[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 2 (Tuesday, January 5, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 296-352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31904]
[[Page 295]]
Vol. 81
Tuesday,
No. 2
January 5, 2016
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 52
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and Oklahoma;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate Visibility
Transport State Implementation Plan To Address Pollution Affecting
Visibility and Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional
Haze; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 2 / Tuesday, January 5, 2016 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 296]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0754; FRL-9940-21-Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas and
Oklahoma; Regional Haze State Implementation Plans; Interstate
Visibility Transport State Implementation Plan to Address Pollution
Affecting Visibility and Regional Haze; Federal Implementation Plan for
Regional Haze
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
approving and partially disapproving a revision to the Texas State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on March 31, 2009, to address the
regional haze requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The EPA is
partially approving this SIP revision as meeting certain requirements
of the regional haze program, including the Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) requirements for facilities other than Electric
Generating Units (EGUs). The EPA is partially disapproving the Texas
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 promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP), which includes
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits for fifteen EGUs
located at eight coal-fired power plants, to address these
deficiencies.
In a previous rulemaking, the EPA had issued a limited disapproval
of the Texas regional haze SIP with regard to Texas' reliance on the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), without promulgating a FIP. The EPA
is not taking final action to address this deficiency at this time. The
EPA is also disapproving portions of several separate infrastructure
SIP revisions submitted by Texas for the purpose of addressing the
requirements of the CAA regarding interference with other states'
programs for visibility protection (interstate visibility transport)
triggered by the issuance of 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
SO2 NAAQS. The EPA is deferring action at this time on
promulgating a FIP to address these deficiencies.
Finally, the EPA is finalizing its proposed partial disapproval of
a revision to the Oklahoma SIP submitted on February 19, 2010, to
address the regional haze requirements of the CAA. Specifically, the
EPA is disapproving portions of the Oklahoma SIP related to reasonable
progress and the establishment of reasonable progress goals for the
Class I area located within the state. The EPA is promulgating a FIP to
address these deficiencies.
The EPA takes seriously its disapproval of SIPs, or portions
thereof, and stands ready to work with the States to develop SIPs that
would replace the Federal plans the EPA is promulgating today.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 4, 2016.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-EPA-R06-OAR-2014-0754. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute therefore is not posted to
regulations.gov. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in
hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kordzi at 214-665-7186; or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Also throughout this
document, when we refer to the Oklahoma Department of Environmental
Quality (ODEQ), or the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ), we mean Oklahoma and Texas, respectively.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Our Proposed Action
B. Summary of Our Final Decision
1. Texas
2. Oklahoma Reasonable Progress Goals
3. Federal Implementation Plan
II. Summary and Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters
A. General Comments
B. State and Federal Roles in the Regional Haze Program
C. Our Clarified Interpretation of the Reasonable Progress and
Long-Term Strategy Requirements
D. Consideration of Visibility in the Reasonable Progress
Analysis
E. Consultation Between Oklahoma and Texas
F. Source Category and Individual Source Modeling
G. Constitutional Law
H. Stay of Effective Date, Consolidated Appropriations Act, and
Executive Orders 13405 and 13211
I. Controls in Addition to CAIR/CSAPR, and CSAPR Better Than
BART
J. Installation of Controls Beyond the First Planning Period
K. Cost
L. Cost versus Visibility Benefit
M. Natural Conditions
N. Consistency With Our Other Regional Haze Actions
O. Modeling
P. Interstate Visibility Transport
Q. Disapproval of the Oklahoma and Texas Reasonable Progress
Goals
R. International Emissions
S. Grid Reliability
T. Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect
III. Final Action
A. Texas Regional Haze
B. Oklahoma Regional Haze
C. Interstate Visibility Transport
D. Federal Implementation Plan
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
VI. Judicial Review
I. Introduction
The purpose of Federal and state regional haze plans is to achieve
a national goal, declared by Congress, of restoring and protecting
visibility at 156 Federal Class I areas across the United States, most
of which are national parks and wilderness areas with scenic vistas
enjoyed by the American public. The national goal, as described in CAA
Section 169A, is ``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.'' States
are required to submit SIPs that ensure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of remedying anthropogenic visibility impairment in
Federal Class I areas, such as Big Bend National Park in Texas and the
Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in Oklahoma.
In today's action, we are partially approving and partially
disapproving portions of a SIP revision submitted by Texas to address
the requirements of the regional haze program. Texas' regional haze SIP
submittal included long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
towards improving visibility at all Class I areas impacted by emissions
from Texas sources and set reasonable progress goals for the two Class
I areas
[[Page 297]]
located within the state, the Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains
National Parks. Texas addressed a key element of the regional haze
program, the BART requirements, in part through reliance on CAIR.
Specifically, for its EGUs, Texas relied on CAIR, which was issued in
2005, to meet the BART requirements for emissions of SO2 and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX). For particulate matter (PM) from
its EGUs and for other categories of sources subject to the BART
requirements, Texas concluded that no other BART controls were
appropriate. Texas also considered whether additional measures beyond
BART would be appropriate to ensure reasonable progress at its Class I
areas and in Class I areas in nearby states, but concluded that no
additional measures were needed to ensure reasonable progress. In its
SIP submittal, Texas anticipated emissions reductions from CAIR,
Federal mobile source standards, and other anticipated air pollution
control requirements would adequately ensure reasonable progress toward
improving visibility by 2018, the end of the first planning period.
We took partial action in 2012 on Texas' regional haze SIP
submittal. In our 2012 action, we issued a limited disapproval of the
SIP revision because of Texas' reliance on CAIR to satisfy
SO2 and NOX BART and to meet the long-term
strategy requirements for its EGUs.\1\ As explained in that action, our
limited disapproval of Texas' regional haze SIP (and the SIPs of
thirteen other states addressed in the 2012 action) was the result of a
decision by the D.C. Circuit remanding CAIR to the EPA.\2\ We concluded
that because CAIR had been remanded and would remain in place only
temporarily, we could not fully approve regional haze SIP revisions
that relied on temporary reductions from CAIR. By issuing a limited
disapproval rather than a full disapproval, however, we allowed Texas
and these states to rely on CAIR for so long as CAIR was in place.\3\
We addressed the resulting deficiencies in the regional haze SIPs of a
number of the fourteen states through FIPs that relied on CAIR's
successor, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to achieve
improvements in visibility. However, we did not finalize a FIP for
Texas in that action.\4\ As a result, the deficiencies in Texas'
regional haze SIP associated with its reliance on CAIR have not been
addressed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012).
\2\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(modified by 550 F.3d 1176).
\3\ 77 FR at 33647.
\4\ 77 FR at 33654 (explaining that the EPA was not finalizing a
FIP for Texas in order to allow more time for the EPA to assess the
SIP submittal from Texas addressing regional haze and noting that
extra time was needed given ``the variety and number of BART
eligible sources and the complexity of the SIP'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also disapproving several 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. To address this requirement, 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. In its SIP submittals addressing these requirements, Texas
indicated 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.
