, based on information
in Section 7.0 of Texas' regional haze SIP.
Methodologies used in developing the 2002 emissions inventory are
documented in Appendix 7-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and the
technical support document for the CENRAP emission inventory
development.\260\ See our TX TSD and our CENRAP Modeling TSD for a
summary and our review of how the 2002 emissions inventory was
constructed. The TCEQ noted concerns with the estimate of area source
SO2 emissions included in the CENRAP emission inventory for
2002 and 2018, and stated that the 2002 emissions reported by TCEQ were
15,633 tpy for SO2 area sources. However, it states that the
CENRAP's modeled emissions are not expected to significantly impact
visibility estimates for 2018 because of the relatively small
contribution for these Texas sources on Class I areas.\261\ Texas' 2002
emissions inventory is summarized in Tables 18 and 19:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\260\ Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air
Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze SIP, included as Appendix
8-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP.
\261\ See page 7-1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
\262\ TOG is total organic gas, which includes total
hydrocarbons.
[[Page 74858]]
Table 18--Texas' 2002 Emissions Inventory
[Tons/year]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO NOX SO2 TOG 262 PM2.5 PM10 NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area.................................... 908,407 280,811 111,853 1,163,549 347,490 1,552,824 380,057
Point................................... 498,467 600,725 821,961 207,695 46,789 80,947 2,609
Non-road mobile......................... 1,210,158 242,551 21,828 148,952 15,089 15,556 56
On-road mobile.......................... 4,098,391 664,163 18,814 309,707 11,275 15,476 21,599
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 6,715,423 1,788,250 974,457 1,829,902 420,642 1,664,803 404,321
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 19--Texas' 2002 Biogenic Emissions Inventory
[Tons/year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX CO VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biogenic......................... 184,896 755,941 4,033,760
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Texas' 2018 Emission Inventory
In general, the TCEQ used a combination of our Economic Growth
Analysis System (EGAS 5), our mobile emissions factor model (MOBILE 6),
our off-road emissions factor model (NONROAD), and the IPM for electric
generating units.\263\ All control strategies expected to take effect
prior to 2018 are included in the projected emission inventory. See our
TX TSD and our CENRAP Modeling TSD for a summary and our review of how
the 2018 emissions inventory was constructed. Texas' 2018 emissions
inventory is summarized in Table 20, based on information in Section
7.0 of the Texas regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\263\ Appendix 7-2 of the Texas regional haze SIP: Integrated
Planning Model Projections of Electric Generating Unit Emissions for
the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan.
Table 20--Texas' 2018 Emissions Inventory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO NOX SO2 TOG 264 PM2.5 PM10 NH3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area.................................... 899,497 274,663 114,138 1,420,681 354,712 1,557,089 562,379
Point................................... 542,128 525,174 625,068 283,290 80,577 121,733 6,790
Non-Road................................ 1,921,674 167,451 6,988 119,855 10,588 11,498 239
On-Road................................. 2,710,631 148,387 2,925 125,234 5,337 5,337 32,191
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 6,073,930 1,115,676 749,119 1,949,060 451,214 1,695,657 601,598
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\264\ TOG is total organic gas, which includes total
hydrocarbons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methodologies used in developing the 2018 emissions inventory are
documented in Appendix 7-1 of the Texas regional haze SIP and the
technical support document for the CENRAP emission inventory
development. CENRAP and the TCEQ used this and other states' 2018
emission inventories to construct visibility projection modeling for
2018.
c. Visibility Projection Modeling
Chapter 8 of the Texas regional haze SIP discuss the modeling
methods and protocol used by the TCEQ and CENRAP in developing the
assessment. Chapter 7 describes the baseline and 2018 emission
inventories used by the TCEQ. A detailed description and discussion of
the model selection, modeling protocol, quality assurance, performance
evaluation, emission inventory development and data used in the
regional haze analysis can be found in our TX and CENRAP Modeling TSDs.
A short summary is provided below:
CENRAP performed modeling for the regional haze long-term
strategy for its member states, including Texas. The modeling analysis
is a complex technical evaluation that began with selection of the
modeling system. CENRAP used the following modeling system:
Meteorological Model: The Pennsylvania State University/
National Center for Atmospheric Research (PSU/NCAR) Mesoscale
Meteorological Model (MM5) is a non-hydrostatic, prognostic
meteorological model routinely used for urban-and regional-scale
photochemical, PM2.5, and regional haze regulatory modeling
studies.
Emissions Model: The Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel
Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system generates hourly gridded speciated
emission inputs of mobile, non-road mobile, area, point, fire and
biogenic emission sources for photochemical grid models.
Air Quality Model: Our Models-3/Community Multiscale Air
Quality (CMAQ) modeling system is a photochemical grid model capable of
addressing ozone, PM, visibility and acid deposition at a regional
scale. The photochemical model selected for this study was CMAQ version
4.5. It was modified through CENRAP with a module for Secondary
Organics Aerosols (SOA) in an open and transparent manner that was also
subjected to outside peer review. The Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with extensions (CAMx) Version 4.40 model, applied using similar
options as used by CMAQ, was used as a secondary corroborative model.
CAMx was also utilized with its Particulate Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT) tool to provide source apportionment of predicted
nitrate and sulfate aerosol concentrations.
d. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Big Bend National Park
Tables 21 and 22 summarize the modeled contributions to total
extinction at Big Bend for each source category and species for 2002
and 2018,
[[Page 74859]]
respectively.\265\ Visibility impairment at Big Bend in 2002 on the
worst 20% days is largely due to SO4 from point sources that
contributes 17.7 Mm-\1\ of the total extinction of 47.79
Mm-\1\. The largest contributions of SO4 come
from Texas (5.50 Mm-\1\ from all source categories),
boundary conditions outside the modeling domain (5.82
Mm-\1\) and Mexico (8.28 Mm-\1\). Overall, the
largest source region contributions to visibility impairment in 2002
are from Mexico (12.75 Mm-\1\), Texas (11.87
Mm-\1\), and outside the modeling domain (12.27
Mm-\1\).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\265\ The species contributing to visibility extinction at Big
Bend and Guadalupe Mountains, shown on Tables 21, 22, 23 and 24, are
the following: Sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3),
primary organic aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC), soil dust,
and coarse mass (CM). These species' precursors are SO2,
NOX, and in some cases, NH3 and VOCs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2018, Texas, Mexico and sources outside the modeling domain are
projected to continue to contribute the most to visibility impairment
at Big Bend. The 2018 projection shows the total extinction at Big Bend
for the worst 20% days is estimated to be 44.06 Mm-\1\, a
reduction of approximately 8% from 2002 levels. Anticipated reductions
of SO2 emissions primarily from point sources in Texas, the
Eastern United States, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Alabama and Ohio will
account for a decrease of 2.73 Mm-\1\ in total light
extinction (1.55 Mm-\1\ decrease from Texas point sources).
Even with these expected reductions in SO2 emissions from
point sources in 2018, extinction due to point sources will continue to
be the highest contributor to visibility impairment on the worst 20%
days, accounting for over one third of the total extinction. Visibility
impairment from all Texas sources will decrease by 1.90
Mm-\1\, primarily due to expected reductions from point
sources.
Table 21--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2002 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1 Point Natural On-road Non-road Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4..................................................... 26.10 17.70 0.02 0.28 0.45 1.82
NO3..................................................... 2.05 0.55 0.33 0.36 0.23 0.30
POA..................................................... 5.81 0.10 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.83
EC...................................................... 2.12 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.32 0.45
SOIL.................................................... 2.54 0.28 1.14 0.01 0.00 1.00
CM...................................................... 7.03 0.02 5.52 0.00 0.07 1.23
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum................................................. 47.79 18.66 7.12 0.80 1.16 5.63
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.
Table 22--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Big Bend Wilderness Area in 2018 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 1 Point Natural On-road Non-road Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4..................................................... 23.00 15.15 0.01 0.04 0.20 1.84
NO3..................................................... 1.99 0.63 0.38 0.12 0.16 0.35
POA..................................................... 5.61 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.08 0.67
EC...................................................... 1.81 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.23 0.29
SOIL.................................................... 2.54 0.32 1.13 0.01 0.00 0.97
CM...................................................... 7.03 0.02 5.42 0.00 0.07 1.33
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum................................................. 44.06 16.27 7.03 0.20 0.74 5.46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.
e. Sources of Visibility Impairment in Guadalupe Mountains National
Park
Tables 23 and 24 summarize the contributions to total extinction at
Guadalupe Mountains for each source category and species for 2002 and
2018, respectively. Visibility impairment at Guadalupe Mountains in
2002 on the worst 20% days is largely due to SO4 from point
sources and course material from natural and area sources. The largest
contributions of SO4 come from Texas (4.28 Mm-\1\
from all source categories), boundary conditions outside the modeling
domain (1.90 Mm-\1\) and Mexico (3.21 Mm-\1\).
Overall, the largest source region contributions to visibility
impairment in 2002 are from Texas (16.62 Mm-\1\), New Mexico
(3.49 Mm-\1\), Mexico (7.90 Mm-\1\), and source
outside the modeling domain (4.16 Mm-\1\).
In 2018, sulfate and course material from Texas, Mexico, New Mexico
and sources outside the modeling domain are projected to continue to
contribute the most to visibility impairment at the Guadalupe
Mountains. The 2018 projection shows the total extinction at the
Guadalupe Mountains for the worst 20% days is estimated to be 44.32
Mm-\1\, a reduction of approximately 7% from 2002 levels.
Anticipated reductions of SO2 emissions primarily from point
sources in Texas, the Eastern United States, Indiana, Alabama and Ohio
will account for a decrease of 2.02 Mm-\1\ in total light
extinction (0.68 Mm-\1\ decrease from Texas point sources).
Even with these expected reductions in SO2 emissions from
point sources in 2018, extinction due to point sources will still be a
significant contributor to visibility impairment on the worst 20% days,
accounting for over one fourth of the total extinction. Visibility
impairment from all Texas sources will decrease by 1.29
Mm-\1\, primarily due to expected reductions from point
sources.
[[Page 74860]]
Table 23--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Guadalupe Mountains in 2002 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \1\ Point Natural On-road Non-road Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4..................................................... 15.94 12.10 0.02 0.22 0.33 1.36
NO3..................................................... 3.67 1.09 0.40 0.79 0.55 0.52
POA..................................................... 2.75 0.24 0.19 0.10 0.16 1.61
EC...................................................... 1.19 0.01 0.04 0.15 0.34 0.51
SOIL.................................................... 4.37 0.41 1.29 0.02 0.00 2.41
CM...................................................... 16.04 0.19 7.75 0.02 0.39 6.60
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum................................................. 47.80 14.05 9.68 1.31 1.76 13.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.
Table 24--Projected Light Extinction for 20% Worst Days at Upper Guadalupe Mountains in 2018 (Mm-\1\)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total \1\ Point Natural On-road Non-road Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO4..................................................... 13.65 10.11 0.02 0.03 0.10 1.40
NO3..................................................... 3.32 1.18 0.44 0.27 0.37 0.65
POA..................................................... 2.38 0.29 0.15 0.05 0.13 1.30
EC...................................................... 0.86 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.23 0.37
SOIL.................................................... 4.37 0.51 1.29 0.02 0.00 2.31
CM...................................................... 16.02 0.20 7.69 0.03 0.38 6.65
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum................................................. 44.32 12.31 9.62 0.43 1.22 12.68
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Totals include contributions from boundary conditions and secondary organic matter but exclude contribution from Rayleigh scattering.
f. Texas' Contribution to Visibility Impairment in Class I Areas
Outside the State
CAMx PSAT results were also utilized to evaluate the impact of
Texas emission sources in 2002 and 2018 on visibility impairment at
Class I areas outside of the state. Texas sources are modeled to have
contributions to the Class I areas in a number of nearby states. Tables
25 and 26 summarize the contribution from Texas emissions of sulfate,
nitrate and total visibility degradation at nearby states' Class I
areas for the 20% worst days in 2002 and 2018, as modeled by CENRAP and
shown in Section 11.2 of the Texas regional haze SIP.\266\ The
contributions from Texas sources on total visibility impairment
decreases from 2002 to 2018 at all impacted Class I areas shown in the
tables below. Texas' impacts on other Class I areas in these nearby
states are less than the impacts for the areas that are shown in the
tables below for each state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\266\ See Appendix E of the Technical Support Document for
CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to Support Regional Haze
SIP, included as Appendix 8-1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP for
PSAT modeling results.
Table 25--Contribution From Texas Emissions to Visibility Impairment (Mm-\1\) at Class I Areas on 20% Worst Days in 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate Nitrate Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area State Total, all Total, all Total, all
Texas source areas Texas source areas Texas source areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Creek........................ New Mexico.......... 4.79 16.75 3.05 11.15 13.41 52.50
White Mountain.................... New Mexico.......... 2.78 10.51 0.53 3.05 7.40 32.91
Wheeler Peak...................... New Mexico.......... 0.76 5.27 0.22 1.64 1.85 21.96
Wichita Mountains................. Oklahoma............ 13.98 49.12 7.89 23.72 28.15 100.03
Great Sand Dunes.................. Colorado............ 0.66 5.84 0.02 1.94 1.25 27.88
Rocky Mountains................... Colorado............ 0.30 7.69 0.08 5.17 0.58 32.13
Caney Creek....................... Arkansas............ 11.55 87.05 1.49 13.78 14.89 133.93
Upper Buffalo..................... Arkansas............ 4.41 83.18 0.27 13.30 5.19 131.79
Hercules-Glades................... Missouri............ 3.48 87.94 2.56 17.91 6.59 140.05
Mingo............................. Missouri............ 0.69 102.52 1.18 27.24 2.01 159.83
Breton............................ Louisiana........... 3.55 96.83 0.15 8.29 4.20 123.99
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 26--Contribution From Texas Emissions (Mm-\1\) to Visibility Impairment at Class I Areas on 20% Worst Days in 2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sulfate Nitrate Total
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area State Total, all Total, all Total, all
Texas source areas Texas source areas Texas source areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt Creek........................ New Mexico.......... 3.50 13.75 2.43 9.81 10.24 46.67
White Mountain.................... New Mexico.......... 2.37 8.92 0.47 2.68 6.22 29.80
[[Page 74861]]
Wheeler Peak...................... New Mexico.......... 0.79 5.00 0.19 1.48 1.59 20.80
Wichita Mountains................. Oklahoma............ 9.68 33.33 6.08 18.10 20.79 75.56
Great Sand Dunes.................. Colorado............ 0.65 5.32 0.02 1.83 1.11 26.77
Rocky Mountains................... Colorado............ 0.30 6.52 0.06 4.28 0.51 29.41
Caney Creek....................... Arkansas............ 7.24 48.95 0.83 7.57 9.74 85.84
Upper Buffalo..................... Arkansas............ 2.74 45.38 0.18 9.22 3.38 86.16
Hercules-Glades................... Missouri............ 2.51 50.63 1.51 12.35 4.45 92.49
Mingo............................. Missouri............ 0.53 54.45 0.64 19.14 1.28 99.24
Breton............................ Louisiana........... 2.66 68.63 0.16 8.20 3.23 94.06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find that the TCEQ's 2002 and 2018 emission
inventories are acceptable and that Texas has satisfied the requirement
of Section 51.308(D)(3)(iv) regarding identifying all anthropogenic
sources of visibility impairment considered by it in developing its
long-term strategy, and that it considered major and minor stationary
sources, mobile sources, and area sources.
However, as we discuss in Section IV.C., given the plain language
of the CAA, we believe Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires states to
consider the four factors used in determining reasonable progress in
developing the technical basis for both their own Class I areas and
downwind Class I areas. This documentation is necessary so that the
interstate consultation process can proceed on an informed basis, and
so that downwind states can properly assess whether any additional
upwind emission reductions are necessary to achieve reasonable progress
at their Class I areas. Therefore, in determining its long-term
strategy under Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), we believe that Texas had an
obligation to conduct an appropriate technical analysis, and
demonstrate through that technical analysis (required under
(d)(3)(ii)), that it provided its fair share of emission reductions to
Oklahoma. In addition, we believe that Texas was required through
consultation under Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) to provide a reasoned
technical analysis, on which it based its long-term strategy, to
Oklahoma. The regulations further provide that:
The State must document the technical basis, including modeling,
monitoring and emissions information, on which the State is relying
to determine its apportionment of emission reduction obligations
necessary for achieving reasonable progress in each mandatory Class
I Federal area it affects. States may meet this requirement by
relying on technical analyses developed by the regional planning
organization and approved by all State participants.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\267\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
Thus, states may meet this requirement by relying on reasonable
progress four-factor analyses and associated technical documentation
prepared by a regional planning organization on behalf of its member
states, to the extent that such analyses and documentation were
conducted. If the technical analysis performed by the regional planning
organization was missing, flawed, or incomplete, it could not be solely
relied upon by a state when developing or documenting the technical
basis of its long-term strategy. The technical data prepared through
the regional planning organization process is typically designed to
inform the member states of their apportionment of the visibility
impact at Class I areas, project future visibility conditions, and to
provide high-level information on potential control strategies to
inform consultations and the four-factor analysis necessary to
establish RPGs. These analyses may require additional refinements by
the states in development of their regional haze SIPs to address
impacts and potential controls of specific sources or source
categories. As we discuss in Sections V.C., and V.E.2, the TCEQ
recognized that some aspects of CENRAP's technical analyses were
limited because it supplemented that analysis with its own. It used
this analysis to inform its decision not to control any additional
sources, including those that impact the visibility at the Wichita
Mountains and other Class I areas in other states. For the reasons
discussed at length in Section V.C.2, we believe this analysis was
inadequate and did not provide the information necessary to determine
the reasonableness of controls at those sources in Texas that
significantly impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains or other Class
I areas. Based on CENRAP data and information shared during
consultations, included in the record, the ODEQ and the TCEQ had
evidence of some potential controls at certain EGUs in Northeast Texas
that were estimated to be cost-effective even according to the TCEQ's
own cost threshold and would result in large emission reductions within
the source type and region with the largest projected impacts at
Wichita Mountains. The ODEQ and the TCEQ were also aware of additional
large emission sources in Texas that should have been further evaluated
for potential controls. Although both the ODEQ and the TCEQ had
abundant evidence that Texas coal fired EGUs had a significant impact
on the visibility at Oklahoma and Texas Class I areas, the development
of this technical information by either party did not progress to the
point where the impacts of individual sources could be determined or to
the point where the information on cost-effective controls identified
for some sources could be refined from a high level state.
Consequently, we propose to find that Texas did not adequately
address the requirements in Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) to ``document the
technical basis, including modeling, monitoring and emissions
information, on which the state is relying to determine its
apportionment of emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving
reasonable progress in each mandatory Class I Federal area it
affects.''
To determine whether additional controls were reasonable in Texas,
we believed it necessary to undertake a cost/control and visibility
analysis which is presented in our FIP TSD. In the FIP TSD, we provide
detailed information concerning which sources within Texas are the
largest contributors to the visibility degradation at the Wichita
Mountains and at other Class I areas, and which sources we believe have
cost-effective controls. For more
[[Page 74862]]
information on our proposed FIP, please see section VII.
4. Texas' Consideration of the Long-Term Strategy Factors
As required by Section 51.308(d)(3)(v), Texas must consider, at a
minimum, the following factors in developing its long-term strategy:
(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 goal;
(D) Source retirement and replacement schedules;
(E) Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
management purposes including plans as 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 long-term strategy.
Texas' long-term strategy incorporates emission reductions due to a
number of ongoing air pollution control programs. This includes
enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, administrative
orders, the issuance and enforcement of permits limiting emissions from
all known major sources in Texas, state rules which specifically limit
targeted emissions sources and categories, and several other ongoing
air pollution control programs. The TCEQ has promulgated rules in order
to administer these programs. These rules govern the TCEQ's permitting
process, including PSD and BACT requirements, and implementation of
federal requirements. The TCEQ also has promulgated rules that limit
emissions in order to comply with the NAAQS, which have ancillary
benefits of visibility improvements. Other air pollution control
programs, including federal mobile emissions programs, the Clean Air
Interstate Rule, Maximum Achievable Control Technology, and Refinery
Consent Decrees are implemented by TCEQ, have similar ancillary
benefits of visibility improvements.