Finally, we are taking action on an element of the Oklahoma
regional haze SIP submitted in February 2010. We previously issued a
partial approval, and partial disapproval of the Oklahoma SIP in 2011,
and promulgated a FIP to address the deficiencies that we had
identified in our partial disapproval.\5\ Our FIP required the
installation of scrubber retrofits at six units, located at three
facilities in Oklahoma in order to meet BART requirements.\6\ Due to
the special interrelationship of the visibility impairing transport of
pollution between Texas and Oklahoma, we delayed action on the
reasonable progress goals for the Wichita Mountains until we could
review and evaluate Texas' SIP submittal. In today's action, we address
the reasonable progress goals established by Oklahoma for this Class I
area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 76 FR 81728.
\6\ 76 FR 81728.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Our Proposed Action
When we reviewed the Oklahoma regional haze SIP, we noted that
sources in Texas had significant impacts on visibility in the Wichita
Mountains. Given the magnitude of these interstate impacts, we
determined that the Oklahoma and Texas regional haze SIPs were
interconnected, especially considering the relationship between upwind
and downwind states in the reasonable progress and long-term strategy
provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Although we were able to act on
the majority of Oklahoma's SIP at that time, we deferred action on
Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals for the Wichita Mountains until we
could first assess whether Texas had reasonably considered the
potential for controls on those of its sources that were impacting
visibility at the Wichita Mountains.\7\ Having now reviewed the Texas
regional haze SIP, it is clear that both Texas and Oklahoma
acknowledged in their SIP submittals that sources in Texas have a large
impact on visibility at the Wichita Mountains; indeed, the visibility
impacts at this Class I area from Texas point sources are several times
greater than the impacts from Oklahoma's own point sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 76 FR 16177 (``[W]e believe that to properly assess whether
Oklahoma has satisfied the reasonable progress requirements of
Section 51.308(d)(1), we must review and evaluate Texas' submittal.
We will do this in the course of processing the Texas [regional
haze] SIP.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the interstate consultation required by the Regional Haze
Rule, Oklahoma and Texas discussed the significant contribution of
sources in Texas to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains, but
Texas concluded that no additional controls were warranted for its
sources during the first planning period to ensure reasonable progress
at the Wichita Mountains, or at its own Class I areas, the Big Bend and
the Guadalupe Mountains National Parks. In reaching this conclusion,
Texas relied on an analysis that obscured the benefits of potentially
cost-effective controls on those sources or groups of sources with the
largest visibility impacts in these Class I areas by inclusion of those
controls with little visibility benefit, but which served to increase
the total cost figures. This flawed analysis deprived Oklahoma of the
information it needed to properly assess the reasonableness of controls
on Texas sources during the consultation process and prevented Texas
from properly assessing the reasonableness of controls to remedy
visibility at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. As a result,
Oklahoma established reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains that did not reflect any emission reductions from Texas
beyond those that will be achieved by compliance with other
requirements of the CAA. Texas established reasonable progress goals
for its own Class I areas based on a similar assessment.
Our proposed action on the Texas regional haze and interstate
visibility transport SIP submittals and the Oklahoma regional haze SIP
is discussed in detail in our notice of proposed rulemaking promulgated
on
[[Page 298]]
December 16, 2014.\8\ In brief, we proposed to partially approve
portions of the Texas regional haze SIP, including the determination by
Texas that none of its non-EGU BART-eligible sources are subject to
BART. We proposed to find, however, that Texas did not satisfy a number
of requirements related to establishment of its reasonable progress
goals and long-term strategy. We therefore proposed to disapprove
Texas' reasonable progress goals. We proposed to disapprove Texas'
calculation of natural visibility conditions and the uniform rates of
progress for its two Class I areas. We proposed to disapprove the
portions of SIP revisions separately submitted by Texas to meet the
interstate visibility transport requirements for the 1997
PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
2008 ozone NAAQS, the 2010 NO2 NAAQS, and the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. These submittals relied on the Texas regional
haze SIP which, in turn, relied on CAIR to achieve the necessary
emissions reductions. We proposed to find that as CAIR had been
replaced by CSAPR, and CSAPR was scheduled to go into effect in 2015,
Texas could 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. In addition, we proposed disapproval of these SIP
submittals based on 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 79 FR 74818.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we also proposed to disapprove Oklahoma's reasonable
progress goals for the Wichita Mountains because Oklahoma did not
satisfy several of the requirements related to setting those goals. In
assessing the measures necessary to achieve the uniform rate of
progress, Oklahoma demonstrated that eliminating all emissions from
Oklahoma sources would not be sufficient to meet the uniform rate of
progress in 2018. Oklahoma realized that the efforts to meet natural
visibility conditions would require emission reductions from other
states. The work done by the Central Regional Air Planning Association
(CENRAP) showed that SO2 point sources in Texas were a
significant contributor to haze at the Wichita Mountains. However,
Oklahoma did not pursue this information in its consultations with
Texas. As explained more fully in our proposed rule, we believe that
the lack of development of critical information regarding reasonable
reductions from Texas sources prevented Oklahoma from having adequate
information to establish its reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains. Oklahoma should have requested that Texas further
investigate its sources, or requested additional reductions from Texas
sources to ensure that all reasonable measures to improve visibility
were included in Texas' long-term strategy and incorporated into the
reasonable progress goals for the Wichita Mountains. We proposed to
find that due to these flawed consultations, Oklahoma did not consider
the emission reduction measures necessary to achieve the uniform rate
of progress for the Wichita Mountains and did not adequately
demonstrate that its reasonable progress goals were reasonable.
We proposed FIPs for Texas and Oklahoma to remedy these
deficiencies. Our proposed Texas FIP included SO2 emission
limits on fifteen EGUs located at eight Texas facilities in order to
make reasonable progress at the three Class I areas in Texas and
Oklahoma. We estimate that our FIP will reduce the emissions of
SO2 from Texas sources by approximately 230,000 tons per
year. We proposed that compliance with these emission limits be based
on 30-Boiler-Operating-Day (BOD) averages.\9\ The SO2
emission limits were based on seven scrubber retrofits, seven scrubber
upgrades, and the continued operation of an existing upgraded scrubber
at the San Miguel power plant. We proposed that compliance with these
limits be achieved within five years of the effective date of our final
rule for the control assessments based on scrubber retrofits, and
within three years of the effective date of our final rule for the
control assessments based on scrubber upgrades. We proposed that
compliance be achieved within one year for San Miguel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ We explained in our proposed rule that the BART Guidelines
describe 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.'' See 70 FR
39172 (July 6, 2005). To calculate a 30 day rolling average based on
the boiler-operating-day, the average of the last 30 ``boiler-
operating-days'' is used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed new reasonable progress goals for 2018 for Big Bend and
the Guadalupe Mountains in Texas and for the Wichita Mountains in
Oklahoma that take into account the additional emission reductions
required in our proposed FIP for Texas. We proposed new estimates of
natural conditions for the two Class I areas in Texas and proposed new
uniform rates of progress for these areas. We proposed to rely on CSAPR
to satisfy the SO2 and NOX BART requirements for
EGUs in Texas. Finally, we proposed to rely on CSAPR and the
SO2 emission limits in our proposed FIP to address the
deficiencies identified in Texas' infrastructure SIP revisions. Our
proposed FIP for Oklahoma did not include any additional requirements
on emission sources within Oklahoma.
Our electronic docket at www.regulations.gov contains Technical
Support Documents (TSDs) and other materials that supported our
proposal. Some information is protected as CBI and thus is not
available to the public or posted electronically. Due to several
requests from the public and due to the complex nature of our proposal,
we provided for an extended public comment period, which closed on
April 20, 2015.
B. Summary of Our Final Decision
Below we present a summary of the major points of our final
decision regarding the Texas regional haze SIP, the portions of Texas
SIP submittals addressing interstate visibility transport, and those
parts of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP that we have not previously
acted upon. We summarize which parts of the Texas and Oklahoma regional
haze SIPs and the interstate visibility transport portions of Texas'
SIP submittals we are disapproving, which parts are cured by our FIP,
and which parts we are deferring action upon.
1. Texas
In this action, we are partially approving and partially
disapproving portions of the SIP revision submitted by Texas to address
the requirements of the regional haze program. We are also disapproving
portions of several SIP revisions addressing the requirements of the
CAA that prohibit air pollutant emissions from interfering with
measures required to protect visibility in any other state, as
described below.
a. Reasonable Progress Goals
We are finalizing our disapproval of Texas' reasonable progress
goals for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. We have determined that
Texas has not demonstrated that its reasonable progress goals provide
for reasonable progress towards meeting the national visibility goal.
Specifically, we find that Texas did not satisfy several of the
requirements of the regional haze rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)
(hereinafter referred to as Sec. 51.308(d)) with regard to setting
reasonable progress goals, most notably the requirement to reasonably
consider
[[Page 299]]
the four statutory reasonable progress factors under Sec. 51.308
(d)(1)(i)(A) and the requirement to adequately justify reasonable
progress goals that are less stringent than the uniform rate of
progress under Sec. 51.308 (d)(1)(ii).
At the outset and as we discussed in detail in our proposal, we
find the set of potential controls identified by Texas and how it
analyzed and weighed the four reasonable progress factors under Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) was inappropriate.\10\ We are finalizing our
determination that Texas' analysis was deficient and not approvable
because the large control set it selected was not appropriately
refined, targeted, or focused on those sources having the most
significant and potentially cost-effective visibility benefits. We
conclude this control set included controls on sources that would
increase total cost figures, but would achieve very little visibility
benefit. As discussed in our proposal, because Texas only estimated the
visibility benefit of all the controls together, it was not able to
assess the potential benefit of controlling those sources with the
greatest visibility impacts, and potentially cost-effective controls.
Therefore, the effects of those controls with the greatest visibility
benefits were obscured by the inclusion of those controls with little
visibility benefit. This only served to increase the total cost figure,
making Texas' potential control set seem less attractive.\11\ We
therefore finalize our disapproval of the portions of the Texas
regional haze SIP addressing the requirements of Sec. 51.308
(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable progress four-factor
analysis.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 79 FR 74838.
\11\ 79 FR 74838. Additionally, the analysis of potential
controls in the Texas SIP did not include any consideration of the
reasonableness of control upgrades or increased utilization of
existing controls to reduce emissions at sources with large
visibility impacts at nearby Class I areas. These controls were
validated as especially cost-effective by the technical record for
this FIP. At costs ranging from $368/ton to $910/ton, over 100,000
tpy of SO2 emission reductions can be achieved from a
small number of scrubber upgrades, resulting in very cost-effective
visibility benefits at Texas Class I areas and Class I areas in
other states.
\12\ The ``four-factor analyses'' or the ``four factors'' refers
to the requirement in Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) that in establishing
a reasonable progress goal a state must 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also finalizing our disapproval of Texas' assessment of the
emission reduction measures needed to achieve the uniform rate of
progress for the period covered by the SIP, under Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(i)(B). Although Texas correctly followed the procedures
for analyzing and determining the rate of progress needed to attain
natural visibility conditions by the year 2064, we find that Texas
calculated this rate of progress on the basis of, and compared baseline
visibility conditions to, a flawed estimation of natural visibility
conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.\13\ As discussed
in the section below, we are finalizing our disapproval of Texas'
calculation of natural visibility conditions for Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains in this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 79 FR 74833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also find that Texas failed to adequately justify reasonable
progress goals that are less stringent than the uniform rate of
progress under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(ii).\14\ Although we agree with Texas
that a rate of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility
conditions by 2064 is not reasonable, we do not find that the rate of
improvement that Texas has selected is reasonable, because we have
determined that Texas' four-factor analysis and the analysis of
emission measures needed to meet the uniform rate of progress does not
meet the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. We therefore finalize
our disapproval of the reasonable progress goals for Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(ii). In so doing, we rely
on the specific directive in Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(iii) 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 paragraphs (d)(1)(i) and (ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 79 FR 74843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the requirement under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(iv) to
consult with other states which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to visibility impairment at its Class I areas, we find
that Texas appropriately identified those states with the largest
impacts on Texas Class I areas and invited them for consultation. Based
on our review of the CENRAP's source apportionment modeling and given
the small modeled 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
Texas to have focused the analysis of additional controls on sources
within Texas. We agree with Texas' determination that it was not
reasonable to request additional controls from other states at this
time. Therefore, we are finalizing our determination that Texas has
satisfied the requirement under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
Under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Texas may not adopt a reasonable
progress goal that represents less visibility improvement than is
expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA
during the applicable planning period. As discussed in our proposal, we
find that Texas' reasonable progress goals for 2018, based on the
CENRAP model projections, represent at least as much visibility
improvement as was expected to result from implementation of other
requirements of the CAA (i.e., requirements other than regional haze)
during the applicable planning period.\15\ In this action we are
finalizing our approval of the portion of the Texas regional haze SIP
addressing the requirement under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 79 FR 74833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Calculations of Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
As required by Sec. 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule,
Texas calculated baseline/current conditions for its two Class I areas,
Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, on the most impaired and least
impaired days. Texas calculated baseline visibility conditions for Big
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains using available monitoring data over
the 2000-2004 period and the new IMPROVE equation, as discussed in our
proposal.\16\ We are finalizing our approval that Texas has satisfied
the baseline visibility requirements of Sec. 51.308(d)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 79 FR 74832.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Sec. 51.308(d)(2)(iii), Texas must determine natural
visibility conditions for the most impaired and least impaired days for
the Class I areas in the state. Our guidance \17\ provides default
natural conditions for the 20% worst and 20% best days for each Class I
area based on the original IMPROVE equation. As documented in our
guidance, states are allowed 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.\18\ The default natural
[[Page 300]]
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.\19\ These estimates
are referred to as the ``NC II'' default natural visibility conditions.
Texas chose to derive a ``refined'' estimate of natural visibility
conditions rather than using the default NC II values. Texas started
with this refined version of default natural visibility conditions, but
further altered some of its parameters concerning the contributions of
coarse mass and fine soil by assuming 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 NC II
values should be replaced. We are finalizing our determination that
Texas has not adequately demonstrated that all coarse mass and fine
soil measured in the baseline period can be attributed to 100% natural
sources and we are therefore disapproving Texas' calculated natural
visibility conditions under Sec. 51.308(d)(2)(iii). We are also
finalizing our disapproval of the portion of the Texas SIP that
addresses the requirement to calculate the number of deciviews by which
baseline conditions exceed natural conditions for the best and worst
visibility days at the Texas Class I areas, under Sec.
51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). Because the calculation relies on the
determination of natural visibility conditions, which we are
disapproving, we must also disapprove Texas' calculation of the level
of visibility impairment above natural conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under
the Regional Haze Rule, EPA-454/B-03-005, September 2003.