Below we assess how the TCEQ addressed the long-term strategy
factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A)-(G). Please see our TX TSD for
more information on how the TCEQ has addressed these factors.
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
The Texas long-term strategy incorporates emission reductions due
to a number of ongoing air pollution control programs, which are
summarized below.
The TCEQ implements CAIR.
The TCEQ implements a number of federal and state rules
related to mobile source emissions.
The TCEQ implements some major point sources
NOX rules, including Texas Senate Bill 7, which required
emission reductions at EGUs built before Texas BACT emission control
requirements went into effect in 1972, and NOX emission
reductions related to ozone SIP revisions for the Houston-Galveston-
Brazoria area, Beaumont-Port Arthur area, Austin, Northeast Texas, and
East Texas.
A number of miscellaneous programs including
SO2 reductions under our refinery consent decrees; the Texas
Low Emissions Diesel Program; the Texas Emission Reduction Plan to
reduce NOX and PM emissions by encouraging older road and
non-road engine replacement; rules to control opacity and sulfur
emissions, such as 30 TAC Chapters 111 and 112; and BACT.
The TCEQ states that the federal land managers for Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains, or other Class I areas that are impacted by
emissions from Texas sources, have not identified any RAVI caused by
Texas sources. Consequently, Texas does not have any measures in place
or a requirement to implement RAVI. We propose that Texas has satisfied
this requirement.
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(B) requires that Texas consider measures to
mitigate the impacts of construction activities in developing its long-
term strategy. The TCEQ notes that state Rule 30 TAC 111.145,
Construction and Demolition, requires precautions to control dust
emissions from construction operations and other activities.\268\ It
also notes that water pollution control requirements to prevent
pollution from storm runoff and mud and dirt tracked from construction
sites reduces the amount of fine soil material suspended in the air
from traffic in these areas. The TCEQ determined that no additional
measures were needed to mitigate the impacts of construction activities
for purposes of visibility improvement, and we agree with this
determination. We propose that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\268\ Approved into the SIP on January 18, 1994, at 59 FR 02532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Emissions Limitations and Schedules for Compliance
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C) requires that in developing its long-
term strategy, Texas consider emissions limitations and schedules of
compliance to achieve the RPGs. No newly adopted source specific
measures were identified to achieve the RPGs established by Texas. The
TCEQ determined that implementation of existing and ongoing control
measures are adequate to achieve the RPGs established by it and other
CENRAP states. We propose to find that Texas has not satisfied this
requirement, regarding emissions limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big Bend and the Guadalupe
Mountains. Please see the technical discussion we present in Section
V.C regarding the development of the Texas RPGs, as the TCEQ applied
the same technical basis to the development of its long-term strategy.
As with its RPGs, we propose to find this analysis is inadequate as it
does not provide the information necessary to determine the
reasonableness of controls at those sources in Texas that significantly
impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(D) requires that Texas consider source
retirement and replacement schedules in developing its long-term
strategy. Retirement and replacement schedules were taken into account,
to the extent possible, when developing inputs for the IPM that was
used in the CENRAP modeling analysis. Units that the TCEQ knew were
going to be shut down under enforceable actions at the time the
modeling was performed were removed from the future year emission
inventory. We propose that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
e. Smoke Management Techniques
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E) requires that Texas consider smoke
management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes
in developing its long-term strategy. The TCEQ examined the data and
modeling for the worst 20% days at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains
and determined that smoke from agricultural burning and wildfires in
Texas are not a large contributor to visibility impairment at these
Class I areas. The TCEQ also determined that agricultural burning and
wildfires in Texas are not
[[Page 74863]]
significant contributors to visibility impairment at Class I areas in
nearby states. Because of the relatively low contribution of smoke from
Texas to visibility impairment, Texas decided that certifying a smoke
management plan as part of this SIP revision was unnecessary. The Texas
Forest Service (TFS) coordinates fire and smoke management issues in
Texas and has developed a voluntary plan under which all land managers
in Texas, including the National Park Service, inform the TFS prior to
performing prescribed burns. Texas also has an outdoor burning rule (30
TAC Chapter 111, subchapter B) \269\ that includes requirements for
allowable prescribed burning. Texas counties also have the authority to
prohibit open burning in times of drought. The TCEQ found that the
current rules, policies, and plans (including smoke management plans of
the NPS and other federal agencies) are adequate to meet the long-term
strategy. We agree and propose that Texas has satisfied this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\269\ Approved into the SIP on April 28, 2009, at 74 FR 19144.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Enforceability of emissions Limitations and Control Measures
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) requires that Texas ensure the
enforceability of emission limitations and control measures used to
meet RPGs. The TCEQ has rules in place to ensure the enforceability of
its emission limitations. This includes rules that govern TCEQ's
permitting process for major and minor sources, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions, and BACT. The TCEQ has the
authority to issue permits to all major and minor point sources in
Texas, as they are currently defined at 30 TAC Ch. 116. Each permit
must contain enforceable limitations on emissions of various defined
pollutants, including those which cause or contribute to regional haze
at the Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in other states. The TCEQ
included information describing their legal authority and applicable
laws in the submitted Texas regional haze SIP following the executive
summary. We propose that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
g. The Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes in
Emissions
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G) requires that in developing its long-
term strategy, Texas consider the anticipated net effect on visibility
due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions
over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. In developing its
regional haze SIP, the TCEQ relied on the CENRAP's 2018 modeling
projections. As described above, CENRAP used its 2002 emissions
inventory as the starting point for its 2018 emissions inventory. The
2018 emissions inventory was designed to capture the anticipated
changes in point, area, and mobile sources emissions over the period
addressed by the long-term strategy. As we discuss in Section V.G, we
propose to approve the TCEQ's obligation to develop a statewide
inventory of emissions, including future projected emissions. We
believe that these projected changes in emissions were adequately
implemented in CENRAP's 2018 modeling, and therefore propose to approve
Texas' submission under Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(G).
F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
Under Section 51.308(d)(4), states are required to coordinate their
RAVI long-term strategy and monitoring provisions with those for RH.
Under our RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a state SIP must
address any integral vistas identified by the federal land managers
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. See 40 CFR 51.302. An integral vista is
defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ``view perceived from within the
mandatory Class I Federal area of a specific landmark or panorama
located outside the boundary of the mandatory Class I Federal area.''
Visibility in any mandatory Class I area includes any integral vista
associated with that area. The federal land managers for Big Bend and
the Guadalupe Mountains have not identified any RAVI from Texas or
other state sources. Also, the federal land managers for the Class I
areas that Texas' emissions impact in other states have not identified
any RAVI caused by Texas sources. For these reasons, the TCEQ does not
have any measures in place or a requirement to address RAVI. Thus, we
propose to find that the Texas regional haze SIP has satisfied Section
51.308(d)(4). We discuss the relevant monitoring provisions in the
section that follows.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) requires the SIP contain a monitoring strategy
for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze
visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I
areas within the state. This monitoring strategy must be coordinated
with the monitoring strategy required in Section 51.305 for RAVI. As
Section 51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this requirement may be met
through participation in the IMPROVE network. Since the monitors used
for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend are IMPROVE monitors, we
propose that the TCEQ has satisfied this requirement.
Section 51.308(d)(4)(i) requires the establishment of any
additional monitoring sites or equipment needed to assess whether RPGs
to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I areas within the
state are being achieved. We do not believe that additional monitoring,
beyond the IMPROVE network monitors that are already in place, is
necessary in order to assess Texas' RPGs, and are therefore proposing
to find that Texas has satisfied this requirement.
Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that the TCEQ establish
procedures by which monitoring data and other information are used in
determining the contribution of emissions from within Texas to regional
haze visibility impairment at mandatory Class I areas both within and
outside the state. The monitors at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains
are operated through the IMPROVE monitoring program, which is national
in scope, and other states have similar monitoring and data reporting
procedures, ensuring a consistent and robust monitoring data collection
system. As Section 51.308(d)(4) indicates, participation in the IMPROVE
program constitutes compliance with this requirement. We are therefore
proposing that the TCEQ has satisfied this requirement.
Section 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that the SIP must provide for the
reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each mandatory Class I area in the state. To the
extent possible, Texas should report visibility monitoring data
electronically. Section 51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the TCEQ
provide for other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures, necessary to assess and report on visibility. We
believe that Texas' participation in the IMPROVE network ensures the
monitoring data is reported at least annually and is easily accessible,
and therefore we are therefore proposing to find that the TCEQ has
satisfied this requirement.
Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that the TCEQ maintain a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any mandatory Class I
area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for which data are available,
[[Page 74864]]
and estimates of future projected emissions. Texas must also include a
commitment to update the inventory periodically. TCEQ provides a
summary of the 2005 emission inventory in Appendix 7-1 of the Texas
Regional Haze SIP. We discuss our review of the TCEQ's 2002 and 2018
emission inventories above in Section V.E.3. The TCEQ has stated that
it intends to update the Texas statewide emissions inventories
periodically. We propose that this satisfies the requirement in Section
51.308(d)(4)(v).
H. Federal Land Manager Consultation
Both Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are federally protected
national parks for which the United States Department of the Interior,
National Park Service is the FLM. Although the federal land managers
are very active in participating in the regional planning
organizations, the Regional Haze Rule grants the federal land managers
a special role in the review of the regional haze SIPs. We view both
the federal land managers and the state environmental agencies as our
partners in the regional haze process.
Section 51.308(i)(1) requires that by November 29, 1999, Texas must
have identified in writing to the federal land managers the title of
the official to which the federal land managers of Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains can submit any recommendations on the
implementation of Section 51.308. We acknowledge that this section has
been satisfied by all states via their communications with the federal
land managers prior to this SIP action.
Under Section 51.308(i)(2), Texas was obligated to provide the Park
Service with an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60
days prior to holding a public hearing on its regional haze SIP. In
practice, state environmental agencies have usually provided all
federal land managers--the Forest Service, the Park Service, and the
Fish and Wildlife Service, copies of their regional haze SIP, as the
federal land managers collectively have reviewed these regional haze
SIPs. The TCEQ followed this practice and sent its draft of this
implementation plan revision to the federal land manager staff. The
federal land managers were provided a comment period of from November
16, 2007, through January 16, 2008. Their comments were provided to the
public 30 days prior to the public hearing, which the federal land
managers were notified of, and which occurred on February 19, 2008.
Section 51.308(i)(3) requires that the TCEQ provide in its regional
haze SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the
federal land managers. The TCEQ has provided that information in
Appendix 2-2 of its regional haze SIP.
Lastly, Section 51.308(i)(4) specifies the regional haze SIP must
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and
federal land managers on the implementation of the visibility
protection program required by Section 51.308, including development
and review of implementation plan revisions and 5-year progress
reports, and on the implementation of other programs having the
potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in the mandatory
Class I areas. The TCEQ has acknowledged this requirement in its
regional haze SIP. We are therefore proposing to find that the TCEQ has
satisfied Section 51.308(i).
I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
The TCEQ affirmed its commitment to complete certain items required
in the future under our Regional Haze Rule. It acknowledged its
requirement under Section 51.308(f), to revise and submit its regional
haze SIP revision to us by July 31, 2018 and every ten years
thereafter. It also acknowledged its requirement under Section
51.308(g), to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision
every five years following this initial submittal of the Texas regional
haze SIP. The TCEQ submitted the first five-year report in March 2014.
We are not including our analysis of this SIP revision within this
proposed action.
J. Future Determination of the Adequacy of the Existing Implementation
Plan
Section 51.308(h) requires that Texas take one of the listed
actions, as appropriate, at the same time it is required to submit any
5-year progress report to us in accordance with Section 51.308(g). The
TCEQ has committed in its SIP to take one of the actions listed under
51.308(h), depending on the findings of the five-year progress report.
VI. Our Analysis of and Proposed Action on the Remaining Parts of the
Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP
A. Previous Rulemakings on the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP
In a previous rulemaking, we partially approved and partially
disapproved portions of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.\270\ We
approved certain elements of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, as
follows: Identification of sources that are BART eligible and subject
to BART; its determination of baseline and natural visibility
conditions; its coordination of regional haze and RAVI; monitoring
strategy and other implementation requirements; its coordination with
states and federal land managers; and a number of the state's
NOX, SO2, and PM BART determinations. We
disapproved Oklahoma's submitted SO2 BART determinations for
Units 4 and 5 of the OG&E Muskogee plant; Units 1 and 2 of the OG&E
Sooner plant; and, Units 3 and 4 of the AEP/PSO Northeastern plant. We
also disapproved the long-term strategy in Oklahoma's regional haze SIP
because it did not include appropriate controls for these six sources.
To remedy these deficiencies in the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, we
concurrently promulgated a FIP that established SO2 BART
emission limits for these six sources at three facilities in Oklahoma.
We have subsequently withdrawn our FIP for two of the sources,
following approval of Oklahoma's SIP revision BART determinations for
those two sources.\271\ We did not take action on whether Oklahoma
satisfied the reasonable progress requirements of Section 51.308(d)(1)
in our earlier action. In that proposed action, we stated that to
properly assess whether Oklahoma had satisfied these requirements, we
must first evaluate and act upon the regional haze SIP revision
submitted by the State of Texas.\272\ Our proposed action here,
insomuch as it concerns Oklahoma's obligations, is limited to our
review of Oklahoma's submission under Section 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\270\ Final action: 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011). Proposal:
76 FR 16188 (March 22, 2011).
\271\ Approval of OK's partial replacement for FIP: 79 FR 12944
(March 7, 2014). Partial FIP withdrawal: 79 FR 12954 (March 7,
2014).
\272\ 76 FR 16177 (Mar. 22, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals
As required by Section 51.308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze Rule, the
ODEQ has established RPGs for its Class I area, the Wichita Mountains.
These RPGs must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most
impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same
period.
1. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
The RPGs established by ODEQ for the Wichita Mountains are derived
from the CENRAP modeling of visibility conditions in 2018.\273\ The
CENRAP
[[Page 74865]]
modeling reflects emission reductions programs already in place from
the implementation of the federal CAA and Oklahoma CAA, estimated
reductions from the Oklahoma BART rule, and the estimated emission
reductions identified in the long-term strategies of Oklahoma, Texas
and other nearby states. The ODEQ adopted the results of the CENRAP
modeling as the RPGs for the Oklahoma Class I area based on the results
of its reasonable progress analysis and additional information
developed by CENRAP or obtained through direct consultations with those
states anticipated to impact visibility at Wichita Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\273\ The TSD for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality Modeling to
Support Regional Haze State Implementation is found in Appendix 4-2
of the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ODEQ established a RPG of 21.47 dv for the Wichita Mountains
for 2018 for the 20% worst days. This represents a 2.3 dv improvement
in visibility over a baseline of 23.81 dv of visibility impairment.
Based on the rate of progress represented by this RPG for the first
planning period, the ODEQ calculated that the Wichita Mountains would
attain natural visibility conditions in 2102. The ODEQ's RPG for the
20% worst days is shown below, which is adapted from Tables IX-3 and
IX-4 and Figure IX-1 of the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP.
Table 27--Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goal for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date natural
Baseline Projected 2018 Improvement Improvement by visibility
Class I area conditions visibility projected by 2018 at URP attained at
(RPG) 2018 using RPG RPG rate
(dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) ...............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains.................................................. 23.81 21.47 2.33 3.80 2102
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODEQ's RPG for the 20% best days is shown below, which is adapted
from Table IX-2 of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.
Table 28--Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goal for the 20% Best Days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected 2018
Class I area Baseline visibility (RPG) Improvement by
conditions (dv) (dv) 2018 (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains................................... 9.78 9.23 0.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ODEQ's RPGs for the Wichita Mountains are consistent with the
minimum requirement of Section 51.308(d)(1) that the RPGs provide for
an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the period
of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least
impaired days over the same period. For the reasons discussed below in
more detail, however, we propose to disapprove Oklahoma's RPGs for the
Wichita Mountains. First, in our earlier action on the Oklahoma
regional haze SIP, we disapproved the SO2 BART
determinations for six EGUs at three power plants in Oklahoma and
promulgated a FIP setting more stringent SO2 emission limits
for these EGUs.\274\ Although we subsequently approved a SIP revision
from Oklahoma addressing the BART requirements for two EGUs at one
power plant,\275\ and removed the FIP requirements for this
facility,\276\ our FIP and the revised Oklahoma SIP require greater
reductions overall in emissions of SO2 than was assumed in
setting the RPGs for the Wichita Mountains. Second, we are proposing to
disapprove Oklahoma's RPGs for the Wichita Mountains because they were
based on an incomplete consultation with Texas under 51.308(d) (1)(iv)
that resulted in inadequate reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\274\ 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011).
\275\ 79 FR 12944 (March 7, 2014).
\276\ 79 FR 12954 (March 7, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Reasonable Progress Consultation
In developing the RPGs for its Class I area, Oklahoma was required
to consult with those states which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita
Mountains.\277\ In any situation in which Oklahoma could not agree with
another such state or group of states that a goal provides for
reasonable progress, Oklahoma was required to describe in its submittal
the actions taken to resolve the disagreement. In reviewing Oklahoma's
SIP submittal, the Administrator takes this information into account in
determining whether Oklahoma's goal for visibility improvement provides
for reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\277\ Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ODEQ identified several states that were projected through
visibility modeling to contribute more than 1 Mm-1 of light
extinction at the Wichita Mountains in 2018 and invited these states to
consult. It conducted four consultations.\278\ It directed its first
consultation to the tribal leaders in Oklahoma and their environmental
managers, on August 14, 2007. The ODEQ held the next three
consultations as conference calls with representatives from CENRAP,
EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas,
Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas.\279\ The ODEQ
received written responses from the Arkansas Department of
Environmental Quality, the TCEQ, and the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources.\280\ The ODEQ sent a letter to the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources as a follow up to the consultation calls for the
Wichita Mountains. Below is a summary of Oklahoma's consultations.
[[Page 74866]]
For additional detail on Oklahoma's consultation, see the OK TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\278\ Copies of agendas and presentation materials are available
in the docket for this action and at http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/SIP/Consultation/index.htm.
\279\ These calls were recorded, referenced in OK's regional
haze SIP, and placed on ODEQ's Web site.