\18\ States are ``free to develop alternative approaches that
will provide natural visibility conditions estimates that are
technically and scientifically supportable. Any refined approach
should be based on accurate, complete, and unbiased information and
should be developed using a high degree of scientific rigor.''
Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the
Regional Haze Rule, EPA- 454/B-03-005, September 2003, p 1-11
\19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Long-Term Strategy
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, it must consult
with that state in order to develop coordinated emission management
strategies. Texas also 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 (we have discussed
this consultation requirement above). Texas and Oklahoma agreed that
visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains due to emissions from
sources in Texas is significant 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. Oklahoma and Texas discussed the significant
contribution of sources in Texas to visibility impairment at the
Wichita Mountains during the interstate consultation process required
by the Regional Haze Rule. The results of the CENRAP analysis
demonstrated that Texas point sources, and in particular EGUs in
northeast Texas, have large visibility impacts at the Wichita Mountains
and that cost-effective controls were potentially available for some of
these sources. Ultimately, Texas unreasonably determined that no
additional controls were warranted for its sources during the first
planning period to help achieve reasonable progress at the Wichita
Mountains. In analyzing whether additional controls should be required
for some of its sources under the long-term strategy provisions of the
Regional Haze Rule, Texas relied on the same flawed analysis discussed
above that it relied on to evaluate additional controls under the
reasonable progress provisions to address visibility impairment at
Texas' own Class I areas. Texas' analytical approach obscured the
contributions of individual sources that Texas' own analysis indicated
could be cost-effectively controlled. This deprived Oklahoma of the
information it needed to properly assess whether there were reasonable
controls for Texas sources and to properly establish reasonable
progress goals for the Wichita Mountains that included the resulting
emission reductions. We are therefore finalizing our disapproval of the
portion of the Texas regional haze SIP addressing the requirement in
Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(i) to ``consult with the other State(s) in order to
develop coordinated emission management strategies.''
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 discussed in our proposal, we find that the technical
analysis developed by CENRAP and supplemented by Texas did not provide
the information needed to evaluate the reasonableness of controls on
those sources with the greatest potential to impact visibility at the
Wichita Mountains.\20\ 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. We are finalizing
our determination that Texas did not develop an adequate technical
basis to inform consultations with Oklahoma in order to develop
coordinated management strategies 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. For these
reasons we are finalizing our determination that Texas did not
adequately meet the requirement in Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 79 FR 74857.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. We proposed to find that Texas' 2002
and 2018 emission inventories are acceptable and that it satisfies
Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(iv) and today, we take final action to approve that
finding. However, under Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(iii), Texas must 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. Texas addressed
this requirement 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 CENRAP in order to
evaluate additional controls under the reasonable progress and long-
term strategy provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. As discussed in our
proposal, we find that this additional analysis was inadequate because
the large control set Texas selected was not appropriately refined,
targeted, or focused on those sources having significant and
potentially cost-effective visibility benefits and did not provide the
information necessary to determine the reasonableness of controls at
those
[[Page 301]]
sources in Texas that have the greatest visibility impacts at the
Wichita Mountains.\21\ Therefore, we are finalizing our disapproval of
the portion of the Texas regional haze SIP that addresses the
requirement in Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(iii) to document the technical basis
on which the state is relying to determine its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations necessary for achieving reasonable
progress at the Wichita Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 79 FR 74833.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In developing its long-term strategy, the state must consider a
number of factors identified in Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(v)(A)-(G). In this
action, for the reasons discussed in our proposal,\22\ we are approving
several portions of the Texas regional haze SIP as adequately
addressing the following provisions of Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(v): (A)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs,
including measures to address RAVI (Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment); (B) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities; (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. However, we are disapproving the portion of
the Texas regional haze SIP addressing paragraph (C) of Sec.
51.308(d)(3)(v), the requirement to consider emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goals. As
discussed in depth elsewhere in this document and in our separate
Response to Comment (RTC) document, we have determined that Texas'
analysis is inadequate because 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
in Oklahoma, or the Texas Class I areas. Therefore, we find that Texas
did not properly consider the emissions limitations and schedules for
compliance necessary to achieve reasonable progress at its Class I
areas or the Wichita Mountains Class I area in Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 79 FR 74862.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Monitoring Strategy and Other Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) requires that the Texas regional haze 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
40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. 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 have
determined that Texas has satisfied this requirement.\23\ Section
51.308(d)(4)(i) requires the establishment of any additional monitoring
sites or equipment needed to assess whether reasonable progress goals
to address regional haze for all mandatory Class I areas within the
state are being achieved. We approve of Texas' determination under this
section that the IMPROVE network monitors that are already in place are
adequate to assess Texas' reasonable progress goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 79 FR 74863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that Texas 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. 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. Section
51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that Texas provide for other elements,
including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures, necessary to
assess and report on visibility. We are finalizing our determination
that Texas has met these requirements through participation in the
IMPROVE program.
Section 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that Texas 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, and
estimates of future projected emissions. Texas must also include a
commitment to update the inventory periodically. As discussed in the
proposal, Texas has provided in the SIP a baseline emission inventory,
estimates of future emissions, and emissions for the most recent year
for which data was available at the time the SIP was developed.\24\ We
approve the portion of the Texas regional haze SIP that addresses this
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 79 FR 74863.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also approve Texas' coordination with the Federal Land Managers
(FLMs) under 40 CFR 51.308(i). As detailed in our proposal, Texas has
satisfied these requirements through communications with the FLMs,
providing for review of the draft Texas regional haze SIP by the FLMs,
and describing how all FLM comments were addressed in the SIP. Texas
also provided procedures for continuing consultations.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 79 FR 74864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. Best Available Retrofit Technology
We approve Texas' BART determinations for non-EGUs under 40 CFR
51.308(e). We are approving Texas' determination of which non-EGU
sources in the state are BART-eligible and the determination that none
of the state's BART-eligible non-EGU sources are subject to BART
because they are not reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I areas. We reviewed the various
modeling techniques utilized by the TCEQ in evaluating and screening
out the BART-eligible non-EGU sources and we concur with the results of
analysis.\26\ We are approving 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 contains regulatory language addressing EGUs'
reliance on CAIR to meet the BART requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 79 FR 74844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, we are not finalizing our proposed actions with regard to
the state's BART-eligible EGU sources. As described above, we issued a
limited disapproval of the Texas regional haze SIP in 2012 because of
Texas' reliance on CAIR to meet certain requirements of the regional
haze program. To address the deficiencies in Texas' plan arising from
its reliance on CAIR to meet the SO2 and NOX BART
requirements for its EGUs, we proposed to substitute reliance on CSAPR.
We previously determined that CSAPR would provide for greater
reasonable progress than BART and established regulations that
[[Page 302]]
allow certain states to rely on CSAPR to meet the SO2 and
NOX BART requirements for EGUs.\27\ CSAPR has been subject
to extensive litigation, however, and on July 28, 2015, the D.C.
Circuit Court issued a decision upholding CSAPR but remanding without
vacating the CSAPR emissions budgets for a number of states.\28\
Specifically, the court invalidated a number of the Phase 2 ozone-
season NOX budgets and found that the SO2 budgets
for four states resulted in over-control for purposes of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)(i). Texas' ozone-season NOX budget and
SO2 budget are both involved with this remand, and we are
currently in the process of determining the appropriate response to the
remand. Given the uncertainty arising from the remand of Texas' CSAPR
budgets, we have concluded that it would not be appropriate to finalize
our proposed determination to rely on CSAPR as an alternative to
SO2 and NOX BART for EGUs in Texas at this time.
We note that some of the sources for which we are finalizing
SO2 controls in this action are also potentially subject to
the BART requirements. Should we determine in the future that it is
necessary to perform source-specific BART determinations for these
sources instead of relying on CSAPR, we anticipate that the
SO2 controls we are finalizing today, which are currently
the most stringent available, will also be sufficient to satisfy the
SO2 BART requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 77 FR 33642.
\28\ EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 79 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we note that we proposed to approve Texas'
determination that for its EGUs no PM BART controls were appropriate,
based on a screening analysis of the visibility impacts from just PM
emissions and the premise in our proposal that EGU SO2 and
NOX were covered separately by participation in CSAPR
allowing consideration of PM emissions in isolation. Because of the
CASPR remand and resulting uncertainty regarding SO2 and
NOX BART for EGUs, we have also decided not to finalize our
proposed approval of Texas' PM BART determination. We will address PM
BART for EGUs in Texas in a future rulemaking as well.
f. Interstate Visibility Transport
The EPA is also disapproving portions of several separate
infrastructure SIP revisions submitted by Texas for the purpose of
addressing the requirements of the CAA regarding interference with
other states' programs for visibility protection (interstate visibility
transport). Section 110(a) of the CAA directs states to submit a SIP
that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
each NAAQS, which is commonly referred to as an infrastructure SIP.
Among other things, CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that SIPs contain
adequate provisions to prohibit interference with measures required to
protect visibility in other states. We have concluded that to meet the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II): (1) Texas may not rely
on its regional haze SIP, which relied heavily upon CAIR, to ensure
that emissions from Texas do not interfere with measures to protect
visibility in nearby states and (2) 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. Because the Texas regional haze SIP does not ensure that
Texas emissions would not interfere with measures required to be
included in the SIP for any other state to protect visibility, as
required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act, we are taking final
action to disapprove portions of the 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. Specifically, we
are disapproving 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
We proposed to rely on CSAPR and the emission reductions required
by our FIP for Texas to address these deficiencies in Texas' SIP
submittals, but we have determined that it is not appropriate to
finalize this determination at this time. Again, given the uncertainty
following the D.C. Circuit Court's partial remand of the CSAPR budgets,
we do not consider it appropriate to rely on CSAPR at this time to
address the deficiencies on the Texas SIP, included those associated
with interstate visibility transport obligation with respect to
visibility. Therefore, this action does not finalize the portion of our
proposed FIP addressing Texas' visibility transport obligations, as
that portion of the FIP would have partially relied on CSAPR. We will
address the visibility transport requirements for Texas in a future
rulemaking, once the issues surrounding the partial remand are
resolved.
2. Oklahoma Reasonable Progress Goals
We are taking final action to disapprove the reasonable progress
goals established by Oklahoma, and we are approving one portion and
disapproving the other portions of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP that
address the requirements of Sec. 51.308(d)(1). We find that Oklahoma's
flawed consultation with Texas denied it the knowledge it needed--the
extent to which cost-effective controls were available for those
sources or groups of sources in Texas with the greatest potential to
impact visibility at the Wichita Mountains--in order to properly
construct its reasonable progress goal for the Wichita Mountains.
Oklahoma and Texas discussed the significant contribution of sources in
Texas to visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains during the
interstate consultation process required by the Regional Haze Rule. The
results of the CENRAP analysis demonstrated that Texas point sources,
and in particular EGUs in northeast Texas, have significant visibility
impacts on the Wichita Mountains and that cost-effective controls were
potentially available for some of these sources. However, Oklahoma did
not pursue the point in its consultations with Texas under Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(iv). Oklahoma did not have adequate information to
establish its reasonable progress goal 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 visibility were included in Texas'
long term strategy and incorporated into Oklahoma's reasonable progress
goals for the Wichita Mountains. Furthermore, because of the flawed
consultations with Texas, Oklahoma did not consider the emission
reduction measures necessary to achieve the uniform rate of progress
for the Wichita Mountains and did not adequately demonstrate that the
reasonable progress goals it established were reasonable based on the
four statutory factors under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(ii).\29\ We therefore
take final action to disapprove the reasonable progress goals as
established by Oklahoma, and the portion of the Oklahoma regional haze
SIP that addresses the requirements of
[[Page 303]]
Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(i) through (v) with respect to Oklahoma's
establishment of its reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 79 FR 74871, 74872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(vi), Oklahoma may not adopt a reasonable
progress goal that represents less visibility improvement than is
expected to result from implementation of other requirements of the CAA
during the applicable planning period. As discussed in our proposal, we
find that Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals for 2018, based on the
CENRAP model projections, represent at least as much visibility
improvement as was expected to result from implementation of other
requirements of the CAA (i.e., requirements other than regional haze)
during the applicable planning period.\30\ In this action we are
approving the portion of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP that addresses
the requirement under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 79 FR 74870.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Federal Implementation Plan
As explained above, we have identified a number of deficiencies in
the SIP revisions submitted by Texas and Oklahoma to address the CAA's
regional haze requirements and are finalizing partial disapproval of
those plans. Accordingly, in this action we are also finalizing a FIP
to address the deficiencies identified by our partial Texas SIP
disapproval, except for those identified in our prior disapproval of
the provisions in the Texas SIP addressing the EGU BART requirements.
In this rulemaking, we are also disapproving those portions of the
Texas SIP addressing the interstate visibility transport provisions of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and are also not finalizing a FIP to
address these deficiencies.
a. Four-Factor Analysis
During our review of the reasonable progress and long-term strategy
provisions of the Texas regional haze SIP, we realized that a more in-
depth analysis of Texas sources was needed to determine whether
additional measures should be required to ensure reasonable progress.
Although our technical approach is more fully described in our proposal
\31\ and in our TSDs,\32\ it can be summarized as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 79 FR 74873.
\32\ See Cost TSD and FIP TSD for detailed discussion of our
technical approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We used an analysis known as Q/d (i.e., annual emissions
divided by the distance between the source and Class I area) as an
initial screening test on over 1,600 facilities in Texas to determine
which of these sources have the greatest potential to impact visibility
at Class I areas. We identified 38 facilities (many facilities had
multiple units) that were potentially the largest contributors to
visibility impairment at downwind Class I areas.
We realized that, due to the particular challenges
presented by the geographic distribution and number of sources in Texas
and the ability of a full photochemical model to assess visibility
impacts on the 20% worst days, CAMx photochemical modeling \33\ was
better technically suited to our needs than the more widely used
CALPUFF model.\34\ We therefore contracted to have CAMx source
apportionment modeling performed to determine which, if any, of these
facilities had significant impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ CAMx is a photochemical grid model (Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions). 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.
\34\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer at http://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAMx modeling revealed that a relative handful of the
point sources in Texas (less than 1%) were responsible for a large
percentage of the visibility impairment at impacted Class I areas.
Based on our consideration of these modeled visibility
impacts, we determined that nine facilities (with 21 units) merited
further modeling to assess what the visibility benefits might be from
requiring emission reductions at these units. We modeled high and low
emissions scenarios that spanned the available control scenarios for
each unit.