\280\ Copies of these letters can be found in Appendix 10-1 of
the Oklahoma regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first call with the states, held on August 16, 2007, the
ODEQ discussed the current modeling results, comparing the projected
visibility conditions in 2018 to the 2018 URP goal.\281\ The ODEQ
identified that the Wichita Mountains is projected in the 2108 CENRAP
modeling to be 1.5 dv short of its 3.8 dv reduction needed to meet the
URP. It also discussed the primary anticipated causes of regional haze
for the Wichita Mountains in 2018, based on modeling and monitored
data. According to the ODEQ, high SO2 concentrations at the
Wichita Mountains reflect long range transport from Texas and the
eastern two-thirds of United States. The ODEQ identified that point
sources are the most significant contributors to haze at the Wichita
Mountains based on the source apportionment results from the CENRAP
modeling, with the largest contributing point sources being Texas EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\281\ A copy of the presentation containing the information
discussed by ODEQ is available in the docket for this action and at:
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/RegionalHazeStatesConsultation1_081607.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ODEQ used the AOI data developed for the Alpine Geophysics
report and considered the PSAT modeling results to identify areas,
pollutants and source types that contribute to visibility impairment at
the Wichita Mountains. The ODEQ identified that SO2
emissions that impact visibility conditions at the Wichita Mountains
generally originate from the south and east. The ODEQ identified
sources within the Area of Influence of the Wichita Mountains with a
ratio of annual emissions of NOX or SO2 to
distance (Q/D) greater than 5 based on 2018 projected emissions. The
ODEQ then used the Alpine Geophysics report developed for CENRAP (as
described in more detail in Section V.C.2 above) to identify estimates
of the costs of installing retrofit controls for these sources. The
ODEQ applied a maximum cost threshold of $5,000/ton to the list of
potential controls to eliminate controls that it considered too costly
from additional analysis. The remaining sources were listed in the
charts provided to the participants in the consultation process.\282\
For these sources, the ODEQ requested that the participating states
provide any available information or comments relative to which listed
sources are BART sources, planned expansions or installation of
controls, feasibility of controls, cost of controls, and any modeling
conducted that would indicate the sources' levels of impact on the
Wichita Mountains. It stated that it was not yet requesting reductions,
but was merely soliciting additional information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\282\ A spreadsheet with the list of potential controls shared
with the States is available in the docket for this action and at:
http://www.deq.state.ok.us/AQDnew/rulesandplanning/Regional_Haze/RegionalHazeStatesConsultation1_081607_ControlAssumptions.xls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the August 30, 2007 meeting, the ODEQ focused on the method
used to calculate natural conditions at the Wichita Mountains. The ODEQ
also reviewed and discussed information it had received following its
request for information regarding the sources of interest that it had
identified. ODEQ also noted that it had received information from
Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska after the first call
but that it still needed information from Texas, Missouri, and
Minnesota. Texas indicated that although it had contacted its EGUs,
none had provided information as to how they intended to comply with
CAIR. Texas stated that it had not received any enforceable commitments
for controls from any of its EGUs. For other listed Texas sources, TCEQ
said it was seeing significant decreases in emissions from controls or
programs that were already in place. According to Texas, in general,
growth assumptions for non-EGU Texas sources were wrong. Total
emissions for Texas point sources, it claimed, were steadily declining
in spite of great economic growth. Louisiana stated that one of its
sources, Rhodia, was under a Consent Decree and reducing its emissions.
Minnesota and Missouri also offered to provide some additional
information to Oklahoma regarding their sources.
For the third and final consultation meeting on September 25, 2007,
the ODEQ again followed up on the information request regarding the
sources of interest that it had identified. Texas stated that there
were no changes to its EGUs projections since very few of its EGUs had
committed to controls in order to meet CAIR. Texas again stated that
Texas point source 2018 projections were unrealistic and that Texas
point source emissions have historically been dropping even when the
state has been growing substantially economically. The ODEQ stated that
SO2 is 60% of the particulate issue with most of it coming
from Texas, Louisiana, and other states all the way out to the east
coast. The ODEQ finished the consultation call with a statement that it
was considering the information provided from consultation and was
using it in drafting its regional haze SIP.
During the consultation process, Arkansas notified the ODEQ that it
disagreed that its sources contribute significantly to visibility
impairment at the Wichita Mountains. Missouri similarly informed the
ODEQ that it considered current controls on Missouri sources to be
sufficient. Later, the ODEQ also concluded based on modeled projections
that Iowa would not contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita
Mountains in 2018 and informed Iowa that additional reductions were no
longer requested.
During the consultation process, Oklahoma and Texas exchanged
letters regarding the Wichita Mountains. On August 3, 2007, the ODEQ
sent a letter to the TCEQ in which it noted that despite significant
planned reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions from
sources in Oklahoma and Texas, the Wichita Mountains was not projected
to meet the URP. The ODEQ further noted that the analyses by CENRAP had
made clear that the Wichita Mountains suffer from significant
anthropogenic impacts from Texas. The ODEQ requested that the TCEQ
require new and modified PSD sources to conduct analyses of their
impacts on visibility at the Wichita Mountains and that the ODEQ be
given an opportunity to review and comment on BACT determinations for
proposed projects likely to have a certain impact on visibility at the
Wichita Mountains. In addition, the ODEQ requested that the evaluations
of visibility impacts be extended from within 100 km of the Wichita
Mountains to within 300 km of the Wichita Mountains in deference to FLM
guidance. On October 15, 2007, the TCEQ sent a response to the ODEQ,
agreeing that modeling showed emissions from Texas to be a significant
source of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ also
noted, however, that significant reductions from Texas will be realized
in the next several years. In response to the ODEQ's specific request
for the opportunity to comment on BACT for new and modified major
sources, the TCEQ stated that it welcomed comment during the public
review and comment period and would notify federal land managers and
the ODEQ if modeling were to indicate that a proposed source might
significantly impact the Wichita Mountains. In response to the ODEQ's
request that impact evaluations be extended to 300 km, the TCEQ stated
that it was working with federal land managers on mutually acceptable
criteria for determining when a proposed PSD source should conduct a
Class I area review and would inform ODEQ on the outcome of these
[[Page 74867]]
discussions. In addition, the TCEQ attached its draft RPG analysis for
its two Class I areas, which included analyses the TCEQ used to
determine that there are no reasonable costs of installing additional
controls beyond CAIR to address Texas impacts at Big Bend National Park
and the Guadalupe Mountains.
Several months after this initial exchange of letter, the two
states again exchanged letters. On March 25, 2008, following comments
made by us and the federal land managers on Texas' draft regional haze
SIP, the TCEQ sent a letter to the ODEQ regarding emissions that affect
the Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ provided a copy of the PSAT modeling
results developed by CENRAP indicating the contribution for each source
area to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains. The TCEQ stated
in the letter that PSAT modeling indicated that the probable impacts of
Texas sources at the Wichita Mountains will be reduced by 2018 due to
expected emission reductions from current and planned controls. A list
of sources that are within the area of interest and have an emissions
over distance ratio equal to or greater than five (Q/D [gteqt]5) was
included with the letter, along with information on projected emissions
and distance to Wichita Mountains for those sources. The TCEQ then
requested concurrence from Oklahoma on this assessment and a
verification that Oklahoma was not depending on any additional
reductions from Texas sources in order to meet RPG for the Wichita
Mountains. On May 12, 2008, the ODEQ sent a response to the TCEQ in
which it noted that it concurred with the information the TCEQ had
provided. The ODEQ stated that it had developed its RPG for the worst
20% days for the Wichita Mountains through the CENRAP deliberations and
that its RPG did not anticipate emission reductions beyond those that
Texas already planned to implement and upon which CENRAP modeling
studies have relied. The letter also states that reaching the Wichita
Mountains' RPG requires constraints on emissions from new, modified,
and existing sources. The letter then recaps the ODEQ's initial request
made in its August 3, 2007 consultation letter that all sources within
300 km conduct an analyses of the impacts to the Wichita Mountains and
that it be given the opportunity to comment on BACT for proposed
sources projected to significantly contribute to visibility impairment
at the Wichita Mountains.
We reviewed the information developed by ODEQ and the participating
states during the consultation process, as well as the CENRAP source
apportionment modeling results and additional data developed by CENRAP
and Alpine Geophysics. We propose to agree with the following
conclusions made by the ODEQ in its consultations:
With all the reductions anticipated to occur in the
contributing states, the CENRAP modeling projects that the Wichita
Mountains will fall short of meeting the URP goal for this planning
period.
NOX and SO2 are the primary causes
of haze at the Wichita Mountains, with SO2 as the
predominant cause of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains in
2002 and 2018.
For this planning period, it is reasonable to not require
additional controls for NOX sources, as NOX is
not the predominant cause of visibility impairment at the Wichita
Mountains in 2002 or 2018.
Texas is a significant contributor to the visibility
impairment at the Wichita Mountains.
Point sources are the most significant contributors to
haze at the Wichita Mountains, and the largest contributing point
sources are Texas EGUs.
Texas point sources identified during consultation by
Oklahoma and other large sources within the AOI of Wichita Mountains
are excellent candidates for additional analysis for potential
controls.
Control cost data developed by Alpine Geophysics, and
shared by Oklahoma during consultations, indicated potential
SO2 controls were available for those Texas sources
discussed during consultations at an average cost of less than $2,000/
ton, and that for all but two of those identified Texas sources,
potential controls are below the $2,700/ton threshold established by
Texas in its analysis and development of its LTS. More specifically,
for the largest of the identified sources, Alpine Geophysics estimated
the cost of SO2 controls at the two units at Big Brown to be
approximately $1,500/ton. They also projected that these controls would
achieve greater than 40,000 tpy in SO2 emission reductions.
Alpine Geophysics estimated the cost of SO2 controls at two
units at Monticello to be approximately $1,850/ton. They also projected
that these controls would achieve greater than 35,000 tpy in
SO2 emission reductions.
For this planning period, we propose to find that Oklahoma
reasonably determined that additional SO2 reductions from
Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Iowa were not necessary for
reasonable progress. This proposed determination is based, in part, on
our review of the CENRAP modelling showing the projected impact from
sources in these states and the relative contributions from
SO2 point sources in these states. See our OK TSD for
additional discussion and presentation of CENRAP source apportionment
results for impacts on Wichita Mountains.
We agree with the ODEQ's approach for identifying those states with
sources that may impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains and its
decision to invite those states to consult. Through the consultation
process, the ODEQ was able to gain additional information regarding the
potential impacts from nearby states. We do not agree, however, with
the ODEQ's approach to consultation to address impacts from emissions
from Texas. At the time that Oklahoma was developing its SIP, it had
(1) abundant information showing the impact of Texas sources on
visibility at the Wichita Mountains, particularly from EGU sources in
northeast Texas, and (2) evidence that cost-effective controls on these
sources were likely available. Despite this information, the ODEQ
neither requested that the TCEQ further investigate controls at these
sources nor did it request additional reductions from Texas sources to
address the impacts of emissions from these sources at the Wichita
Mountains. The Regional Haze Rule requires states to use the
consultation process under Sections 51.308(d)(1)(iv) in the development
of RPGs to ensure that all states, including downwind states, take a
hard look at what measures are necessary for ensuring reasonable
progress towards improving and maintaining visibility at Class I areas.
Lacking development of critical information during its consultations
with Texas, we believe that Oklahoma did not have adequate information
to reasonably establish its RPG for the Wichita Mountains, and, as
explained below, should have requested that the TCEQ further
investigate these sources or requested additional reductions from Texas
sources to ensure that all reasonable measures to improve visibility
were included in Texas' LTS and incorporated into Oklahoma's RPG for
the Wichita Mountains.
3. The Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress ``Four Factor'' Analysis
In establishing RPGs for a Class I area, Oklahoma is required by
CAA Section 169A(g)(1) and Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) to ``[c]onsider
the costs of compliance, the time necessary
[[Page 74868]]
for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected
sources, and include a demonstration showing how these factors were
taken into consideration in selecting the goal.''
The ODEQ analyzed the largest sources of visibility impairing
pollutants within Oklahoma, including sources of sulfur, nitrates,
NH3, VOCs, and directly emitted coarse and fine particles.
The ODEQ calculated that sulfurous pollutants contribute approximately
44% and nitrate bearing pollutants contribute approximately 21% of the
total light extinction (or visibility impairment) to the Wichita
Mountains. The ODEQ also calculated that sources from all source
categories combined within Oklahoma contribute only approximately 13%
of the total pollutants that contribute to light extinction at the
Wichita Mountains in the 2002 modeled base year.
To evaluate any additional control measures necessary to
demonstrate reasonable progress, the ODEQ initially relied on the same
CENRAP analysis, including the Alpine Geophysics report commissioned by
CENRAP, that the TCEQ relied upon, that we describe above in Section
V.C.
The CENRAP control case sensitivity evaluation projected that
visibility at the Wichita Mountains would be improved by an additional
0.75 dv on the worst 20% days over what the ODEQ projects as its RPG of
21.47 dv for 2018, if controls were implemented at the sources that met
the combination of baseline emissions, potential for cost-effective
add-on controls, and location selected by CENRAP for the sensitivity
analysis. The ODEQ pointed out that even if all controls contemplated
in the CENRAP sensitivity evaluation were implemented, the Wichita
Mountains would still fall significantly short of meeting the URP glide
path for the 20% worst days in 2018, and ODEQ noted that most of the
sources were located in Texas or other states outside of ODEQ's
jurisdiction. The ODEQ also stated that the control scenario presented
in the Alpine Geophysics evaluation includes some already implemented,
prohibitively costly, technically infeasible, or otherwise unreasonable
controls. Following this analysis, the ODEQ examined additional
controls for sources within Oklahoma, the full list of which we present
in our OK TSD.
In its analysis, the ODEQ considered the four statutory factors
under Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) in its evaluation of the potential for
additional controls. In summary, the ODEQ analyzed the cost of
compliance by reviewing the cost information previously developed by
CENRAP and made changes to the cost information based on its knowledge
of the particular facilities and experience with implementing ozone
reduction strategies. The ODEQ's analysis focused on moderate cost
controls for sources likely to contribute to visibility impairment at
the Wichita Mountains. In considering the time necessary for
compliance, the ODEQ determined that any such controls would have to be
installed and in operation by 2018. It did not identify any detrimental
non-air quality environmental impacts associated with any controls
considered, and any energy impacts were factored into the cost of
controls. In considering the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources, the ODEQ stated that none of the sources considered
for additional emission reductions had indicated plans to shut down.
The ODEQ also evaluated the major sources of each visibility
impairing pollutant within the state. In its analyses of additional
SO2 control, it noted that the three largest sources of
sulfur emissions in the state, OG&E Muskogee, OG&E Sooner, and AEP/PSO
Northeastern, were subject to BART.\283\ The ODEQ also stated that
sulfur controls at the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) would be costly
and result in little visibility benefit given the location of the
facility. Furthermore, the GRDA already utilized flue gas
desulfurization. It noted that additional sulfur emission reductions
were already required due to consent decrees on refineries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\283\ In our FIP (76 FR 81728), we disagreed with the ODEQ's
BART determinations for these three facilities (two units at each
facility) and required a more stringent level of control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For NOX emissions, the ODEQ identified that three of the
four largest NOX point sources and a number of smaller
sources close to Wichita Mountains would be controlled under BART.
Similar to its analysis for SO2, the ODEQ also stated that
NOX controls at the GRDA would be costly and result in
little visibility benefit given the location of the facility. The ODEQ
determined that controls for other point and area sources, especially
those associated with oil and gas activities, would be expensive and
that violations would entail large costs to detect and enforce. The
ODEQ stated that improved emission inventories in the future could help
in developing state rules for area sources. In addition, the ODEQ
stated that new oil and gas sources are covered by new source
performance standards.
Based on the above analysis of the four factors, the ODEQ concluded
that retrofitting these identified point sources of NOX and
SO2 would impose unreasonable costs for negligible
visibility improvement. The ODEQ reasoned that most of the largest
sources of SO2 and NOX were already being
controlled through BART, consent decrees or other regulatory
mechanisms; already had adequate controls in place; or are located too
far from the Wichita Mountains, and therefore have too little
visibility impact to justify the cost of additional controls. The ODEQ
concluded that further emission reductions from such sources were
unreasonable. It also stated that it would be unreasonable to require
severe or over-control of Oklahoma sources to compensate for the
contribution from Texas, other states, and foreign countries,
especially considering that the vast majority of the visibility
impairment at the Wichita Mountains originates from sources beyond the
borders of Oklahoma.
The ODEQ determined that the majority of VOC emissions are from
biogenic sources. Anthropogenic sources of VOC are largely covered
under federal mandates and have a small contribution to visibility
impairment. Fine and coarse particulate emissions are also primarily
due to natural sources such as dust storms and fires. The ODEQ noted
that despite the prominence of agricultural burning and wildfires in
the Oklahoma emissions inventory, it does not believe that these
sources contribute significantly to regional haze at the Wichita
Mountains or at any other Class I area. It pointed out that there are
state regulations already in place (see the Oklahoma Administrative
Code 252:100-13-7(4)) to address the burning of forestland, cropland,
and rangeland. In addition, pursuant to the regional haze requirements
at Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E), the ODEQ considered smoke management
techniques for purposes of agricultural and forestry management. The
ODEQ stated that it believes that most emissions of fine and coarse PM
originate from natural sources, and that even those originating in
Oklahoma are beyond the regulatory purview of ODEQ.
In establishing its RPGs for 2018 for the 20% worst days, the ODEQ
relied on the improvements in visibility that were anticipated to
result from federal and state control programs that were either
currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction
schedules that predate 2018, including the long-term strategies of
Oklahoma, Texas, and other states, and
[[Page 74869]]
presumptive emission reductions expected to result from the submitted
Oklahoma BART rule. Based on the emission reductions from these
measures, CENRAP modeled the projected visibility conditions
anticipated at each Class I area in the region in 2018, and the ODEQ
used these results to establish its RPGs.
We agree with the ODEQ's decision to focus the analysis of the four
statutory factors on point sources, as the CENRAP modeling results and
ODEQ's analysis in Section V.F of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP
indicate that sulfate is the predominant pollutant that affects the
state's ability to meet the URP goals in 2002 on the worst 20% days at
the Wichita Mountains, and comes primarily from point sources. CENRAP
modeling results also indicate that Oklahoma point sources contribute
only 3.25 Mm-\1\ of the total 111.03 Mm-\1\
visibility extinction at the Wichita Mountains in 2002 and only 2.95
MmSO-\1\ of the total 86.56 Mm-\1\ projected for
2018. This modeling projection does not include the level of controls
required under BART by the FIP and the revised SIP for the three
largest sources of SO2 in the state. The ODEQ also
considered sources of VOC emissions, coarse and fine PM emissions,
mobile source emissions and area source emissions in its discussion and
analysis of the four factors.
There are large EGU sources of SO2 for which the ODEQ
did not propose control, including the GRDA Units 1 and 2,\284\
Muskogee Unit 6, and Hugo Unit 1. Oklahoma considered these sources for
additional control under reasonable progress but ultimately for the
reasons described above, declined to further control them. However, the
total contribution from those sources not identified for control is
only a fraction of the 1.23 Mm-\1\ projected from all
SO2 point sources, and none of the those sources are located
such that we would anticipate significant visibility benefits at the
Wichita Mountains on the 20% worst days should they be controlled. The
20% worst days at the Wichita Mountains are dominated by days impacted
by emissions from sources in Texas. The largest impacts from sources in
Oklahoma rarely occur on the 20% worst days as identified by the
IMPROVE monitor data during the baseline period. For these reasons and
others that we more fully explore in our OK TSD, we believe that
Oklahoma has adequately controlled its own sources for reasonable
progress to the extent necessary for this planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\284\ Both GRDA Units 1 and 2 plan to install low NOX
burners and overfire air in order to reduce NOX by
construction permit No. 2009-179-C (M-2)(PSD). Unit 2 of the GRDA is
fitted with a dry scrubber. We have recently became aware that Unit
1 (which is not scrubbed) is scheduled to be retired or converted to
natural gas and a third natural gas powered unit may be added under
a draft permit evaluation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the ODEQ notes in several places in its SIP, point sources in
Texas account for a much greater portion of the visibility impact at
the Wichita Mountains than Oklahoma point sources. Compared to the 1.23
Mm-\1\ due to point source emissions of SO2 in
Oklahoma discussed above, Texas point source emissions of
SO2 are projected to contribute 7.83 Mm-\1\ to
the total extinction in 2018. We agree with the ODEQ's statement
regarding this situation: ``The vast majority of visibility impairment
at the Wichita Mountains comes from sources beyond the borders of the
State of Oklahoma. The federal Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(ii) does not require DEQ to compensate for the lack of
control of emissions in Texas, other states, and foreign countries.''
The Regional Haze Rule does not require a state to over control its own
sources in order to compensate for under controlled sources from
another state. However, the Regional Haze Rule does require, under
Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), that in developing its RPGs, Oklahoma consult
with those states which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains to
identify reasonable measures for improving visibility at its Class I
area.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) requires Oklahoma to analyze and
determine the URP needed to attain natural visibility conditions by
2064. To calculate the URP, Oklahoma must compare baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility conditions at the Wichita Mountains
and determine the uniform rate of visibility improvement (measured in
deciviews) that would need to be maintained during each implementation
period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064. In
establishing the RPG, Oklahoma must consider the URP and the emission
reduction measures needed to achieve it for the period covered by the
implementation plan. In a previous final rulemaking,\285\ we found that
ODEQ appropriately calculated the URP for the Wichita Mountains.