After identifying the sources with the largest visibility impacts
at the three Class I areas of interest, and modeling the estimated
visibility benefits corresponding to a robust range of potential
controls, we considered whether controls on these sources would be
necessary to ensure reasonable progress. As required by the CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule, we took into account the following factors: \35\
(1) Time necessary for compliance, (2) energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, (3) remaining useful life, and (4)
the costs of compliance. This analysis is commonly referred to as a
``four factor analysis.'' Our Reasonable Progress Guidance \36\ notes
the similarity between some of the reasonable progress factors and the
BART factors and suggests that the BART Guidelines be consulted
regarding the consideration of costs, energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts, and remaining useful life. We therefore relied
upon our BART Guidelines for assistance in assessing the reasonable
progress factors, as applicable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ CAA Section 169A(g), Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
\36\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Air Quality Policy Division,
Geographic Strategies Group, Research Triangle Park, NC. See section
5.0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We noted that, with one exception,\37\ the issues relating to three
of these factors--compliance time, energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts, and remaining useful life--were common to all of
the units we analyzed. Specifically, with the exception of the two
units at the Tolk facility, these three factors did not present any
issues that would impact the selection of the controls we analyzed. As
a result, we proceeded to analyze the remaining factor, the costs of
compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Our initial analysis of the Tolk facility indicated a
potential shortage of water, meriting a special consideration of the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A number of the sources with the largest visibility impacts had
units with no current SO2 controls. For each of these units,
we analyzed Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) at both a 50% control level and
at either a 80% or 90% control level (depending on the type of
particulate controls employed at the unit), thus bracketing our
analyses between moderate and maximum levels of control. We also
analyzed Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD or ``scrubbers'') at these
units. For both Spray Dryer Absorption (SDA--a type of dry scrubber),
and wet FGD scrubbers, we analyzed control levels slightly below the
maximum level of control these technologies have been demonstrated as
capable of achieving at other EGUs.\38\ We then adapted our Integrated
Planning Model (IPM) \39\ cost algorithms that had been developed for
DSI, SDA, and wet FGD and performed our cost analyses for potential
controls on these units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ We analyzed SDA at 95% control with a floor of 0.06 lbs/
MMBtu, and wet FGD at 98% control with a floor of 0.04 lbs/MMBtu.
\39\ Documentation regarding our IPM Model can be found here:
http://www2.epa.gov/airmarkets/power-sector-modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 304]]
Some of the units we analyzed were already fitted with
underperforming \40\ wet FGDs. For each of these units, we conducted
control cost analyses for upgrading those scrubbers, using site-
specific information obtained from the facilities under the authority
provided by CAA section 114. Because the information we obtained was
claimed as CBI, and our subsequent analyses that relied on it are also
protected, we cannot share them with the public. However, our analyses
were available for review by the affected facilities. Similarly, our
responses to comments that incorporate information subject to CBI
claims are in a separate document available to the CBI claimants that
is part of the administrative record of this action but is not
available for public review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ By ``underperforming,'' we mean scrubber systems that are
meeting their permit limits, but are capable of achieving greater
levels of control through increased utilization and optimization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also considered projected visibility benefits in our analysis.
As we previously stated in proposing to take action on an Arizona
regional haze SIP: \41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See 79 FR 9353 n.137. We also used the same reasoning in
our final action on the Arizona regional haze SIP. See 79 FR 52420.
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.
Having identified the sources that have the greatest visibility
impacts on the three Class I areas of interest, the visibility benefits
that could be obtained by controlling those sources, and the costs of
potential controls, we developed a strategy to determine which sources,
if any, should be controlled under the reasonable progress and long-
term strategy provisions of the CAA and Regional Haze Rule. To make
this determination, we took into account the cost-effectiveness ($/ton
of emissions removed) of the potential controls along with their
projected visibility benefits. The ample precedent of other SIPs and
FIPs has established a range of cost-effectiveness values within which
controls have generally been required to meet provisions of the
Regional Haze Rule. All of the new DSI, SDA, and wet FGD controls and
upgraded scrubber controls we costed easily fell within this range. In
fact, the highest cost-effectiveness value for the controls we analyzed
was $3,221/ton for the Tolk Unit 172B SDA, a value that is less than
the cost threshold adopted by Texas, after adjusting for the escalation
of costs over time.\42\ For sources other than Tolk, all of the
controls we are requiring are more cost-effective than Texas' $2,700/
ton threshold, even without an adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Texas used a $2,700/ton cost-effectiveness threshold,
without regard to visibility benefit. While we found flaws in the
way Texas established and used this threshold, it is illustrative of
the cost-effectiveness of the controls required in this rulemaking.
Conservatively escalating the $2,700/ton value from when it was
first developed for the CAIR rule, which was finalized on March 10,
2005, to the time of our analysis, which was conducted in 2014,
results in a value of $3,322/ton (i.e., the Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index for 2005 = 468.2, and that for 2014 = 576.1; $2,700
x 576.1/468.2 = $3,322).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained above, due to the challenges presented by the
geographic distribution and number of sources in Texas and the ability
of a full photochemical model to assess visibility impacts on the 20%
worst days, we determined that the CAMx photochemical model was best
suited to our needs. While CALPUFF modeling was often used for
assessing visibility benefits in other regional haze SIP actions, the
large transport distances in Texas and our concerns about the technical
capabilities of CALPUFF made the use of CALPUFF impractical.\43\ As we
have discussed in our FIP TSD and our separate RTC document, the
results of our CAMx modeling cannot be directly compared to the results
of CALPUFF modeling, which was used in the vast majority of other BART
determinations and some reasonable progress determinations, because of
differences between the models, model inputs, and metrics used.\44\
Many of these differences result in CAMx modeled visibility impacts and
benefits that are much lower than the CALPUFF modeled visibility
impacts and benefits relied on in other actions. For a more thorough
explanation of this complex issue, please refer to our FIP TSD and
discussion in the RTC document. As a result, we were unable to rely on
prior visibility analyses based on the use of CALPUFF in other actions
as precedent for assessing the results of our CAMx visibility analysis
in this action.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ The TCEQ conducted BART screening modeling with CAMx for
the majority of the BART-eligible sources in Texas. The TCEQ
requested to use CAMx instead of CALPUFF because of the advantages
of CAMx to evaluate many sources individually in one or two modeling
runs and the technical advantages of CAMx over CALPUFF when large
distances are involved. As discussed in a response to comment in the
modeling section of this document, we approved the TCEQ's approach
of using CAMx for BART screening in 2007.
\44\ See the Modeling section of the RTC document and our FIP
TSD, beginning on page A-35, in which we explain why key differences
in CALPUFF for BART and CAMx modeling for RP preclude the comparison
of their respective results. Some of the major differences are: (1)
CALPUFF uses maximum 24-hour emission rates, while CAMx uses annual
average emission rates; (2) CALPUFF focuses on the day with the 98th
percentile highest visibility impact from the source being
evaluated, whereas CAMx focuses on the average visibility impacts
across the 20% worst days regardless of whether the impacts from a
specific facility are large or small; and (3) CAMx models all
sources of emissions in the modeling domain, which includes all of
the continental U.S., whereas CALPUFF only models the impact of
emissions from one facility without explicit chemical interaction
with other sources' emissions.