Therefore, the only portion of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) that we
address is Oklahoma's requirement to consider the emission reduction
measures needed to achieve the URP when establishing the RPG for the
Wichita Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\285\ 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In establishing the RPGs for the Wichita Mountains, the ODEQ
compared the baseline visibility conditions to the natural visibility
conditions and determined the URP needed in order to attain natural
visibility conditions by 2064. It calculated that the URP results as a
visibility improvement of 3.80 dv for the period covered by this SIP
revision submittal (up to and including 2018). The ODEQ noted that the
CENRAP modeling results indicated that complete elimination of all
anthropogenic emissions in Oklahoma are likely to be insufficient to
meet the URP at the Wichita Mountains and that a majority of the
visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains comes from sources
beyond Oklahoma's borders.
After considering the URP, the results of the CENRAP modeling and
the four reasonable progress factors, the ODEQ determined that meeting
the URP goal for 2018 was not reasonable. It then adopted the 2018
projected visibility conditions from the CENRAP photochemical modeling
as the RPGs for the 20% best days and 20% worst days for the Wichita
Mountains.
Table 29--Comparison of URP to the Reasonable Progress Goal on Most
Impaired Days for the Wichita Mountains
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extinction Deciview
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Visibility 21.23 Mm-\1\........ 7.53 dv.
Conditions.
Baseline Visibility 108.15 Mm-\1\....... 23.81 dv.
Conditions (2002-2004).
Improvement Needed to Reach 86.91 Mm-\1\........ 16.28 dv.
Natural Conditions.
Improvement by 2018 at 34.18 Mm-\1\........ 3.80 dv.
Uniform Rate of Progress.
Improvement by 2018 under 22.52 Mm-\1\........ 2.33 dv.
Oklahoma's RPG.
Rate of Improvement from .................... 0.166 dv/year.
2004-2018 under Oklahoma's
RPG (dv/year).
[[Page 74870]]
Shortfall between Oklahoma's .................... -1.47 dv.
RPG and the URP (for this
implementation period).
Improvement by 2064 68.38 Mm-\1\........ 10.01 dv.
Extrapolated from
Oklahoma's RPG.
Visibility in 2064 from 39.76 Mm-\1\........ 13.80 dv.
Oklahoma's RPG
(extrapolated).
Visibility in 2102 21.23 Mm-\1\........ 7.53 dv.
Extrapolated from
Oklahoma's RPG (natural
visibility conditions
achieved).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ODEQ believes the RPGs it established for the Wichita Mountains
are reasonable, and that it is not reasonable to achieve the URP in
2018. In support of this conclusion it included a discussion of the
pollutant contributions and the sources of visibility impairment at the
Wichita Mountains (see Sections IX.D and E of the Oklahoma regional
haze SIP). The ODEQ also took several other factors into consideration
in determining that it was not reasonable to achieve the glide path in
2018 and that the RPG adopted by it is reasonable. See our OK TSD for a
summary of these factors and the CENRAP visibility modeling source
apportionment results.
We evaluated the analysis provided by the ODEQ along with the
CENRAP modeling results, CENRAP emission inventories and other
information in examining the RPGs established by ODEQ. Our review of
the CENRAP emission inventory, modeling protocol and model results can
be found in our CENRAP Modeling TSD. Below we present a summary of that
evaluation:
The ODEQ demonstrated through the CENRAP control
sensitivity modeling scenario discussed in Section V.C.2, above, that
application of a wide suite of controls across CENRAP states determined
to meet a cost-effective threshold of $5,000/ton and emissions in
relation to location criteria, would also not be sufficient to meet the
URP goal, falling approximately 0.71 dv deciview short of the goal.
However, we note that this control sensitivity modeling also
demonstrated that an additional improvement of 0.75 dv was achievable
through implementation of the identified controls. Based on source
apportionment data, a large portion of that improvement would likely
result from implementation of identified controls in Texas. A 0.75 dv
improvement represents nearly 33% additional improvement over the 2.3
dv improvement projected to occur between the baseline period and 2018
due to all of the reductions included in the model from on the book
controls, implementation of CAIR and assumptions of reductions due to
BART.
Evidence in the record demonstrated that additional
reductions at sources in Texas were likely feasible, result in
visibility improvement, and be cost-effective, but the ODEQ did not
pursue this with Texas. Consequently, we believe the ODEQ did not have
sufficient information to adequately consider emission reductions for
sources in Texas in establishing its RPGs and demonstrating that it is
reasonable.
We believe the current approach to estimate natural
conditions used by ODEQ follows our default methods and is acceptable
to establish the 2064 goal, calculate the URP, and evaluate the RPGs
established by Oklahoma.
We note the more recent IMPROVE monitored data at the
Wichita Mountains indicates that more progress than anticipated by the
CENRAP modeling has occurred.\286\ The most recent five-year (2009-
2013) average conditions for the 20% worst days is 21.2 dv. This is
below the level anticipated in the CENRAP projection for 2018 of 21.5
dv. We believe that this observed improvement is the result of
meteorological conditions, reduction in the impact from fires, and
reduction in the impacts from SO2 emissions. More recent
emission inventory data shows reductions in emissions in most states
beyond what was projected in the 2018 modeling, including large
reductions in emissions from the Eastern United States. Emissions from
non-EGU Texas point sources are lower than have been projected in the
modeling. We note that additional reductions are still needed to meet
or exceed the URP goal for 2018 of 20.01 dv. As discussed above,
emissions at some of the sources that impact visibility the most are
still above the emission levels projected in the model and cost-
effective controls are likely available at these sources. Based on
information provided by the TCEQ, we do not expect large additional
emission reductions of SO2 in Texas between 2013 and 2018
under federal programs and the SIP as submitted.\287\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\286\ Available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/.
\287\ TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft modeling platform
dated June 24, 2014. `2018 EMP signed.pdf'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the above considerations, we propose to agree with the
ODEQ's demonstration that it is not reasonable to meet the URP for the
Wichita Mountains for this planning period. We also agree with the ODEQ
that emissions and transport from outside of Oklahoma will severely
limit the rate of progress achievable at the Wichita Mountains on the
20% worst days. As the ODEQ itself (and we through our analysis
detailed in the FIP TSD) have demonstrated, there are large visibility
impacts at the Wichita Mountains from outside Oklahoma, the largest
percentage coming from point sources in Texas. In addition, we believe
the ODEQ has also demonstrated there is the likelihood of a sizeable
visibility improvement from controlling a subset of these sources, with
likely cost-effective controls.
5. Reasonable Progress Goal Minimum
Under Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Oklahoma may not adopt a RPG that
represents less visibility improvement than is expected to result from
implementation of other requirements of the CAA during the applicable
planning period.
The RPGs established by Oklahoma are based on CENRAP 2018 modeling
projections. The modeling projections conducted by CENRAP contain
projections of the visibility conditions that are anticipated to be
realized at each Class I area between the 2002 base year and the 2018
future year. These projections are based on the emission reductions
resulting from federal and state control programs that are either
currently in effect or with mandated future-year emission reduction
schedules that predate 2018, including the long-term strategies of
Oklahoma, Texas, and other states, and presumptive emission reductions
expected to result from the submitted Oklahoma BART rule. Since
CENRAP's 2018 modeling projections are based on local, state, and
federal control programs that are either currently in effect or with
mandated future-year emission reduction schedules, we believe that the
ODEQ's RPGs represent at least as much visibility improvement as is
expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA
(i.e., requirements other than regional haze) during the applicable
[[Page 74871]]
planning period. We therefore propose to approve Oklahoma's submission
under Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi) that its RPG for the Wichita Mountains
does not represent less visibility improvement than is expected to
result from the implementation of other requirements of the CAA during
this planning period.
6. Oklahoma's Assertion That Its Progress Goals Are Reasonable
Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii) provides that for the period of the SIP,
if Oklahoma establishes a RPG that provides for a slower rate of
improvement in visibility than the rate that would be needed to attain
natural conditions by 2064, it must demonstrate based on the factors in
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) that the rate of progress for the SIP to
attain natural conditions by 2064 is not reasonable; and that the
progress goal it adopted is reasonable. As part of its SIP assessment,
Oklahoma must provide to the public for review the number of years it
would take to attain natural conditions if visibility improvement
continues at the rate of progress it selected as reasonable.
The ODEQ's RPG for the 20% worst days establishes a slower rate of
progress than the URP for the Wichita Mountains. As shown in Table IX-1
of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, under the RPG adopted by ODEQ, it
projected that natural visibility conditions will not be attained at
the Wichita Mountains by 2064. ODEQ calculated that under the rate of
progress selected by it as reasonable, it would attain natural
visibility conditions at the Wichita Mountains in 2102. See Table 29
above.
In the Oklahoma Regional Haze SIP, the ODEQ states that the RPGs it
established for the Wichita Mountains are reasonable and that it is not
reasonable to achieve the URP in 2018. In support of this conclusion,
it included a discussion of the pollutant contributions and the sources
of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains (see Sections IX.D
and E of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP). The ODEQ also took several
other factors into consideration in determining that it was not
reasonable to achieve the glide path in 2018 and that the RPG adopted
by it is reasonable. See our OK TSD for a summary of these factors and
the CENRAP visibility modeling source apportionment results.
The ODEQ indicated that Oklahoma's ability to meet the URP is
impeded primarily by the following: the significant contribution of
emissions from Texas and other areas outside the ODEQ's jurisdiction;
the uncertainty in the effect of CAIR; the economic and energy cost of
additional controls on Oklahoma point sources; the lack of a quality-
assured enhanced Oklahoma emissions inventory and ODEQ's reluctance to
target area sources for emissions controls until such an emissions
inventory is developed; the ODEQ's lack of jurisdiction over non-road
and on-road mobile sources; and, the limitations involved with
utilizing the default EPA method to determine natural visibility
conditions. See our OK TSD for a more complete summary of these
factors.
We evaluated the analysis provided by the ODEQ along with the
CENRAP modeling results, CENRAP emission inventories and other
information in examining the RPGs established by ODEQ. Our review of
the CENRAP emission inventory, modeling protocol and model results can
be found in our CENRAP Modeling TSD.
7. Our Evaluation of Oklahoma's Reasonable Progress Goals for the
Wichita Mountains.
In the sections above, we discuss how Oklahoma constructed its RPGs
for the Wichita Mountains, how in doing so it consulted with Texas and
other states, applied the four reasonable progress factors in
evaluating sources within Oklahoma for additional controls in the
development of that RPG, and calculated the URP for the Wichita
Mountains. In this section we consider those efforts and present our
evaluation of Oklahoma's RPGs for the Wichita Mountains.
We believe that with the exception of certain BART sources,
Oklahoma appropriately concluded that no additional reasonable progress
measures for Oklahoma sources were necessary during this first planning
period. However, BART is a component of reasonable progress, and the
RPGs selected by the ODEQ for the Wichita Mountains do not include the
level of reductions necessary to meet the requirements under Section
51.308(e) for BART. In our December 28, 2011 rulemaking, we disapproved
the SO2 BART determinations for certain units and
promulgated a BART FIP to impose controls for these units.\288\
Therefore, implementation of our SO2 BART FIP and the
revised BART SIP for the AEP units is expected to result in greater
reasonable progress than is anticipated in Oklahoma's February 19,
2010, regional haze SIP submit.\289\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\288\ 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011).
\289\ In our August 21, 2013, proposed approval of Oklahoma's
June 20, 2013, regional haze SIP revision we proposed to find that
the SO2 emission reductions associated with Oklahoma's
revised BART determination for Northeastern Units 3 and 4, when
combined with enforceable commitments from ODEQ, will be consistent
with the levels of control assumed in the CENRAP modeling and relied
on by other States as part of their reasonable progress
demonstrations (78 FR 51586).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as required by Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv), Oklahoma's
development of its RPGs must be informed by its consultations with
other states. Oklahoma demonstrated that the unrealistic scenario of
eliminating all Oklahoma sources would not be sufficient to meet the
URP for 2018. It realized that efforts to meet the goal of natural
visibility by 2064 would require further emission reductions from other
states in the region. The CENRAP modeling, monitoring data and other
technical analyses that informed consultations demonstrated that
NOX and SO2 are the primary causes of haze at the
Wichita Mountains with SO2 from point sources being the
predominant driver. It also showed that SO2 point sources in
Texas were a significant contributor to the haze at the Wichita
Mountains. Furthermore, the control and cost information developed by
CENRAP and Alpine Geophysics showed that cost-effective controls on
Texas sources were likely available, some with a cost-effectiveness on
a $/ton basis within TCEQ's own benchmark. The Regional Haze Rule
envisioned that a state would use the consultation processes under
Sections 51.308(d)(1)(iv) in the development of its RPGs, and
51.308(d)(3)(i) regarding the development of its long-term strategy, in
identifying visibility impairing emissions that cross state boundaries,
and in the coordination of strategies to reduce those emissions.
However, despite this information in the record about the impact of
Texas sources on the Wichita Mountains, the ODEQ did not request that
the TCEQ further investigate these sources, nor did it request
additional reductions from Texas sources to address this impact. As we
discuss in Section V.E, we believe that the technical analysis
developed by Texas did not provide the information necessary to
identify reasonable reductions from its sources, and inform
consultations in order to develop coordinated management strategies
with Oklahoma. Therefore, due to this absence of the development of
this critical information during consultations, we believe that
Oklahoma did not have adequate information to establish its RPG for the
Wichita Mountains, and should have requested that the TCEQ further
investigate these sources or requested additional reductions from Texas
sources to ensure that all reasonable measures to improve
[[Page 74872]]
visibility were included in Texas' LTS and incorporated into Oklahoma's
RPG for the Wichita Mountains. Thus, the basic intent of our
consultation requirements was not realized.
In addition to the explicit statutory requirement under Section
51.308(d)(1)(ii) to consider the four reasonable progress factors, the
Regional Haze Rule also establishes an analytical requirement to ensure
that each state considers the emission reduction measures necessary to
attain the URP. The Regional Haze Rule provides that we will evaluate
Oklahoma's consideration of the four factors in Section
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), its analysis of the URP required under Section
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B) and the demonstration developed pursuant to Section
51.308(d)(1)(ii), ``[i]n determining whether the State's goal for
visibility improvement provides for reasonable progress.'' As explained
in the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, the URP analysis was adopted
to ensure that states use a common analytical framework and to ensure
an informed, equitable, and transparent decision making process that
would, among other things, ensure that the public would be provided
with the information necessary to understand the emission reductions
needed, the costs of such measures, and other factors associated with
improvements in visibility. We note that this analytical requirement is
met only through consultation and is not restricted to the
consideration of only those sources within the state with the impacted
Class I area. As we stated in the Regional Haze Rule regarding this
requirement: \290\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\290\ 64 FR 35732 (July 1, 1999).
In doing this analysis, the State must consult with other States
which are anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment in the
Class I area under consideration. Because haze is a regional
problem, States are encouraged to work together to develop
acceptable approaches for addressing visibility problems to which
they jointly contribute. If a contributing State cannot agree with
the State establishing the reasonable progress goal, the State
setting the goal must describe the actions taken to resolve the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
disagreement.
However, Oklahoma's consultation was incomplete. While the analyses
developed by CENRAP provide a great deal of information on
contributions to visibility impairment and a set of potential available
add-on controls and cost associated with those controls, the data was
insufficient to fully assess the impacts and available emission
reduction measures for Texas sources. Given the large contributions
from sources in Texas and EGU point sources in particular, Oklahoma
could not reasonably consider all the emission reductions needed to
meet or approach the URP without considering emission reduction
measures available for those sources in Texas that contribute the most
to visibility impairment at Wichita Mountains. In summary, we propose
to find the following:
Oklahoma has demonstrated that it is not reasonable to
require additional emission reductions for its sources for this
planning period.
BART is a component of developing the RPGs, and the RPGs
are inadequate because BART controls were not adequately considered. We
note this deficiency is addressed by our BART FIP and the revised
Oklahoma SIP.
Oklahoma's consultations with Texas were flawed, which
prevented it from adequately developing its RPGs for the Wichita
Mountains.
Also because Oklahoma's consultations with Texas were
flawed, Oklahoma did not consider the emission reduction measures
necessary to achieve the URP for the Wichita Mountains and did not
adequately demonstrate that the RPGs it established were reasonable
based on the four statutory factors under 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
In consideration of these flaws, we propose to disapprove
Oklahoma's submission under Section 51.308(d)(1), except for those
portions addressing Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we propose to
approve.
VII. Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas Regional Haze FIPs
Below, we list all of the portions of Section 51.308 that we
propose to find that Texas and Oklahoma did not meet, which we have
discussed above, and more fully in our TX TSD and OK TSD documents.
We propose to disapprove the parts of the Texas regional haze SIP
addressing the following requirements:
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable
progress four factor analysis.
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas' calculation
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the URPs for the Guadalupe
Mountains and Big Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas' RPGs for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii), regarding Texas' calculation of
the natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A) regarding Texas' calculation
of natural visibility impairment.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) regarding Texas' long-term
strategy consultation.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) regarding Texas securing its
share of reductions in other states' RPGs.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) regarding Texas' technical basis
for its long-term strategy.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas' emissions
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
We propose to disapprove the RPGs for the Wichita Mountains set by
Oklahoma in its regional haze SIP. In setting its RPG, we propose to
find that Oklahoma generally did not meet the requirements of Section
51.308(d)(1) of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, except for Section
51.308(d)(1)(vi).
Below we present a summary of our proposed Texas and Oklahoma FIPs
and why we believe these FIPs would cure the SIP deficiencies in those
portions of the Texas and Oklahoma SIPs that we propose to disapprove,
thereby satisfying our FIP obligation. Please see our FIP TSD and our
Cost TSD for a full development of the technical basis of our FIPs.
A. Summary of Our Proposed Texas FIP
We believe our proposed FIP and its rationale as presented here
provide the technical analysis that was lacking in Texas' development
of its RPGs for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend, and in its
consultations with Oklahoma for the development of the RPGs for the
Wichita Mountains, as well as addressing its long-term strategy. As
Texas did in the development of its SIP, we have also used the same
analysis to address both tasks. We began our review of Texas'
conclusions with an initial analysis of all point sources in Texas and
an assessment of the visibility impact from those sources with the
greatest potential to contribute to visibility impairment. A refinement
of this analysis resulted in our focus on a much smaller group of
sources that essentially reduced down to an analysis of whether, in
light of the balance between the cost of control and visibility
benefits of control at each source, additional SO2 controls
should be installed on each of certain large coal fired EGUs in Texas
in order to improve the visibility at these Class I areas. We conducted
our analysis using the four reasonable progress factors listed in
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). We propose to find that this portion of our
proposed Texas FIP would make whole our disapproval of those portions
of the Texas SIP intended to meet:
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
[[Page 74873]]
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i).
Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii).
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C).
We also establish the natural visibility conditions for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. We then use those values and the
analysis we have developed above to consider the emission reductions
needed to achieve the URPs for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend and
establish their RPGs. We propose that these portions of our Texas FIP,
developed below, make whole our disapproval of those portions of the
Texas SIP intended to meet:
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii).
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A).
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B).
Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
B. Summary of Our Proposed Oklahoma FIP
We believe some of the same portions of our proposed Texas FIP
would also largely address the portions of the Oklahoma regional haze
SIP we are proposing to disapprove. We believe that Oklahoma's
incomplete consultation with Texas denied it the knowledge it needed--
the visibility impacts of individual sources in Texas with the largest
potential to impact the visibility at the Wichita Mountains and the
extent to which cost-effective controls were available--in order to
properly construct its RPG for the Wichita Mountains. As indicated in
the record, both the ODEQ and the TCEQ acknowledged during the
development of their respective regional haze SIPs that Texas point
sources have a significant visibility impact at the Wichita Mountains
and that cost-effective controls were likely available for these
sources. However, the ODEQ did not pursue the point in its
consultations with the TCEQ under Section 51.308(d)(1)(iv). Our
proposed Oklahoma FIP will address these deficiencies in the Oklahoma's
consultations by establishing new RPGs for the Wichita Mountains. These
RPGs are based on our analysis of the proposed controls for Texas
sources in our proposed Texas FIP. We do not believe that any further
control measures for sources within Oklahoma are necessary to resolve
the issues identified above in its SIP.
C. Technical Overview of Our Proposed Oklahoma and Texas FIPs
As discussed in our FIP TSD, we have determined that based on their
visibility impacts, a smaller subset of the facilities that we have
initially analyzed should be further evaluated to determine (1) if
cost-effective controls are available and (2) considering their
projected visibility benefits, which, if any controls should be
proposed. With one exception, the PPG Flat Glass plant in Wichita
Falls, all of the facilities in the smaller subset of Texas sources are
coal fired power plants. While some of these coal fired power plants
have scrubbers, all but one are partially bypassed. Also as discussed
in that section, we are limiting our analyses to the consideration of
SO2 controls for these EGU sources, as our modeling
indicates that the impacts from these sources on the 20% worst days are
primarily due to sulfate emissions. In our Cost TSD, we conduct a
SO2 cost analyses for the following facilities and units:
Table 30--Sources Undergoing Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Analyses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Facility Units Currently scrubbed? Currently bypassed?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown......................... 1, 2 No. .....................................
Sandow 4.......................... 1 Yes.................. Yes.
Monticello........................ 1, 2 No. .....................................
Monticello........................ 3 Yes.................. Yes.
Martin Lake....................... 1, 2, 3 Yes.................. Yes.
Coleto Creek...................... 1 No. .....................................
Limestone......................... 1, 2 Yes.................. Yes.
San Miguel........................ 1 Yes.................. No.
Tolk.............................. 1, 2 No. .....................................
Welsh............................. 1, 2, 3 No. .....................................
W. A. Parish...................... 5, 6, 7 No. .....................................
W. A. Parish...................... 8 Yes.................. Yes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these sources, we have examined the PPG Flat Glass
Plant in Wichita Falls, Texas. This is the only non-EGU and the only
source for which NOX controls are considered. For all of the
sources we examined, visibility impacts were dominated by the impacts
from SO2 emissions with the exception of the PPG Flat Glass
Plant. Because of the proximity of this facility to Wichita Mountains,
NOX and SO2 emissions from the facility were both
responsible for the visibility impacts at Wichita Mountains. As
discussed in more detail below, we evaluated these impacts and
considered recent emissions and permit data in considering the
potential need for additional controls for this facility.
D. Approach to Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy
We are simultaneously conducting reasonable progress and long-term
strategy analyses. These analyses address both (1) the requirements to
consider the four reasonable progress factors for the Texas Class I
areas, and (2) the technical basis required to develop the long-term
strategy for the Texas Class I areas and the Wichita Mountains in
Oklahoma. We use the ``four factor analysis'' method outlined in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(A) that states are directed to use in establishing a RPG:
(1) Reasonable progress goals. For each mandatory Class I
Federal area located within the State, the State must establish
goals (expressed in deciviews) that provide for reasonable progress
towards achieving natural visibility conditions. The reasonable
progress goals must provide for an improvement in visibility for the
most impaired days over the period of the implementation plan and
ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over
the same period.
(i) In establishing a reasonable progress goal for any mandatory
Class I Federal area within the State, the State must:
(A) Consider the costs of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources, and include a demonstration showing how these
factors were taken into consideration in selecting the goal.
To assist in interpreting these reasonable progress factors, we
will rely
[[Page 74874]]
on our reasonable progress Guidance.\291\ Our Reasonable Progress
Guidance notes the similarity between some of the reasonable progress
factors and the BART factors contained in Section 51.308(e)(1)((ii)(A),
and suggests that the BART Guidelines be consulted regarding cost,
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, and remaining useful
life. We are therefore relying on our BART Guidelines for assistance in
interpreting those reasonable progress factors, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\291\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that, with one exception,\292\ the issues relating to the
evaluation of three of these factors: (1) Time necessary for
compliance, (2) energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and (3) remaining useful life, are common to all the units
we are analyzing. Thus, we are analyzing these factors for all the
units simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\292\ For reasons we discuss in our FIP TSD, we believe that the
Tolk facility may merit a special consideration of the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In analyzing the remaining factor, cost of compliance, we are
including in our evaluation a consideration of any control technology
that may already be installed at the facility. Also, similar to a BART
analysis, we are also considering the projected visibility benefit in
our analysis. As we state in our Arizona proposal: \293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\293\ See 79 FR 9353, footnote 137. We also finalized our
proposal in 79 FR 52420, using this same reasoning.
While visibility is not an explicitly listed factor to consider
when determining whether additional controls are reasonable, the
purpose of the four-factor analysis is to determine what degree of
progress toward natural visibility conditions is reasonable.
Therefore, it is appropriate to consider the projected visibility
benefit of the controls when determining if the controls are needed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to make reasonable progress.
For each unit, we are weighing the cost of compliance against the
projected visibility benefit.
1. Time Necessary for Compliance, and the Oklahoma and Texas RPGs
We discuss the time necessary for compliance reasonable progress
factor in our Reasonable Progress Guidance: \294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\294\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007. Page 19.
It may be appropriate for you to use this factor to adjust the
RPG to reflect the degree of improvement in visibility achievable
within the period of the first SIP if the time needed for full
implementation of a control measure (or measures) will extend beyond
2018. For example, if you anticipate that constraints on the
availability of construction labor will preclude the installation of
controls at all sources of a particular category by 2018, the
visibility improvement anticipated from installation of controls at
the percentage of sources that could be controlled within the
strategy period should be considered in setting the RPG and in
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
establishing the SIP requirements to meet the RPG.
Due to delays in processing the Texas regional haze SIP and the
remaining portion of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, we cannot assume
that the SO2 controls we are proposing will be installed and
operational within this planning period, which ends in 2018. For
instance, typical SO2 scrubber installations can take up to
five years to plan, construct and bring to operational readiness. This
would mean that any such controls that we may require in our final
action may not be operational until after 2018. Therefore, although we
are proposing revised RPGs for Oklahoma and Texas, we are proposing
RPGs that only account for the scrubber upgrades included in this FIP
anticipated to be completed by 2018.
We request that Oklahoma and Texas consider the additional
visibility improvements anticipated from any proposed FIP controls
implemented after 2018 with the submission of their next regional haze
SIPs due July 13, 2018.
2. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance
Regarding the analysis of energy impacts, the BART Guidelines
advise, ``You should examine the energy requirements of the control
technology and determine whether the use of that technology results in
energy penalties or benefits.'' \295\ As discussed below in our cost
analyses for Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) and Spray Dryer Absorber (SDA)
SO2 scrubbers, our cost model allows for the inclusion or
exclusion of the cost of the additional auxiliary power required for
the pollution controls we considered to be included in the variable
operating costs. We chose to include this additional auxiliary power in
all cases. Consequently, we believe that any energy impacts of
compliance have been adequately considered in our analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\295\ 70 FR 39168 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the analysis of non-air quality environmental impacts,
the BART Guidelines advise: \296\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\296\ 70 FR 39169 (July 6, 2005).
Such environmental impacts include solid or hazardous waste
generation and discharges of polluted water from a control device.
You should identify any significant or unusual environmental impacts
associated with a control alternative that have the potential to
affect the selection or elimination of a control alternative. Some
control technologies may have potentially significant secondary
environmental impacts. Scrubber effluent, for example, may affect
water quality and land use. Alternatively, water availability may
affect the feasibility and costs of wet scrubbers. Other examples of
secondary environmental impacts could include hazardous waste
discharges, such as spent catalysts or contaminated carbon.
Generally, these types of environmental concerns become important
when sensitive site-specific receptors exist or when the incremental
emission reductions potential of the more stringent control is only
marginally greater than the next most-effective option. However, the
fact that a control device creates liquid and solid waste that must
be disposed of does not necessarily argue against selection of that
technology as BART, particularly if the control device has been
applied to similar facilities elsewhere and the solid or liquid
waste is similar to those other applications. On the other hand,
where you or the source owner can show that unusual circumstances at
the proposed facility create greater problems than experienced
elsewhere, this may provide a basis for the elimination of that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
control alternative as BART.
The SO2 control technologies we considered in our
analysis--DSI and scrubbers--are in wide use in the coal-fired
electricity generation industry. Both technologies add spent reagent to
the waste stream already generated by the facilities we analyzed, but
do not present any unusual environmental impacts. As discussed below in
our cost analyses for DSI and SDA SO2 scrubbers, our cost
model includes waste disposal costs in the variable operating costs.
Consequently, we believe that with one possible exception, any non-air
quality environmental impacts have been adequately considered in our
analyses. An examination of the aerial photo of the Tolk facility,
which we present in our FIP TSD, does not reveal any obvious source of
surface water. We therefore assume that well water is used. In light of
this and its potential relationship to the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, we limit our SO2
control analysis for Tolk to DSI and dry scrubbers.
3. Remaining Useful Life
Regarding the analysis of the remaining useful life, the BART
Guidelines advise:
The ``remaining useful life'' of a source, if it represents a
relatively short time period, may affect the annualized costs of
retrofit controls. For example, the methods for calculating
annualized costs in EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual require the use
[[Page 74875]]
of a specified time period for amortization that varies based upon
the type of control. If the remaining useful life will clearly
exceed this time period, the remaining useful life has essentially
no effect on control costs and on the BART determination process.
Where the remaining useful life is less than the time period for
amortizing costs, you should use this shorter time period in your
cost calculations.
In determining the cost of scrubbers in our prior Oklahoma FIP, we
used a lifetime of 30 years. In so doing, we noted \297\ that scrubber
vendors indicate that the lifetime of a scrubber is equal to the
lifetime of the boiler, which might easily be over 60 years. We also
noted that many scrubbers that were installed between 1975 and 1986 are
still in operation today (e.g., Coyote Station, H.L. Spurlock Unit 2,
East Bend Unit 2, Laramie River Unit 3, Cholla 5, Basin Electric,
Mitchell Unit 33, and all of the units in Table 30 that currently have
scrubbers). Further, we noted that standard cost estimating handbooks
and published papers report 30 years as a typical life for a scrubber
and that many utilities routinely specify 30+ year lifetimes in
requests for proposal and to evaluate proposals. We have used this 30
year lifetime approach in prior actions and we therefore adopted the
same scrubber lifetime in our present analysis. See 76 FR 52388 (Aug.
22. 2011); 76 FR 81728 (Dec. 28, 2011); Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201
(July 19, 2013), cert. denied (U.S. May 27, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\297\ Technical Support Document for the Oklahoma Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan and Federal Implementation Plan. March
2011, p. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We see no reason to assume that a DSI system installation, which is
a much less complex and costly (capital costs, as opposed to annualized
costs) technology in comparison to a scrubber installation, should have
a shorter lifetime. As with a scrubber, we expect the boiler to be the
limiting factor when considering the lifetime of a coal-fired power
plant. We have therefore similarly assumed that the lifetime of a DSI
system is 30 years, as constrained by the boiler lifetime, as noted
above.
The BART Guidelines provide further clarification:
Where this affects the BART determination, this date should be
assured by a federally- or State-enforceable restriction preventing
further operation. We recognize that there may be situations where a
source operator intends to shut down a source by a given date, but
wishes to retain the flexibility to continue operating beyond that
date in the event, for example, that market conditions change. Where
this is the case, your BART analysis may account for this, but it
must maintain consistency with the statutory requirement to install
BART within 5 years. Where the source chooses not to accept a
federally enforceable condition requiring the source to shut down by
a given date, it is necessary to determine whether a reduced time
period for the remaining useful life changes the level of controls
that would have been required as BART.
As in a BART determination, we propose to adopt the same
requirement regarding the need for a federally enforceable restriction
for any DSI or scrubber remaining useful life of less than 30 years.
4. Analysis of the PPG Flat Glass Plant
The Wichita Falls PPG flat glass plant is located in Wichita Falls,
Texas. The plant began operations in 1974.\298\ The facility produces
flat glass on two production lines, each with its own natural gas
furnace. A furnace typically lasts ten to twelve years until re-
bricking is required. In 2007, PPG applied to the TCEQ for a standard
permit registration \299\ in order to obtain authorization for the
implementation of a low-NOX oxy-fuel injection conversion to
its Melting Furnace No. 1. As a result of this upgrade, PPG calculated
its NOX emissions from Furnace No. 1 would decrease by
approximately 1,996 tpy to 894.25 tpy. PPG also further reduced their
NOX emissions as a result of a fuel conservation project
which occurred with the rebuilding of Furnace No. 2. This project
lowered the NOX emissions of Furnace No. 2 from an allowable
annual NOX limit of 3,236.82 tpy to 2,947.49 tpy. These
reductions were incorporated into a permit alteration.\300\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\298\ http://corporate.ppg.com/Our-Company/Worldwide-Operations/North-America/Wichita-Falls.
\299\ Standard Permit Registration, PPG Industries, Inc.,
Wichita Falls Plant, Account No. WH-0040-R. Submitted by ENVIRON,
dated October 11, 2007.
\300\ Permit Alteration, Permit Number: 898, Flat Glass
Manufacturing Facility, Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Regulated
Entity Number: RN102522950, Customer Reference Number: CN600124614,
Account Number: WH-0040-R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 31 below compares the 2018 projected CENRAP emission
inventory to the 2002 CENRAP emission inventory, the current permit
limits for the two furnaces, and average actual annual emissions for
the facility. We projected the visibility impact from this facility at
the 2018 projected emission level to be 0.635 Mm-1 at the
Wichita Mountains (using source apportionment). Permit allowable
emissions for NOX for the two furnaces are much lower than
projected and modeled for 2018 and lower than the 2002 emission level.
The 2018 projected emissions for SO2 also exceed the
permitted emissions for furnace No. 2. Average annual emissions are
only 44% of the projected 2018 emissions for NOX and 81% of
the projected SO2 emissions. Therefore, we estimate that the
current visibility impact due to the facility is significantly lower
than the 2018 projected value. We are proposing to find that the
Wichita Falls PPG flat glass plant is adequately controlled to address
visibility impacts from this facility for the first planning period. We
encourage the State of Texas to revisit this issue when Furnace No. 2
is scheduled for its next re-bricking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\301\ Permit Alteration, Permit Number: 898, Flat Glass
Manufacturing Facility, Wichita Falls, Wichita County, Regulated
Entity Number: RN102522950, Customer Reference Number:
\302\ TCEQ point source emission inventory. Downloaded from
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/airquality/point-source-ei/psei.html and
available in the docket for this action.
Table 31--Emission Comparison for PPG Flat Glass Plant
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENRAP 2002 emission CENRAP 2018 emission Permit allowable \301\ Average annual
inventory (tpy) inventory (tpy) (tpy) emissions (tpy, 2009-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2012) \302\
-------------------------
NOX SO2 NOX SO2 NOX SO2 NOX SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furnace No. 1................................... 2,694.5 48.0 4,526.8 80.7 894.3 180.3 ........... ...........
Furnace No. 2................................... 2,495.2 279.7 4,191.9 470.0 2,947.5 350.4 ........... ...........
Furnace No. 1 and No. 2......................... 5,189.7 327.7 8,718.8 550.6 3,841.7 530.7 ........... ...........
Facility total.................................. 5,317.0 371.0 8,929.0 623.0 ........... ........... 3,887.8 501.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 74876]]
E. Use of Confidential Business Information
Within our Cost TSD, we calculate the SO2 removal
efficiencies for the underperforming scrubbers listed in Table 30, and
present information that discusses how these scrubbers have been
historically upgraded and what kinds of equipment revisions are
typically required. In order to assess the potential range of options
available to upgrade the scrubbers in the facilities listed in Table
30, we must have an understanding of what upgrades may have already
been performed. Because most of this information is not available
publicly, we requested it under authority granted to us under Section
114(a) of the CAA. For each unit, we then conducted a cost analysis for
eliminating any scrubber bypass and upgrading the units' overall
SO2 removal efficiency to at least 95%. As most of the
information we received in response to our Section 114(a) requests was
claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI) under 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B, we are limited in what we are able to publicly state in this
analyses. Consequently, although our full cost analysis is available on
a facility-by-facility basis for viewing by the companies who provided
us with the CBI material, we can only provide a summary of it below.
F. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber and DSI Cost
Results
As we discuss in our Cost TSD, we evaluated each unit at its
maximum recommended level of control, considering the type of
SO2 control device:
We evaluated each unit at its maximum recommended DSI
performance level, according to the IPM DSI documentation, assuming
milled trona: 80% SO2 removal for an ESP installation and
90% SO2 removal for a baghouse installation. This level of
control is within the range of control of SO2 scrubbers, and
thus allows a better comparison of the costs of DSI and scrubbers.
However, we believe that the maximum performance level for
DSI can only be determined after an onsite performance test. We believe
it is useful to evaluate lesser levels of DSI control (and
correspondingly lower costs). We therefore also evaluated all the units
at a DSI SO2 control level of 50%, which we believe is
likely achievable for any unit.
The SDA level of control was assumed to be a maximum of
95% not to go below 0.06 lbs/MMBtu.
The wet FGD level of control was assumed to be a maximum
of 98% not to go below 0.04 lbs/MMBtu.
Below, we present a summary of our DSI, SDA, and wet FGD cost
analysis:\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\303\ In this table, the capital cost is the total cost of
constructing the facility. The annualized cost is the sum of the
annualized capital cost and the annualized operational cost. See our
Cost TSD for more information on how these costs were calculated.
Table 32--Summary of DSI, SDA, and Wet FGD Cost Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2
Facility Unit Control Control Reduction $/Ton Capital cost Annualized
level (%) (tpy) reduced cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown.................................... 1 DSI 50.0 15,334 $2,223 $19,096,000 $34,086,871
...... DSI 90.0 27,600 2,996 33,357,000 82,684,241
...... SDA 95.0 29,134 1,377 226,656,000 40,104,566
...... Wet FGD 98.0 30,054 1,255 256,032,000 37,708,999
2 DSI 50.0 15,407 2,201 19,035,000 33,909,822
...... DSI 90.0 27,733 2,994 32,965,000 81,649,586
...... SDA 95.0 29,273 1,373 229,544,000 40,185,893
...... Wet FGD 97.9 30,169 1,257 259,141,000 37,909,708
==============================================
Monticello................................... 1 DSI 50.0 8,933 2,728 17,137,000 24,364,819
...... DSI 90.0 16,079 3,420 23,580,000 54,991,417
...... SDA 95.0 16,972 2,012 224,262,000 34,154,932
...... Wet FGD 97.0 17,328 1,937 250,804,000 33,558,169
2 DSI 50.0 8,215 3,086 17,057,000 25,351,370
...... DSI 90.0 14,786 3,845 23,468,000 56,850,489
...... SDA 95.0 15,608 2,254 227,409,000 35,183,025
...... Wet FGD 96.8 15,907 2,170 254,177,000 34,523,884
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coleto Creek................................. 1 DSI 50.0 8,030 2,792 15,888,000 22,416,218
...... DSI 90.0 14,453 3,460 21,863,000 50,001,685
...... SDA 93.5 15,012 2,356 240,408,000 35,366,916
...... Wet FGD 95.7 15,361 2,278 262,435,000 34,996,979
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tolk......................................... 171B DSI 50.0 5,016 3,084 13,938,000 15,465,578
...... DSI 90.0 9,028 3,592 19,179,000 32,426,429
...... SDA 91.7 9,195 3,178 218,306,000 29,218,836
...... Wet FGD 94.4 9,474 3,204 243,048,000 30,352,765
172B DSI 50.0 5,517 2,828 13,873,000 15,600,155
...... DSI 90.0 9,931 3,221 19,090,000 31,985,880
...... SDA 90.8 10,015 2,998 226,957,000 30,022,609
...... Wet FGD 93.8 10,355 3,019 252,559,000 31,257,301
==============================================
Welsh........................................ 1 DSI 50.0 4,042 3,718 14,888,000 15,026,538
...... DSI 80.0 6,467 4,019 18,901,000 25,992,966
...... SDA 88.7 7,169 3,489 201,549,000 25,009,785
...... Wet FGD 92.5 7,474 3,508 221,282,000 26,216,294
2 DSI 50.0 4,128 3,611 14,775,000 14,906,814
...... DSI 80.0 6,605 3,879 18,758,000 25,622,166
...... SDA 88.2 7,285 3,438 202,108,000 25,045,518
...... Wet FGD 92.2 7,608 3,454 221,821,000 26,276,805
[[Page 74877]]
3 DSI 50.0 4,305 3,690 15,023,000 15,884,663
...... DSI 80.0 6,887 3,998 19,071,000 27,531,831
...... SDA 88.7 7,634 3,368 204,177,000 25,713,148
...... Wet FGD 92.5 7,959 3,379 224,298,000 26,895,390
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. A. Parish................................. 5 DSI 50.0 7,079 2,559 15,227,000 18,111,990
...... DSI 90.0 12,741 2,995 20,953,000 38,161,382
...... SDA 92.5 13,095 2,441 240,112,000 31,970,651
...... Wet FGD 95.0 13,449 2,389 260,195,000 32,124,808
6 DSI 50.0 7,654 2,699 15,934,000 20,660,436
...... DSI 90.0 13,776 3,229 21,924,000 44,478,086
...... SDA 93.1 14,251 2,401 248,503,000 34,220,158
...... Wet FGD 95.4 14,603 2,334 270,350,000 34,085,705
7 DSI 50.0 6,168 2,805 14,641,000 17,301,527
...... DSI 90.0 11,102 3,296 20,145,000 36,594,402
...... SDA 92.7 11,432 2,559 211,443,000 29,250,022
...... Wet FGD 95.1 11,733 2,542 233,698,000 29,821,127
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Scrubber Upgrade Cost
Results
In our Cost TSD, we analyze those units listed in Table 30 with an
existing SO2 scrubber in order to determine if cost-
effective scrubber upgrades are available. Because all of the scrubber
systems we evaluate are wet scrubbers, we limit our analyses of
scrubber upgrades to wet scrubbers. Below, we present a summary of the
results of that analysis.