\45\ Many commenters alleging inconsistency with our previous
actions failed to appreciate this point and attempt to compare
directly CALPUFF results to CAMx modeled results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To evaluate the projected visibility benefits of controls in our
cost evaluation, we considered a number of metrics, such as change in
deciviews under 2018 projected levels of air pollution at the three
Class I areas and under estimated natural visibility conditions, change
in light extinction, and change in the percentage of total light
extinction.\46\ We also considered the visibility benefit of emission
reductions from recent actual emission levels versus CENRAP 2018
projected emission levels at these sources. As we discuss further in
our FIP TSD and in responses in our RTC document, to provide context
regarding the significance of individual source impacts, we compared
the individual source impacts with CENRAP source apportionment modeling
results for impacts from all emission sources within a state and
impacts from all emission sources within a state within a specific
source type. We also compared these individual source impacts to the
impact levels used by the states for triggering consultation with
another state about its overall impacts, and the estimated range of
anticipated visibility benefits resulting from required controls in
other actions.\47\ Ultimately, after considering all four factors, we
identified a set of reasonable controls for the first planning period
for those sources with the largest visibility impacts that would
provide for meaningful visibility improvements towards the goal of
natural visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ For a full discussion on our review of all the modeling
results, and factors that we considered in evaluating and weighing
all the results, precedents, and other policy concerns please see
Appendix A of our FIP TSD.
\47\ See our FIP TSD at A-75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After extending our public comment period from the original date of
February 17, 2015, to an extended date of April 20, 2015, we considered
and responded to thousands of comments both for and against our
proposal, the
[[Page 305]]
most significant of which we summarize in section II below. While these
comments resulted in some adjustments to our cost-effectiveness
estimates for our proposed scrubber upgrades, ultimately these changes
were not so significant as to change our proposed control decision.
After careful consideration of all of the comments and the information
provided, we find that the units and the control levels should be
finalized as proposed.
b. Final SO2 Emission Limits
As discussed further in our FIP TSD,\48\ our emission limits are
based on the installation of scrubber retrofits, scrubber upgrades, and
in the case of San Miguel, the continued operation of its already
performed scrubber upgrade. Consistent with our proposal, the final FIP
requires that the SO2 emission limits contained in Table 1
below be met on a 30 BOD period basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See our FIP TSD, Section 4.4 and 4.5. Our Cost TSD develops
the bases for the costs and emission limits.
Table 1--Final 30-Boiler-Operating-Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final 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 noted in our proposal, we do not anticipate that San Miguel will
have to install any additional control in order to comply with this
emission limit.
As we discuss in our proposal,\49\ we find that five years is an
adequate amount of time to allow for the installation of scrubber
retrofits, and three years is an adequate amount of time to allow for
the installation of scrubber upgrades. We also find that one year is an
adequate amount of time for compliance for San Miguel, for which we do
not anticipate the need for the installation of any additional
equipment. We are therefore finalizing our requirements as proposed
providing that compliance with the limits in Table 1 be achieved
within:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ 79 FR 74823.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
One year of the effective date of our final rule for San
Miguel.
c. Treatment of Potential Error in Scrubber Upgrade Efficiency
Calculations
In the Cost TSD that accompanied our proposal, we discussed how we
calculated the SO2 removal efficiency of the units we
analyzed for scrubber upgrades.\50\ We noted that, due to a number of
factors that we were unable to accurately quantify, our calculations of
current removal efficiencies could contain some error. Based on the
results of our scrubber upgrade cost analysis, however, we did not
believe that any such errors, if present, would affect our proposed
decision to require the scrubber upgrades because they were all cost-
effective (low $/ton of emissions removed). In other words, were we to
make reasonable adjustments in the additional tons removed under the
FIP limits to account for any potential error in our calculation of
current scrubber removal efficiencies, we would still propose to
upgrade these SO2 scrubbers. After considering comments and
other information submitted by the facility owners in response to our
proposal, and as discussed more fully in our responses to comments on
cost in the RTC document and section III below, we continue to conclude
that upgrading an underperforming SO2 scrubber is one of the
most cost-effective pollution control measures a coal-fired power plant
can implement to improve visibility at Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ See Section 6 of our Cost TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also proposed that the units required to conduct scrubber
upgrades must meet SO2 emission limits based on 95% removal
in all cases. This removal efficiency is below the upper end of what an
upgraded wet SO2 scrubber can achieve, which is 98-99%, as
we noted in our Cost TSD. We also noted that a 95% removal efficiency
assumption provides an adequate margin of error, such that all of the
units should be able to comfortably attain the emission limits we
proposed. However, for the operator of any unit that disagreed with us
on this point, our proposal included a pathway for such operators to
seek and for us to consider revised emission limits in this final
action by submitting specific comments on the issue and taking other
specific steps.\51\ We did not receive any comments from an owner or
operator that was interested in using this pathway to potentially
obtain a modified SO2 emission limit. While we remain open
to discussions concerning this procedure, we are finalizing the
emission limits and compliance schedule for the affected units as
proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 79 FR 74885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, to ensure that San Miguel can meet our final FIP
emission limitation, we are finalizing the following compliance option
for the owner and operator of San Miguel as an alternative to the final
emission limit of 0.60 lbs/MMBtu based on a 30 day BOD average:
Install a CEMS at the inlet of the scrubber system. The 30
BOD SO2 average from the existing outlet CEMS must read at
or below 6.0% (94% control) of a 30 BOD SO2 average from the
inlet CEMS.
By no later than its compliance date, San Miguel must inform us in
writing of its decision to select this option for compliance. The FIP
provides automatically for this compliance option and therefore if San
Miguel chooses it, no SIP revision submittal is required from Texas.
d. Natural Conditions for the Texas Class I Areas
Consistent with our proposal and as discussed further in our FIP
TSD,\52\ we are finalizing the natural conditions for the Guadalupe
Mountains and Big Bend as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74885, and section 10 of
our FIP TSD.
Table 2--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 its next regional haze SIP in
consultation with us and the FLMs.
[[Page 306]]
e. Calculation of Visibility Impairment for the Texas Class I Areas
Consistent with our proposal and as discussed further in our FIP
TSD,\53\ our final recalculated natural visibility conditions, and our
calculation of visibility impairment for the Guadalupe Mountains and
Big Bend are found in the table below. We recalculated the number of
deciviews by which baseline visibility conditions exceed natural
visibility conditions for these Class I areas pursuant to Sec.
51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). Specifically, in our calculations, we replaced
Texas' calculations of natural visibility conditions for its Class I
areas with the adjusted default values (NC II), as discussed in our
proposal. We then determined the amount the baseline visibility values
exceeded the natural visibility conditions to calculate visibility
impairment for each area. We are finalizing the following estimates of
visibility impairment for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and section 11 of
our FIP TSD.