With the exception of San Miguel, we are limited in what
information we can include in this section, because in developing our
scrubber cost estimates we used information that was claimed as CBI.
This information was submitted in response to our Section 114(a)
requests. We can therefore only present the following summary. With the
exception of San Miguel, we propose to find that for all the units we
analyzed:
The absorber system had either already been upgraded to
perform at an SO2 removal efficiency of at least 95%, or it
could be upgraded to perform at that level using proven equipment and
techniques.
The SO2 scrubber bypass could be eliminated,
and the additional flue gas could be treated by the absorber system
with at least a 95% removal efficiency.
Additional modifications necessary to eliminate the
bypass, such as adding fan capacity, upgrading the electrical
distribution system, and conversion to a wet stack could be performed
using proven equipment and techniques.
The additional SO2 emission reductions
resulting from the scrubber upgrade are substantial, ranging from 68%
to 89% reduction from the current emission levels, and are cost-
effective.
A summary of our analyses is as follows:
Table 33--Summary of Scrubber Upgrade Results
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009-2013 3-Year
avg. SO2 SO2 Emissions at SO2 Emission SO2 Emission rate
Unit emissions 95% control reduction due to at 95% control
(eliminate max (tons) scrubber upgrade (lbs/MMBtu)
and min) (tons) (tons)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
W. A. Parish WAP8................... 2,586 836 1,750 0.04
Monticello 3........................ 13,857 1,571 12,286 0.06
Sandow 4............................ 22,289 4,625 17,664 0.20
Martin Lake 1....................... 24,495 3,706 20,789 0.12
Martin Lake 2....................... 21,580 3,664 17,917 0.12
Martin Lake 3....................... 19,940 3,542 16,389 0.11
Limestone 1......................... 10,913 2,466 8,446 0.08
Limestone 2......................... 11,946 2,615 9,331 0.08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We calculated the cost-effectiveness for each of these units.
Because those calculations depended on information claimed by the
companies as CBI we cannot present it here, except to note that in all
cases, the cost-effectiveness was less than $600/ton. We invite the
facilities listed above to make arrangements with us to view the full
cost analysis for their units.
H. Summary of the Modeled Benefits of Emission Controls
Prior to doing the control cost evaluations discussed in the
sections above, we conducted several steps in support of our review
which was ultimately used in our proposed FIP. We initially conducted a
Q/D analysis on all facilities in Texas, using the distances to Class I
areas in Texas and surrounding states. This Q/D analysis narrowed the
list of over 1,600 facilities to 38 facilities. We chose to use the
CENRAP photochemical modeling platform with some minor upgrades to
evaluate the 38 facilities and determine if this smaller subset of
sources, or individual sources, would yield visibility benefits worth
considering for reasonable progress analysis. We chose to use the CAMx
photochemical model instead of
[[Page 74878]]
CALPUFF for several reasons, including:
The large distances between sources and Class I areas are
outside the typical range of CALPUFF. Because of the range, we were
concerned that CALPUFF could overestimate impacts.
Using a photochemical model allowed us to assess
improvements on the 20% worst and the 20% best days.
Using a photochemical model allowed us to use a more
refined chemistry mechanism and use the same scientific tools used for
reasonable progress analysis at Class I areas.
CAMx has both PSAT and Plume-In-Grid capabilities, whereas
the other available photochemical model CMAQ (Community Multi-scale Air
Quality modeling system) did not have these tools.
Full details of our Q/D and initial evaluation of 38 facilities
with CAMx are discussed further in Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Based on
the results of modeling the 38 facilities, we further narrowed the list
to the smaller group of sources that we evaluated in a second round of
CAMx modeling. Please see Appendix A of our FIP TSD, where we describe
in detail the different modeling runs we conducted for our review, our
methodology and selection of emission rates, our modeling results, and
our final modeling analysis that we used to evaluate the benefits of
the proposed controls and their associated emission decreases on
visibility impairment values. We used modeling results from the initial
modeling and a second round of modeling to estimate the benefits of
emission reductions from controls/control upgrades. Below we present a
summary of our analysis and our proposed findings regarding the
estimated visibility benefits of emission reductions based on the CAMx
modeling results.
Our modeling focused on calculating the extinction and visibility
impacts and benefits at the Wichita Mountains, the Guadalupe Mountains,
and Big Bend primarily, but also included analysis at a number of other
Class I areas in states surrounding Texas. In so doing, we focused on
the same sources listed in Table 30, above, that we did in our control
cost evaluations. In evaluating the impacts and benefits of potential
controls, we utilized a number of metrics, including change in
deciviews in 2018 and natural conditions situations, change in
extinction, change in percentage of total extinction, recent actuals
vs. CENRAP 2018 projections, etc. For a full discussion of our review
of all the modeling results, and factors that we considered in
evaluating and weighing all the results, precedents, please see
Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Below, we present the modeled visibility
impacts based on their percentage extinction levels for the 20% worst
days for the Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, and the Guadalupe Mountains:
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE14.000
[[Page 74879]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE14.001
[[Page 74880]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP16DE14.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
In Figures 1, 2, and 3, above, the visibility impacts from all of
the units in Table 30 are represented, with the exception of San
Miguel, for the reasons we discuss below in Section VII.I. In addition,
the collective visibility impact from the remaining 29 sources which
included San Miguel and 28 sources we elected not to include in our
control cost analysis are also represented. As shown by Figure 1, a
number of these facilities have significant visibility impacts at the
Wichita Mountains. For instance, using actual emissions, Big Brown
alone accounts for an impact equivalent to more than \1/3\ of the total
impact from point sources within the State of Oklahoma. Visibility
impacts from these sources at Texas' Class I areas are much more
limited.
In evaluating benefits of potential controls, we also considered
estimated deciview improvements based on both a degraded 2018
background and a ``clean'' background based on average annual natural
conditions, as shown in the tables below. Because our analysis is based
on a full photo-chemical grid model that includes modeling all
emissions in the modeling domain, the model results are inherently a
degraded background analysis and the results are impacted by emissions
from other sources. To estimate the full benefit of reductions on a
source we have estimated the ``clean'' background results based on the
modeled extinction impact levels for each source and calculated the
del-dv based on annual average natural conditions. A true ``clean''
background model would not include interactions from emissions from
other sources. Due to the inclusion of all these other sources at 2018
estimated emission levels, the estimated impacts from a source (or from
controlling a source) are less than the results that would be obtained
using emission levels of sources that would exist when natural
conditions are achieved. We note that CALPUFF based modeling simulates
`clean' background conditions with no other sources included than the
source(s) being evaluated. See our FIP TSD for more discussion on this
issue. The deciview improvement based on the 2018 background conditions
provides an estimate of the amount of benefit that can be anticipated
in 2018 and the impact a control may have on the established RPG for
2018. However, this estimate based on degraded or ``dirty'' background
conditions underestimates the visibility improvement that would be
realized for the control options under consideration. Because of the
non-linear nature of the deciview metric, as a Class I area becomes
more polluted the visibility impairment from an individual source in
terms of deciviews becomes geometrically less. Results based solely on
a degraded background, will rarely if ever demonstrate an appreciable
effect on incremental visibility improvement in a given area. Rather
than providing for incremental improvements towards the goal of
[[Page 74881]]
natural visibility, degraded background results will serve to instead
maintain those current degraded conditions. Therefore, the visibility
benefit estimated based on natural or ``clean'' conditions is needed to
assess the full benefit from potential controls. In our final decision
for our North Dakota SIP and FIP,\304\ we explained this by noting:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\304\ 77 FR 20912 (Apr. 6, 2012).
This is true because of the nonlinear nature of visibility
impairment. In other words, as a Class I area becomes more polluted,
any individual source's contribution to changes in impairment
becomes geometrically less. Therefore the more polluted the Class I
area would become, the less control would seem to be needed from an
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
individual source.
The Eighth Circuit Court upheld this point in North Dakota v. EPA.
730 F.3d 750, 766 (8th Cir. 2013).
1. Visibility Benefits of DSI, SDA, and Wet FGD
We evaluated the visibility benefits of DSI, for the thirteen units
depicted in Table 30 that currently have no SO2 control. We
evaluated all the units using the same control levels we employed in
our control cost analyses. In summary, we evaluated these units at a
DSI SO2 control level of 50%, which we believe is likely
achievable for any unit. We also evaluated each unit at its maximum
recommended DSI performance level, of 80% SO2 removal for an
ESP installation and 90% SO2 removal for a baghouse
installation. As we note in Section VII.F, we believe these are maximum
performance levels for DSI but we do not know whether a given unit is
actually capable of achieving these DSI control levels. At the lower
performance level we assumed, we conclude that the corresponding
visibility benefits from DSI would also be close to half of the
benefits from scrubbers resulting in the visibility benefits from
scrubber retrofits being much more beneficial.\305\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\305\ Our multiple CAMx runs yielded data on three or more
levels of emissions (controlled and uncontrolled) on a number of
facilities and based on the data a linear relationship between
emission level and visibility impairment on a source specific basis
is a reasonable analytical approach. See FIP TSD Appendix A for more
details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also evaluated the visibility benefits for scrubber retrofits
(wet FGD and SDA) for these same units, assuming the same control
levels corresponding to SDA and wet FGD that we used in our control
cost analyses. The visibility benefits from DSI, SDA, and wet FGD are
quantified specifically in Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Below, we present
a summary of some of those visibility benefits:
Table 34--Average Change in Deciview Levels at the Wichita Mountains for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility improvement 2018 background (Environ) Visibility improvement (average natural conditions)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit WFGD WFGD
DSI Low DSI High SDA WFGD Upgrade DSI Low DSI High SDA WFGD Upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown 1............................... 0.045 0.081 0.085 0.088 ......... 0.225 0.401 0.423 0.436 .........
Big Brown 2............................... 0.045 0.081 0.086 0.088 ......... 0.226 0.403 0.425 0.438 .........
Coleto Creek 1............................ 0.021 0.038 0.039 0.040 ......... 0.105 0.189 0.196 0.200 .........
Limestone 1............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.027 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.135
Limestone 2............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.030 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.149
Martin Lake 1............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.047 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.234
Martin Lake 2............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.040 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.202
Martin Lake 3............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.037 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.185
Monticello 1.............................. 0.026 0.047 0.050 0.051 ......... 0.132 0.236 0.249 0.254 .........
Monticello 2.............................. 0.024 0.043 0.046 0.047 ......... 0.121 0.217 0.229 0.233 .........
Monticello 3.............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.036 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.181
Sandow 4.................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.062 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.312
Tolk 171b................................. 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.007 ......... 0.018 0.032 0.033 0.034 .........
Tolk 172b................................. 0.004 0.007 0.007 0.007 ......... 0.020 0.035 0.036 0.037 .........
WA Parish 5............................... 0.012 0.022 0.023 0.023 ......... 0.062 0.111 0.114 0.117 .........
WA Parish 6............................... 0.013 0.024 0.025 0.025 ......... 0.067 0.120 0.124 0.127 .........
WA Parish 7............................... 0.011 0.019 0.020 0.020 ......... 0.054 0.097 0.099 0.102 .........
WA Parish 8............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.003 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.015
Welsh 1................................... 0.012 0.019 0.021 0.022 ......... 0.059 0.094 0.105 0.109 .........
Welsh 2................................... 0.012 0.019 0.021 0.022 ......... 0.060 0.096 0.106 0.111 .........
Welsh 3................................... 0.012 0.020 0.022 0.023 ......... 0.063 0.101 0.111 0.116 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 35--Average Change in Deciview Levels at Big Bend for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility improvement 2018 background (Environ) Visibility improvement (average natural conditions)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit WFGD WFGD
DSI low DSI high SDA WFGD upgrade DSI low DSI high SDA WFGD upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown 1............................... 0.012 0.021 0.022 0.023 ......... 0.046 0.082 0.086 0.089 .........
Big Brown 2............................... 0.012 0.021 0.022 0.023 ......... 0.046 0.082 0.087 0.089 .........
Coleto Creek 1............................ 0.018 0.033 0.034 0.035 ......... 0.071 0.128 0.133 0.136 .........
Limestone 1............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.008 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.033
Limestone 2............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.009 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.036
Martin Lake 1............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.008 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.030
Martin Lake 2............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.007 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.026
Martin Lake 3............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.006 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.023
Monticello 1.............................. 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.006 ......... 0.011 0.020 0.021 0.022 .........
Monticello 2.............................. 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.005 ......... 0.010 0.018 0.019 0.020 .........
Monticello 3.............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.004 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.015
[[Page 74882]]
Sandow 4.................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.026 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.102
Tolk 171b................................. 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 ......... 0.007 0.012 0.013 0.013 .........
Tolk 172b................................. 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.004 ......... 0.008 0.014 0.014 0.014 .........
WA Parish 5............................... 0.007 0.013 0.013 0.014 ......... 0.028 0.051 0.052 0.054 .........
WA Parish 6............................... 0.008 0.014 0.015 0.015 ......... 0.031 0.055 0.057 0.058 .........
WA Parish 7............................... 0.006 0.011 0.012 0.012 ......... 0.025 0.044 0.046 0.047 .........
WA Parish 8............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.002 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.007
Welsh 1................................... 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 ......... 0.005 0.008 0.008 0.009 .........
Welsh 2................................... 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 ......... 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.009 .........
Welsh 3................................... 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 ......... 0.005 0.008 0.009 0.009 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 36--Average Change in Deciview Levels at the Guadalupe Mountains for the 20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility improvement 2018 background (Environ) Visibility improvement (average natural conditions)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit WFGD WFGD
DSI Low DSI High SDA WFGD Upgrade DSI low DSI high SDA WFGD upgrade
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Brown 1............................... 0.014 0.024 0.026 0.027 ......... 0.054 0.096 0.101 0.105 .........
Big Brown 2............................... 0.014 0.025 0.026 0.027 ......... 0.054 0.097 0.102 0.105 .........
Coleto Creek 1............................ 0.006 0.010 0.011 0.011 ......... 0.023 0.041 0.043 0.044 .........
Limestone 1............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.009 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.037
Limestone 2............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.010 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.041
Martin Lake 1............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.010 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.041
Martin Lake 2............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.009 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.036
Martin Lake 3............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.008 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.033
Monticello 1.............................. 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.007 ......... 0.014 0.025 0.027 0.027 .........
Monticello 2.............................. 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.006 ......... 0.013 0.023 0.024 0.025 .........
Monticello 3.............................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.005 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.019
Sandow 4.................................. ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.017 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.069
Tolk 171b................................. 0.012 0.022 0.022 0.023 ......... 0.048 0.085 0.087 0.090 .........
Tolk 172b................................. 0.013 0.024 0.024 0.025 ......... 0.052 0.094 0.095 0.098 .........
WA Parish 5............................... 0.003 0.006 0.006 0.006 ......... 0.013 0.023 0.024 0.024 .........
WA Parish 6............................... 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.007 ......... 0.014 0.025 0.026 0.027 .........
WA Parish 7............................... 0.003 0.005 0.005 0.005 ......... 0.011 0.020 0.021 0.021 .........
WA Parish 8............................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.001 ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.003
Welsh 1................................... 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 ......... 0.007 0.011 0.012 0.012 .........
Welsh 2................................... 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 ......... 0.007 0.011 0.012 0.012 .........
Welsh 3................................... 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.003 ......... 0.007 0.011 0.012 0.013 .........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tables above show the estimated benefit (in deciviews)
anticipated from the evaluated controls at each unit on the 20% worst
days for each Class I area, considering both ``dirty'' background
conditions projected in 2018 modeling completed by Environ and the
``clean'' background conditions consistent with the estimated annual
average natural conditions. We weighed these del-dv benefits, as well
as extinction benefits and percentage of total extinction basis
information, as further discussed in our TSD, in making our proposed
findings about the benefits of potential controls. For brevity we are
not including all the information that we considered which is discussed
in FIP TSD Appendix A. Based on the information presented here and in
our TSD materials, we propose to find that installing either wet FGD or
SDA scrubbers on five of these units would yield significant visibility
improvements at the Wichita Mountains. These five units are: Big Brown
1 and 2, Coleto Creek, and Monticello 1 and 2. We propose to find that
scrubber installations on Big Brown 1 and 2 would also yield
significant benefits at both Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend, and that
a scrubber installation on the Coleto Creek unit would also yield
significant visibility benefits at Big Bend.
In comparison to the above five units, we propose to find that the
visibility benefits from installing scrubbers on the W. A. Parish 5, 6,
and 7 units; and Welsh 1, 2, and 3 units would not yield large enough
visibility benefits to be considered at this time.
We also evaluated the visibility benefits of installing scrubbers
on Tolk units 171B and 172B, limiting our analysis to SDA. The
visibility benefits of SDA scrubbers on the Tolk units are projected to
occur mainly at the Guadalupe Mountains. We note that the deciview
visibility benefits projected at the Guadalupe Mountains from controls
on the Tolk units are smaller than those from scrubber upgrades at W.
A. Parish or Welsh for impacts at the Wichita Mountains. However, when
we evaluated other metrics, such as extinction benefit or percent of
extinction benefits, we believe that the overall visibility benefit for
installing scrubbers on the Tolk units was superior to either the W. A.
Parish or the Welsh units. In particular, the Wichita Mountains has a
much higher total extinction for the baseline and the 2018 projection
than the Guadalupe Mountains, so the relative improvement
[[Page 74883]]
in extinction levels is higher when the Tolk units are controlled for
the Guadalupe Mountains, than if the W. A. Parish or the Welsh units
were controlled for the Wichita Mountains. Therefore, considering all
the visibility benefits relative to the respective Class I areas, we
propose to find that the visibility benefits from installation of dry
scrubbers on the Tolk units would be significant and beneficial towards
the goal of meeting natural visibility conditions at Guadalupe
Mountains.
2. Visibility Benefits of Scrubber Upgrades
We also modeled the visibility benefits of those same units for
which we conducted control cost analysis for upgrading their existing
scrubbers. We assumed the same 95% control level we used in our control
cost analyses. The visibility benefits from these scrubber upgrades are
quantified specifically in Appendix A of our FIP TSD. Below, we present
a summary of the del-dv visibility benefits. For the other visibility
benefit results based on extinction and percentage of extinction see
Appendix A of our FIP TSD.
Table 37--Deciview Improvement at Class I Areas for Scrubber Upgrades
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 WIMO BIBE GUMO
Emission unit Control Reduction -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
(%) (tpy) 2018 avg. NC 2018 avg. NC 2018 avg. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limestone 1..................................... 95 8,446 0.027 0.135 0.008 0.033 0.009 0.037
Limestone 2..................................... 95 9,331 0.030 0.149 0.009 0.036 0.010 0.041
Martin Lake 1................................... 95 20,789 0.047 0.234 0.008 0.030 0.010 0.041
Martin Lake 2................................... 95 17,917 0.040 0.202 0.007 0.026 0.009 0.036
Martin Lake 3................................... 95 16,389 0.037 0.185 0.006 0.023 0.008 0.033
Monticello 3.................................... 95 12,286 0.036 0.181 0.004 0.015 0.005 0.019
Sandow 4........................................ 95 17,664 0.062 0.312 0.026 0.102 0.017 0.069
WA Parish 8..................................... 95 1,750 0.003 0.015 0.002 0.007 0.001 0.003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our review of the impacts/benefits of scrubber upgrades on eight
units at five facilities show that scrubber upgrades conducted at seven
of the eight units would result in significant visibility improvements
at the Wichita Mountains. These seven units are: Limestone 1 and 2;
Martin Lake 1, 2, and 3; Monticello 3; and Sandow 4. We also project
some visibility benefit at Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains and other
Class I areas. We propose to find that the level of visibility
improvement from a scrubber upgrade on W. A. Parish 8 to be relatively
small in comparison to the other units we evaluated, and not large
enough to consider as beneficial at this time.
I. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determinations
Below, we present our proposed reasonable progress and long-term
strategy determinations for our Texas and Oklahoma FIPs. This includes
proposed determinations for those units with no SO2 controls
for which we conducted DSI, SDA, and wet FGD cost analysis and
visibility modeling. This also includes proposed determinations for
those units already scrubbed to some degree, for which we conducted
scrubber upgrade cost analysis and visibility modeling. Please see our
FIP and Cost TSDs for more information.
1. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination
for San Miguel
We propose to find that the San Miguel facility has upgraded its
SO2 scrubber system to perform at the reasonably highest
level that can be expected (94% based on a 2009-2013 average) based on
the extremely high sulfur content of the coal being burned, and the
technology currently available. We thus do not propose any further
control. We propose to find that the San Miguel facility maintain a 30
Boiler Operating Day rolling average SO2 emission rate of
0.60 lbs/MMBtu based on the most recent actual emissions data. We
believe that based on the scrubber upgrades it has recently performed
and its demonstrated ability to maintain an emission rate below this
value on a monthly basis from December 2013 to June 2014 that it can
consistently achieve this emission level. See our Cost TSD for more
details about our analysis of the scrubber upgrades that San Miguel has
performed on its unit. We are specifically soliciting comments on this
proposed emission limit and the potential need for a slightly higher
limit to provide sufficient operational headroom to demonstrate
compliance.
2. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination
for Units Other Than San Miguel
In Section VII.F, we present the results of our SO2
control cost analysis for those units listed in Table 30 with no
SO2 control. In Section VII.G, we present the results of our
control cost analysis for upgrading those units equipped with
underperforming wet FGD scrubbers. In Section VII.H, we present the
results of our modeled visibility benefits for these controls. We
believe that we have provided the technical analysis that was lacking
in Texas' development of its RPGs for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
Bend, and in its consultations with Oklahoma for the development of the
RPG for the Wichita Mountains. Further, we believe that our proposed
control set, which we discuss below, developed through our reasonable
progress four factor analysis, would ensure that Texas secures its
share of the reductions needed for the RPGs of the Wichita Mountains,
the Guadalupe Mountains, and Big Bend. Specifically, we propose to find
that our technical analysis and control set makes whole our disapproval
of:
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable
progress four factor analysis.
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas' calculation
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the URPs for the Guadalupe
Mountains and Big Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas' RPGs for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i) regarding Texas' long-term
strategy consultation.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) regarding Texas securing its
share of reductions in other states' RPGs.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) regarding Texas' technical basis
for its long-term strategy.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas' emissions
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPGs for Big
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
We also believe that this technical analysis and control set makes
whole our proposed disapproval of Oklahoma's submission under Section
51.308(d)(1), except for Section
[[Page 74884]]
51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we propose to approve. We believe our technical
analysis provides the information that Oklahoma should have had during
its consultations with Texas in order to determine whether sources in
Texas should have been controlled to improve the visibility at the
Wichita Mountains. We believe our proposed control set would ensure
that Texas' share of the emission reductions are incorporated into
Oklahoma's RPGs.
For all but one of the units we analyzed that currently have no
SO2 controls, even at the lower level of control of 50%, the
cost-effectiveness of DSI was worse (higher $/ton) than either SDA or
wet FGD, even with the latter options offering much greater levels of
control and visibility benefit. At the higher 80% or 90% level of
control, the cost-effectiveness of DSI was worse than either SDA or wet
FGD in all cases. Consequently, we are not proposing that DSI be
installed at any unit.
With the exception of Tolk,\306\ all of the scrubber retrofits were
analyzed on the basis of both SDA and wet scrubbers. The SDA level of
control was assumed to be a maximum of 95% not to go below 0.06 lbs/
MMBtu. The wet FGD level of control was assumed to be a maximum of 98%
not to go below 0.04 lbs/MMBtu. As we discuss in our Cost TSD, the
cost-effectiveness ($/ton) of wet FGD was better than SDA in all cases
except for the Tolk and Welsh units, which burn Power River Basin (PRB)
coal. However, even in those cases, the cost-effectiveness of wet FGD
was only 0.5 to 0.8% greater than SDA. Given the greater visibility
improvement of wet FGD over SDA, we propose to base our cost/benefit
reasonable progress and long-term strategy determination on wet FGD,
except for the Tolk units, due to their potential water issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\306\ As we discuss in section VII.D.2, we are only considering
SDA in our cost/benefit analysis for Tolk due to a potential water
issue that may have energy and non-air quality impact
considerations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination
for Scrubber Upgrades
We propose to find that the cost-effectiveness of the scrubber
upgrades ($600/ton or less) to be reasonable, and that on an individual
basis, any reasonable amount of visibility improvement due to their
installation justifies their cost. We believe this is the case for all
of the scrubber upgrades except for the Parish 8 unit. Despite the same
level of cost-effectiveness of the Parish 8 unit, we do not believe
that the visibility benefits are large enough to justify the
implementation of a scrubber upgrade on that unit. Therefore we propose
that the scrubbers for the Sandow 4; Martin Lake 1, 2, 3; Monticello 3,
and Limestone 1 and 2 units be upgraded to perform at a 95% control
level. This level of control corresponds to the emission limits listed
in Table 38, below.
4. Proposed Reasonable Progress and Long-Term Strategy Determination
for Scrubber Retrofits
The cost-effectiveness of the scrubber retrofits for the Welsh and
Parish units are within a $/ton range that we have previously found to
be cost-effective in BART determinations. However, we do not believe
that their individual projected visibility improvements merit the
installation of scrubbers at this time. We encourage the State of Texas
to re-evaluate this determination as part of its next regional haze SIP
submittal.
Similar to the scrubber upgrades, we believe the scrubber retrofits
for the Big Brown units to be cost-effective and we find the projected
visibility benefits from them to be significant. We therefore propose
that the Big Brown units meet emission limits corresponding to this
evaluation. Our proposed SO2 emission limits for the Big
Brown units are shown in Table 38.
In comparison to the Big Brown units, the cost-effectiveness of the
scrubber retrofits for the Monticello, Coleto Creek, and Tolk units are
less, although still well within the range that we have found
acceptable for BART. Also, in comparison to the Big Brown units, the
visibility improvements projected to occur due to the installation of
the scrubber retrofits are less. For instance, as we discuss above in
Section VII.H, the visibility benefits of SDA scrubbers on the Tolk
units are projected to occur mainly at the Guadalupe Mountains. Those
visibility benefits are smaller than the visibility benefits at Wichita
Mountains from scrubber upgrades at W. A. Parish or Welsh, which we are
not proposing to control. However, when we evaluated other metrics,
such as extinction benefit or percent of extinction benefits, we
concluded that the overall visibility benefit for installing scrubbers
on the Tolk units was superior to either the W. A. Parish or the Welsh
units. Thus, we consider these visibility benefits to be significant.
Consequently, we propose that the Monticello, Coleto Creek, and Tolk
units meet SO2 emission limits corresponding to this
evaluation. Our proposed SO2 emission limits for these units
are shown in Table 38. In recognition of their lesser cost/benefit
ratio, we are specifically soliciting comments on the appropriateness
of one or more of these scrubber retrofits.
We propose that compliance be based on a 30 Boiler Operating Day
(BOD) period. As the BART Guidelines direct, ``[y]ou should consider a
boiler operating day to be any 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight
and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any
time at the steam generating unit.''\307\ To calculate a 30 day rolling
average based on boiler operating day, the average of the last 30
``boiler operating days'' is used. In other words, days are skipped
when the unit is down, as for maintenance. This, in effect, provides a
margin of safety by eliminating spikes that occur at the beginning and
end of outages. Although we are not conducting BART determinations, our
reasonable progress guidance notes the similarity between some of the
reasonable progress factors and the BART factors contained in Section
51.308(e)(1)((ii)(A), and suggests that the BART Guidelines be
consulted regarding cost, energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts, and remaining useful life. We are therefore relying on our
BART Guidelines for assistance in establishing the emission limit
averaging period as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\307\ 70 FR 39172 (July 6, 2005).
Table 38--Proposed 30 Boiler Operating Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed SO2
Unit emission limit
(lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades:
Sandow 4............................................ 0.20
Martin Lake 1....................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 2....................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 3....................................... 0.11
Monticello 3........................................ 0,06
Limestone 2......................................... 0.08
Limestone 1......................................... 0.08
San Miguel*......................................... 0.60
Scrubber Retrofits:
Big Brown 1......................................... 0.04
Big Brown 2......................................... 0.04
Monticello 1........................................ 0.04
Monticello 2........................................ 0.04
Coleto Creek 1...................................... 0.04
Tolk 172B........................................... 0.06
Tolk 171B........................................... 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
to install any additional control in order to comply with this
emission limit.
J. Treatment of Potential Error in Scrubber Upgrade Efficiency
Calculations
In our Cost TSD, we discuss how we calculated the SO2
removal efficiency of the units we analyzed for scrubber upgrades. We
note that due to a number
[[Page 74885]]
of factors we could not accurately quantify, our calculations of
scrubber efficiency may contain some error. Based on the results of our
scrubber upgrade cost analysis, we do not believe that any reasonable
error in calculating the true tons of SO2 removed affects
our proposed decision to require emission reductions, as all of the
scrubber upgrades we analyzed are cost-effective (low $/ton). In other
words, were we to make reasonable adjustments in the tons removed to
account for any potential error in our scrubber efficiency calculation,
we would still propose to upgrade these SO2 scrubbers. We
believe we have demonstrated that upgrading an underperforming
SO2 scrubber is one of the most cost-effective pollution
control upgrades a coal fired power plant can implement to improve the
visibility at Class I areas.
However, our proposed FIP does specify a SO2 emission
limit that is based on 95% removal in all cases. This is below the
upper end of what an upgraded wet SO2 scrubber can achieve,
which is 98-99%, as we have noted in our Cost TSD. We believe that a
95% control assumption provides an adequate margin of error for any of
the units for which we have proposed scrubber upgrades, such that they
should be able to comfortably attain the emission limits we have
proposed. However, for the operator of any unit that disagrees with us
on this point, we propose the following:
(1) The affected unit should comment why it believes it cannot
attain the SO2 emission limit we have proposed, based on a
scrubber upgrade that includes the kinds of improvements (e.g.,
elimination of bypass, wet stack conversion, installation of trays or
rings, upgraded spray headers, upgraded ID fans, using all recycle
pumps, etc.) typically included in a scrubber upgrade.
(2) After considering those comments, and responding to all
relevant comments in a final rulemaking action, should we still require
a scrubber upgrade in our final decision making action we will provide
the company the following option to seek a revised emission limit after
taking the following steps:
(a) Install a CEMS at the inlet to the scrubber.
(b) Pre-approval of a scrubber upgrade plan conducted by a third
party engineering firm that considers the kinds of improvements
(e.g., elimination of bypass, wet stack conversion, installation of
trays or rings, upgraded spray headers, upgraded ID fans, using all
recycle pumps, etc.) typically performed during a scrubber upgrade.
The goal of this plan will be to maximize the unit's overall
SO2 removal efficiency.
(c) Installation of the scrubber upgrades.
(d) Pre-approval of a performance testing plan, followed by the
performance testing itself.
(e) A pre-approved schedule for 2.a through 2.d.
(f) Should we determine that a revision of the SO2
emission limit is appropriate, we will have to propose a
modification to our decision making to do so. It should be noted
that any proposal to modify the SO2 emission limit will
be based largely on the performance testing and may result in a
proposed increase or decrease of that value.
K. Proposed Natural Conditions for the Texas Class I Areas
As discussed in Section V.B.1, we propose to disapprove Texas'
calculation of the natural visibility conditions for the Big Bend and
Guadalupe Class I areas under Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii). The TCEQ used
a refined approach to calculating the natural conditions for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend. This approach, among other things,
requires knowledge about the amount of coarse mass and soil that is
attributable to natural sources. The TCEQ has provided data that
supports the conclusion that a large portion of dust impacting
visibility at its Class I areas is likely due to natural sources. We
agree that dust storms and other blown dust from deserts are a
significant contributor to visibility impairment at the Texas Class I
areas that may not be captured accurately by our default method.
However, we do not believe, as the TCEQ asserts, that all coarse mass
and soil can be attributable to 100% natural sources.
Although we believe that some coarse mass and soil should be
attributable to natural sources, we do not have the information
necessary to determine how much should be attributable to natural
sources. We therefore acknowledge that like the TCEQ, we cannot
accurately reset the natural conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and
Big Bend by using the TCEQ's methodology, which depends on this
information. In lieu of this, we propose to rely on the adjusted
default estimates for the new IMPROVE equation from the Natural
Conditions II committee,\308\ which was the starting point for the
Texas natural visibility calculations, but solicit comment on the
acceptability of alternate estimates in the range between our default
estimates and the Texas estimates. We propose that the natural
conditions for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend be set as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\308\ Regional Haze Rule Natural Level Estimates Using the
Revised IMPROVE Aerosol Reconstructed Light Extinction Algorithm,
Copeland, S. A., et al, Final Paper # 48, available in our docket.;
NC II, or new IMPROVE natural visibility conditions are available
at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Docs/IMPROVE/Aerosol/NaturalConditions/NaturalConditionsII_Format2_v2.xls, for which we
have filtered the data for Texas Class I areas and which is also
available in our docket.
Table 39--Natural Conditions (NC II) for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big
Bend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best 20% Worst
Class 1 area days (dv) days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains........................... 0.99 6.65
Big Bend...................................... 1.62 7.16
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommend that the State of Texas re-evaluate the natural
conditions for its Class I areas in the next regional haze SIP.
L. Calculation of Visibility Impairment for the Texas Class I Areas
Using our proposed natural visibility conditions for the Guadalupe
Mountains and Big Bend, we propose to reset the amount of natural
visibility impairment for these Class I areas under Section
51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). We do this by modifying the table we present in
our TX TSD. We replace Texas' calculations of natural visibility for
its Class I areas, with the adjusted default values (NC II), discussed
above. We retain the baseline visibility values we proposed to approve,
then recalculate the amount the baseline values exceed the natural
visibility conditions. We propose that the natural visibility
impairment for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend be set as follows:
[[Page 74886]]
Table 40--Revised Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas in Texas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haze index (deciviews)
Class I area ---------------------------------
Most impaired Least impaired
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Natural Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend.............................. 7.16 1.62
Guadalupe Mountains................... 6.65 0.99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Visibility Conditions, 2000-2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend.............................. 17.30 5.78
Guadalupe Mountains................... 17.19 5.95
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimate of Extent Baseline Exceeds Natural Visibility Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend.............................. 10.14 4.16
Guadalupe Mountains................... 10.54 4.96
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Uniform Rates of Progress and the Emission Reductions Needed To
Achieve Them
Section 308(d)(1)(i)(B) requires that we analyze and determine the
rates of progress needed to attain natural visibility conditions by the
year 2064 and consider the uniform rate of improvement in visibility
and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve them. Below, we
present the URPs for the 20% worst days for the Guadalupe Mountains and
Big Bend, using the natural conditions we propose to establish above:
Table 41--URP for Big Bend
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual improvement
Baseline conditions needed to meet URP Visibility at 2018 Improvement needed by Natural conditions
(dv) (dv) (dv) 2018 (dv) at 2064 (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.30 0.17 14.93 2.37 7.16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 42--URP for the Guadalupe Mountains
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual improvement
Baseline conditions needed to meet URP Visibility at 2018 Improvement needed by Natural conditions
(dv) (dv) (dv) 2018 (dv) at 2064 (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.19 0.18 14.73 2.46 6.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see our FIP TSD for graphical representations of these URPs.
We propose to find that it is not reasonable to provide for rates of
progress at Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or Guadalupe Mountains that
would attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 (i.e., the URP). Our
demonstration that a slower rate of progress is reasonable is based on
the reasonable progress analyses performed by us and Texas that
considered the four statutory reasonable progress factors, as described
above.
N. Reasonable Progress Goals and Demonstration
We are quantifying proposed RPGs (in deciviews) for the 20-percent
worst days in 2018. The proposed RPGs for Oklahoma's Class I area, the
Wichita Mountains, and Texas' two Class I areas, Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains, account for the emission reductions from the
reasonable progress control measures identified above in our proposed
regional haze FIPs. The proposed RPGs reflect the results of our
reasonable progress analysis of point sources as described in detail in
our FIP TSD. These proposed RPGs are established based on an adjustment
of the 2018 RPGs established by Texas and Oklahoma that were based on
the 2018 CENRAP modeling. We note that we do not anticipate
implementation of the identified scrubber retrofits by the end of 2018.
Therefore, we are only adjusting the RPGs established by the states to
reflect the additional anticipated visibility benefit from the scrubber
upgrades over the 2018 projected visibility conditions. The tables
below show the new adjusted RPGs as well as the additional improvement
that is anticipated once all the scrubber retrofits have been
implemented sometime after 2018. These new RPGs provide for an
improvement in visibility on the worst days during this planning
period. Table 44 below estimates the RPG if all proposed controls were
implemented by 2018.
[[Page 74887]]
Table 43--Proposed Rpgs For 20% Worst Days Based On Predicted Benefit Of Scrubber Upgrades Beyond 2018 CENRAP Projected Visibility Conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted
additional Number of
2018 CENRAP benefit due Proposed RPG Natural years needed
Baseline (dv) Projection only to FIP (dv) visibility to reach
(dv) scrubber natural
upgrades (dv) visibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains....................................... 23.81 21.47 0.14 21.33 7.58 92
Big Bend................................................ 17.30 16.6 0.03 16.57 7.16 194
Guadalupe Mountains..................................... 17.19 16.3 0.04 16.26 6.65 159
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 44--Calculated RPGS for 20% Worst Days Based on Predicted Benefit of all Proposed Controls Beyond 2018 CENRAP Projected Visibility Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted Additional
additional benefit Number of
2018 CENRAP benefit due predicted Total RPG Assuming years needed
Baseline Projection only to FIP due to FIP benefit from all controls Natural to reach
(dv) (dv) scrubber scrubber proposed in place by visibility natural
upgrades retrofits controls 2018 visibility
(dv) (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains....................... 23.81 21.47 0.14 0.30 0.45 21.03 7.58 82
Big Bend................................ 17.3 16.6 0.03 0.09 0.12 16.48 7.16 173
Guadalupe Mountains..................... 17.19 16.3 0.04 0.12 0.15 16.14 6.65 141
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in more detail in the FIP TSD, current actual
emissions for many of the units that we propose to control are higher
than the projected CENRAP 2018 emission rate. Therefore, the actual
visibility impact due to emissions from these sources and the
anticipated benefit from controls are larger than the benefits
calculated above based on the 2018 CENRAP projected visibility
conditions. The table below summarizes the amount of visibility benefit
we anticipate will occur from the implementation of our proposed FIP
controls and the resulting emission reductions from the current actual
average annual emissions.
Table 45--Anticipated Visibility Benefit due to Emission Reductions From Actual Emission Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Predicted Benefit
benefit due to predicted due to Total benefit
FIP scrubber FIP scrubber from proposed
upgrades (dv) retrofits (dv) controls (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains......................................... 0.28 0.33 0.62
Big Bend.................................................. 0.07 0.10 0.17
Guadalupe Mountains....................................... 0.07 0.12 0.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find that it is not reasonable to provide for rates
of progress at the Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or the Guadalupe
Mountains that would attain natural visibility conditions by 2064
(i.e., the URP). Our demonstration that a slower rate of progress is
reasonable is based on the reasonable progress analyses performed by us
and the states that considered the four statutory reasonable progress
factors, as described above. Although progress is slower than the URP,
the proposed FIP would provide for RPGs that reflect an improved rate
of progress and a shorter time period to reach natural visibility
conditions at each of the Class I areas, compared with the RPGs
established by Texas and Oklahoma in their regional haze SIPs. We have
provided an estimate of the number of years needed to meet natural
visibility conditions at the rate of progress proposed by us as
reasonable. We have also estimated the RPG and the number of years to
meet natural visibility conditions if all proposed controls were in
place by 2018. We note that this does not take into account the
visibility benefit from scrubber retrofits included in this proposed
FIP that will be implemented after 2018.
VIII. Our Evaluation of the Texas Infrastructure SIP Submittals for
Interstate Transport and Visibility Protection
To determine whether the CAA Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement
for visibility protection is satisfied, the SIP must address the
potential for interference with visibility protection caused by the
pollutant (including precursors) to which the new or revised NAAQS
applies. Pollutants which could interfere with visibility protection
include: (1) SO2 (which is also a precursor for
PM2.5), (2) nitrogen oxides (which includes NO2
and are precursors for ozone and PM2.5) and (3) particulate
matter.\309\ An approved regional haze SIP that fully meets the
regional haze requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 satisfies the requirement
for visibility protection as it ensures that emissions from the state
will not interfere with measures required to be included in other state
SIPs to protect visibility. In the infrastructure SIP submittals for
the ozone, PM2.5, NO2 and SO2 NAAQS
Texas indicated that the Regional Haze SIP fulfilled its obligation for
addressing emissions that would interfere with measures required to be
included in the SIP for any other state to protect visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\309\ Section II.A.3 of Appendix Y to Part 51--Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule and 40 CFR
51.166(b)(i)(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we note above, we gave limited disapproval to the Texas Regional
Haze SIP based on its reliance on CAIR. As
[[Page 74888]]
explained in our limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP,
many states (including Texas) relied on the improvement in visibility
expected to result from the implementation of CAIR in developing their
long-term strategy.\310\ Texas relied on its own CAIR SIP as legal
justification for these planned controls and did not include separate
enforceable measures in its regional haze SIP to ensure these EGU
reductions. As CAIR has been replaced by CSAPR, and CSAPR is going into
effect in 2015, we propose to determine that Texas may not rely on its
regional haze SIP to ensure that emissions from Texas do not interfere
with the measures to protect visibility in nearby states. We propose to
disapprove Texas' SIP submittals for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006
PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS, with respect to interstate transport of air
pollution and visibility protection. CSAPR and our proposed FIP, which
relies on emission reductions from the implementation of CSAPR in lieu
of BART, addresses this deficiency in the Texas SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\310\ 77 FR 33643 (June 7, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An additional reason for our proposed disapproval of the submittals
for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5 and 2010
SO2 NAAQS is our proposed conclusion that additional control
of SO2 emissions in Texas is needed to prevent interference
with measures required to be included in the Oklahoma SIP to protect
visibility. Our proposed FIP addresses this deficiency in the Texas
SIP.
IX. Proposed Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect
Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal Courts of
Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final agency actions by
the EPA under the CAA. This section provides, in part, that petitions
for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit (i) when the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
\311\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\311\ 42 U.S.C. Section 7607(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find and publish that this rule is based on a
determination of nationwide scope and effect. The rule discusses our
interpretation of multiple provisions of the Regional Haze Rule and
explains how those provisions operate in the visibility-transport
context. Our interpretation of our regulations is applicable to all
states, not just Texas and Oklahoma. Consequently, our determination of
nationwide scope and effect is ``consistent with the legislative
history of the CAA, which evinces a clear congressional intent to
`centralize review of `national' SIP issues in the D.C. Circuit.' ''
\312\ This determination is also appropriate because in the 1977 CAA
Amendments that revised CAA Section 307(b)(1), Congress noted that the
Administrator's determination that an action is of ``nationwide scope
or effect'' would be appropriate for any action that has ``scope or
effect beyond a single judicial circuit.'' \313\ Here, the scope and
effect of this rulemaking extends to two judicial circuits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\312\ Texas v. EPA, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 5654 at *15 (5th Cir.
Feb. 14, 2011) (citing Admin. Conference of the U.S.,
Recommendations on Judicial Review Under the Clean Air Act, 41 FR
56767, 56769 (Dec. 30, 1976) (Comments of G. William Frick)).
\313\ H.R. Rep. No. 95-294 at 323-24, reprinted in 1977
U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we propose to determine that this is a rulemaking of
nationwide scope or effect such that any petitions for review must be
filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.
X. Proposed Action
A listing of our proposed actions is provided below.
A. Texas Regional Haze
We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove a revision
to the Texas SIP received from the State of Texas on March 31, 2009,
that intended to address regional haze for the first planning period
from 2008 through 2018. This revision was intended to address the
requirements of the CAA and our rules that require states to prevent
any future, and remedy any existing, manmade impairment of visibility
in mandatory Class I areas. We propose to approve a portion of this SIP
revision as meeting certain requirements of the regional haze program
and to disapprove portions addressing the requirements related to RP,
the long-term strategy and the calculation of natural visibility
conditions. We propose a FIP to implement SO2 emission
limits on fifteen Texas sources, and to establish the natural
visibility conditions at two Class I areas in Texas to address these
issues. Specifically, we propose to disapprove the portions of the
Texas regional haze SIP addressing the following regional haze rule
requirements:
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)
51.308(d)(1)(ii)
51.308(d)(2)(iii)
51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A)
51.308(d)(3)(i)
51.308(d)(3)(ii)
51.308(d)(3)(iii)
51.308(d)(3)(v)(C)
We propose a FIP to cure these defects in the Texas regional haze
SIP. We propose to approve all other sections of the Texas regional
haze SIP.
With regard to Texas' BART Rules, we propose a FIP to replace
Texas' reliance on CAIR in 30 TAC 116.1510(d) with reliance on CSAPR.
We propose to approve the remainder of the provisions in Texas' BART
rules.
Our proposed regional haze FIP relies on the already promulgated
CSAPR FIP for Texas at 40 CFR 52.2283-84 to satisfy the BART
requirement for SO2 and NOX emissions from EGUs.
Our proposed FIP requires that the following SO2
emission limits be met on a 30 BOD period.
Table 46--Proposed 30 Boiler Operating Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed SO2
Unit emission limit
(lbs/MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scrubber Upgrades:
Sandow 4.............................................. 0.20
Martin Lake 1......................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 2......................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 3......................................... 0.11
Monticello 3.......................................... 0.06
Limestone 2........................................... 0.08
Limestone 1........................................... 0.08
San Miguel *.......................................... 0.60
Scrubber Retrofits:
Big Brown 1........................................... 0.04
Big Brown 2........................................... 0.04
Monticello 1.......................................... 0.04
Monticello 2.......................................... 0.04
Coleto Creek 1........................................ 0.04
Tolk 172B............................................. 0.06
Tolk 171B............................................. 0.06
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As we note elsewhere, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will have
to install any additional control in order to comply with this
emission limit.
We propose that compliance with these limits be within five years
of the effective date of our final rule for Big Brown Units 1 and 2,
Monticello Units 1 and 2, Coleto Creek Unit 1, and Tolk Units 171B and
172B. Although this is not a BART action, this is the maximum amount of
time allowed under the regional haze Rule for BART compliance. We based
our cost analysis on the installation of wet FGD and SDA scrubbers for
these units, and in the past we have typically required that scrubber
retrofits under BART be operational within five years.
[[Page 74889]]
We propose that compliance with these limits be within three years
of the effective date of our final rule for Sandow 4; Martin Lake Units
1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 3; and Limestone Units 1 and 2. We believe
that three years is appropriate for these units, as we based our cost
analysis on upgrading the existing wet FGD scrubbers of these units,
which we believe to be less complex and time consuming that the
construction of a new scrubber. We solicit comments on alternative
timeframes, of from two years up to five years from the effective date
of our final rule.
We propose that compliance with these limits be within one year for
San Miguel. We believe that one year is appropriate for this unit
because we based our analysis on scrubber upgrades that San Miguel has
already performed, and because it has demonstrated its ability to meet
this emission limit. We are specifically soliciting comments on this
proposed emission limit and the potential need for a slightly higher
limit to provide sufficient operational headroom to demonstrate
compliance.
Our proposed FIP also resets the natural conditions and the URPs
for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend Class I areas, and establishes
new RPGs for the 20% worst days for these Class I areas.
We propose that this FIP will fully satisfy the FIP obligation
stemming from our proposed disapproval of portions of the Texas SIP.
B. Oklahoma Regional Haze
We are also proposing to partially disapprove a portion of a
revision to the Oklahoma SIP submitted by the State of Oklahoma on
February 19, 2010. Specifically, we propose to disapprove the portion
of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP that addresses the requirements of
Section 51.308(d)(1), except for Section 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
We propose a FIP to reset Oklahoma's RPGs based on our analysis
conducted in support of our proposed Texas FIP. We propose to find that
the same controls we have proposed above in our Texas FIP also serve to
cure the defects in these sections of Oklahoma's regional haze SIP as
well, thus satisfying the FIP obligation stemming from our proposed
disapproval of portions of the Oklahoma SIP.
C. Interstate Transport of Air Pollution and Visibility Protection
We propose to disapprove portions of Texas SIP submittals that
address CAA provisions for prohibiting air pollutant emissions from
interfering with measures required to protect visibility in any other
state for the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone,
2008 ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS (CAA
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and visibility protection). Specifically,
we propose to disapprove portions of the following SIP submittals made
by Texas for new or revised NAAQS:
April 4, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5
(24-hour and annual)
May 1, 2008: 1997 8-hour Ozone, 1997 PM2.5 (24-
hour and annual)
November 23, 2009: 2006 24-hour PM2.5
December 7, 2012: 2010 NO2
December 13, 2012: 2008 8-hour Ozone
May 6, 2013: 2010 1-hour SO2 (Primary NAAQS)
We propose to determine that our regional haze FIP will satisfy our
FIP obligation for interstate transport of air pollution and visibility
protection.
XI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 \314\ and is therefore not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563.\315\ The
proposed FIP applies to only eight facilities. It is therefore not a
rule of general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\314\ 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
\315\ 76 FR 3821 (January 21, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
Section 3501 et seq. Because it does not contain any information
collection activities, 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 conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In making this
determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse
economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net
burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small
entities subject to the rule. This rule does not impose any
requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP
action under Section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create
any new requirements on small entities but simply approves or
disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for the EPA to fashion for small
entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that
the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., emission
limitations) may or will flow from this action does not mean that the
EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for
this action. We have therefore concluded that, this action will have no
net regulatory burden for all directly regulated small entities.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 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
[[Page 74890]]
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 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.
EPA has determined that Title II of UMRA does not apply to this
proposed rule. In 2 U.S.C. Section 1502(1) all terms in Title II of
UMRA have the meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. Section 658, which further
provides that the terms ``regulation'' and ``rule'' have the meanings
set forth in 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. Section 601(2),
``the term `rule' does not include a rule of particular applicability
relating to . . . facilities.'' Because this proposed rule is a rule of
particular applicability relating to eight named facilities, EPA has
determined that it is not a ``rule'' for the purposes of Title II of
UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments
This proposed action does not have tribal implications, because the
SIP submittals the EPA is proposing to approve or disapprove would not
have a substantial direct effect on any Indian reservation land or in
any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this proposed
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 \316\, nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action. Consistent with the EPA policy the EPA
nonetheless is offering consultation to tribes regarding this
rulemaking action. The EPA will respond to relevant comments in the
final rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\316\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks \317\ applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk
that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on
children. EPA interprets EO 13045 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 Executive Order 13045
because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive
Order 12866, and because the EPA does not believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. 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 SO2 the rule will have a beneficial effect on
children's health by reducing air pollution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\317\ 62 FR 19885 (Apr. 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 \318\
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\318\ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 \319\ 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 rule, 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 federal
rule limits emissions of SO2 from eight facilities in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\319\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of pollution, Regional haze,
Best available control technology.
Dated: November 24, 2014.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 74891]]
0
2. Part 52 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (d) in Section
52.2284 and paragraphs (d) and (e) in Section 52.2304.
The additions read as follows:
Subpart SS--Texas
Sec. 52.2284 Interstate pollutant transport provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for decreases in emissions of sulfur dioxide?
* * * * *
(d) Requirements for Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello
Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow Unit 4; Big Brown
Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and San Miguel
affecting visibility.
(1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator, or successive owners or operators, of the coal
burning equipment designated as: Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3;
Monticello Units 1, 2, and 3, Limestone Units 1 and 2; Sandow Unit 4;
Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek Unit 1; Tolk Units 1 and 2; and
San Miguel.
(2) Compliance Dates. Compliance with the requirements of this
section is required within 3 years of the effective date of this rule
for Martin Lake Units 1, 2, and 3; Monticello Unit 3, Limestone Units 1
and 2; and Sandow Unit 4. Compliance with the requirements of this
section is required within 5 years of the effective date of this rule
for Big Brown Units 1 and 2; Monticello Units 1 and 2; Coleto Creek
Unit 1; and Tolk Units 1 and 2. Compliance with the requirements of
this section is required within one year for San Miguel. These
compliance dates apply unless otherwise indicated by compliance dates
contained in specific provisions.
(3) Definitions. All terms used in this part but not defined herein
shall have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and in parts 51
and 60 of this title. For the purposes of this section:
24-hour period means the period of time between 12:01 a.m. and 12
midnight.
Air pollution control equipment includes selective catalytic
control units, baghouses, particulate or gaseous scrubbers, and any
other apparatus utilized to control emissions of regulated air
contaminants which would be emitted to the atmosphere.
Boiler-operating-day means any 24-hour period between 12:00
midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted
at any time at the steam generating unit.
Daily average means the arithmetic average of the hourly values
measured in a 24-hour period.
Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a unit and
does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air,
recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources. Heat
input shall be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 75.
Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises any of the coal burning equipment designated in
paragraph (a).
Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region 6 or his/her authorized representative.
Unit means one of the coal fired boilers covered under paragraph
(a) of this section.
(4) Emissions Limitations. SO2 emission limit. The
individual sulfur dioxide emission limit for a unit shall be as listed
in the following table in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/
MMBtu) as averaged over a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day period.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 Emission
Unit limit (lbs/
MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandow 4................................................ 0.20
Martin Lake 1........................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 2........................................... 0.12
Martin Lake 3........................................... 0.11
Monticello 3............................................ 0.06
Limestone 2............................................. 0.08
Limestone 1............................................. 0.08
Big Brown 1............................................. 0.04
Big Brown 2............................................. 0.04
Monticello 1............................................ 0.04
Monticello 2............................................ 0.04
Coleto Creek 1.......................................... 0.04
Tolk 172B............................................... 0.06
Tolk 171B............................................... 0.06
San Miguel.............................................. 0.60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each unit, SO2 emissions for each calendar day shall
be determined by summing the hourly emissions measured in pounds of
SO2. For each unit, heat input for each boiler-operating-day
shall be determined by adding together all hourly heat inputs, in
millions of BTU. Each boiler-operating-day of the thirty-day rolling
average for a unit shall be determined by adding together the pounds of
SO2 from that day and the preceding 29 boiler-operating-days
and dividing the total pounds of SO2 by the sum of the heat
input during the same 30 boiler-operating-day period. The result shall
be the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average in terms of lb/MMBtu
emissions of SO2. If a valid SO2 pounds per hour
or heat input is not available for any hour for a unit, that heat input
and SO2 pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation
of the 30 boiler-operating-day rolling average for SO2.
(5) Testing and monitoring.
(i) No later than the compliance date of this regulation, the owner
or operator shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate Continuous
Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for SO2 on the units
listed in Section (1) in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f),
and (h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply
with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75.
Compliance with the emission limits for SO2 shall be
determined by using data from a CEMS.
(ii) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods
of operation of the coal burning equipment, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous
monitoring systems for measuring SO2 and diluent gas shall
complete a minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and
data recording) for each successive 15-minute period. Hourly averages
shall be computed using at least one data point in each fifteen minute
quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding this requirement, an hourly
average may be computed from at least two data points separated by a
minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit operates for more than one
quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable as a result of performance
of calibration, quality assurance, preventive maintenance activities,
or backups of data from data acquisition and handling system, and
recertification events. When valid SO2 pounds per hour, or
SO2 pounds per million Btu emission data are not obtained
because of continuous monitoring system breakdowns, repairs,
calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments, emission data must be
obtained by using other monitoring systems approved by the EPA to
provide emission data for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour period
and at least 22 out of 30 successive boiler operating days.
(6) Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements. Unless otherwise
stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications, and other
communications to the Regional Administrator required by this section
shall be submitted, unless instructed otherwise, to the Director,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, to the attention of Mail Code: 6PD, at
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. For each unit
subject to the emissions limitation in this section and upon completion
of the installation of CEMS as required in this section, the
[[Page 74892]]
owner or operator shall comply with the following requirements:
(i) For each emissions limit in this section, comply with the
notification, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements for CEMS
compliance monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d).
(ii) For each day, provide the total SO2 emitted that
day by each emission unit. For any hours on any unit where data for
hourly pounds or heat input is missing, identify the unit number and
monitoring device that did not produce valid data that caused the
missing hour.
(7) Equipment Operations. At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the unit including associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of
operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the unit.
(8) Enforcement.
(i) Notwithstanding any other provision in this implementation
plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as to whether the
unit would have been in compliance with applicable requirements if the
appropriate performance or compliance test had been performed, can be
used to establish whether or not the owner or operator has violated or
is in violation of any standard or applicable emission limit in the
plan.
(ii) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission
limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission limit.
* * * * *
Sec. 52.2304 Visibility protection.
* * * * *
(d) Portions of SIPs addressing noninterference with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state are disapproved for
the 1997 PM2.5, 2006 PM2.5, 1997 ozone, 2008
ozone, 2010 NO2 and 2010 SO2 NAAQS.
(e) Measures Addressing Disapproval Associated with NOX
and SO2.
(1) The deficiencies associated with NOX identified in
EPA's disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Texas on March
31, 2009, are satisfied by Section 52.2283
(2) The deficiencies associated with SO2 identified in
EPA's disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Texas on March
31, 2009, are satisfied by Section 52.2284.
[FR Doc. 2014-28930 Filed 12-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P