Table 3--Revised Visibility Metrics for the Class I Areas in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I Area Most Impaired (dv) Least Impaired (dv)
-------------------------------------------------
Baseline Visibility Conditions, 2000-2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend...................................................... 17.30 5.78
Guadalupe Mountains........................................... 17.19 5.95
-------------------------------------------------
Natural Visibility Conditions
-------------------------------------------------
Big Bend...................................................... 7.16 1.62
Guadalupe Mountains........................................... 6.65 0.99
-------------------------------------------------
Extent Baseline Exceeds Natural Visibility
Conditions
-------------------------------------------------
Big Bend...................................................... 10.14 4.16
Guadalupe Mountains........................................... 10.54 4.96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Consideration of the Uniform Rates of Progress
Consistent with our proposal and as discussed further in our FIP
TSD,\54\ we are finalizing the uniform rates of progress for the 20%
worst days for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend contained in Table
4 below. Specifically, in our calculations, we replaced Texas'
calculations of natural visibility conditions for its Class I areas
with the adjusted default values (NC II), as discussed in our proposal,
and we recalculated the uniform rates of progress as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and section 12 of
our FIP TSD.
Table 4--Class I Area Uniform Rates of Progress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
Baseline improvement Visibility at Improvement Natural
Class I Area conditions needed to meet 2018 needed by 2018 conditions at
URP 2064
(dv) (dv) (dv) (dv) (dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Bend........................ 17.30 0.17 14.93 2.37 7.16
Guadalupe Mountains............. 17.19 0.18 14.73 2.46 6.65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Revised Reasonable Progress Goals for the Guadalupe Mountains and
Big Bend
We are finalizing our technical analysis that was lacking in Texas'
development of its reasonable progress goals for the Guadalupe
Mountains and Big Bend. As discussed in our proposal and FIP TSD,\55\
we are establishing new reasonable progress goals based on our
technical analysis. The new reasonable progress goals are as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and section 13 of
our FIP TSD.
Table 5--Reasonable Progress Goals for 2018 for the Guadalupe Mountains
and Big Bend
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best 20% Worst
Class I area days (dv) days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains......................... 5.70 16.26
Big Bend.................................... 5.59 16.57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 307]]
Our new reasonable progress goals for 2018 reflect only the
additional estimated visibility benefit from the required controls
anticipated to be in place by 2018, which are the scrubber upgrades.
While the required scrubber retrofits will provide for additional
visibility improvement at the Class I areas \56\ that we consider
necessary for reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions, we do not anticipate these controls to be implemented until
after 2018. As we note above, these estimates of future visibility
conditions presume that CSAPR continues to be implemented and is a
viable alternative to source-specific BART. As discussed above, given
the uncertainty arising from the remand of some of the state CSAPR
budgets, we have determined it would not be appropriate to finalize the
portion of our FIP relying on CSAPR as an alternative to SO2
and NOX BART for EGUs in Texas. Should additional BART
controls be required for any of the BART-eligible EGUs and should those
controls in combination with other requirements on EGUs achieve
emission reductions as of 2018 that are materially different than the
emission reductions considered in quantifying the reasonable progress
goals in this action, these reasonable progress goals would have to be
revised at the same time any additional BART controls are proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Table 44 of our proposal (79 FR 74887) shows the additional
visibility benefit anticipated from the scrubber retrofits. For
Guadalupe Mountains, we estimate an additional 0.12 dv benefit on
the 20% worst days based on 2018 projected background conditions
resulting in a visibility goal of 16.14 dv if all required controls
were in place by 2018. For Big Bend, we estimate an additional 0.09
dv benefit on the 20% worst days based on 2018 projected background
conditions resulting in a visibility goal of 16.48 dv if all
required controls were in place by 2018. We note that Table 45
provides the same visibility benefit estimates based on reducing
recent actual emissions rather than 2018 CENRAP projected emission
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
h. Revised Reasonable Progress Goals for the Wichita Mountains
We are finalizing our technical analysis that was lacking in
Oklahoma's development of reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains, including appropriate consideration of emission reduction
measures in Texas that Oklahoma should have asked Texas explicitly to
obtain during its consultations with Texas. We are establishing new
reasonable progress goals, as discussed in more detail in our proposal
and FIP TSD,\57\ based on our technical analysis and accounting for the
emission reductions required in Texas that we anticipate being in place
by 2018. Consistent with our action regarding the Texas reasonable
progress goals discussed in the previous section, our recalculated
reasonable progress goals for 2018 in the table below reflect only the
additional estimated visibility benefits from the required controls
anticipated to be in place by 2018, which are the scrubber upgrades.
While the required scrubber retrofits will provide for additional
visibility improvement at the Class I areas,\58\ we do not anticipate
these controls to be implemented until after 2018. As we note above,
these estimates of future visibility conditions presume that CSAPR is a
viable alternative to source-specific BART. As discussed earlier in
this document, given the uncertainty arising from the remand of some of
the state CSAPR budgets, we have determined it would not be appropriate
to finalize the portion of our FIP relying on CSAPR as an alternative
to source-specific SO2 and NOX BART for EGUs in
Texas. Should additional BART controls in Texas ultimately be required
for any of the BART-eligible EGUs and should those controls in
combination with other requirements on EGUs achieve emission reductions
as of 2018 that are materially different than the emission reductions
considered in quantifying the reasonable progress goals for Oklahoma in
this action, the reasonable progress goals would have to be revised at
the same time any additional BART controls are proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74886, and section 13 of
our FIP TSD.
\58\ Table 44 of our proposal (79 FR 74887) shows the additional
visibility benefit anticipated from the scrubber retrofits. For
Wichita Mountains, we estimate an additional 0.30 dv benefit on the
20% worst days based on 2018 projected background conditions
resulting in a visibility goal of 21.03 dv if all required controls
were in place by 2018. We note that Table 45 provides the same
visibility benefit estimates based on reducing recent actual
emissions rather than 2018 CENRAP projected emission levels.
Table 6--Reasonable Progress Goals for 2018 for the Wichita Mountains
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best 20% Worst
Class I Area days (dv) days (dv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wichita Mountains........................... 9.22 21.33
------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Summary and Analysis of Major Issues Raised by Commenters
We received both written and oral comments at the public hearings
we held in Austin and Oklahoma City. We also received comments by the
Internet and the mail. The full text of comments received from these
commenters, except what was claimed as CBI, is included in the publicly
posted docket associated with this action at www.regulations.gov. The
CBI cannot be posted to www.regulations.gov, but is part of the record
of this action. Our RTC document, which is also included in the docket
associated with this action, provides detailed responses to all
significant comments received, with the exception of those responses
that rely on CBI and is a part of the administrative record for this
action. The responses that rely upon CBI are in a separate document
that is part of the record of this action but is not available for
public review. In total, we received approximately 2,500 pages of
significant comments. Below we provide a summary of the more
significant comments received and a summary of our responses to them.
Our RTC document is organized similarly to the structure present in
this section (e.g., Cost, Modeling, etc.). Therefore, if additional
information is desired concerning how we addressed a particular
comment, the reader should refer to the appropriate section in the RTC
document.
A. General Comments
Comment: We received 4,500 comments in support of our rulemaking,
specifically regarding the requirements that Texas coal-fired EGUs
reduce SO2 emissions. These comments were from members
representing various organizations, members of Congress, officials of
government agencies, and members of the general public. At the public
hearings in Austin, Texas, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, over 100 people
expressed general support for the plan. The speakers at the public
hearings included members of various organizations and members of the
general public. Representatives of three Federal Land Management
agencies also wrote comments in support of our action. Many of these
same commenters also asked us to consider the impacts of NOX
pollution and to consider additional coal-fired EGUs for control.
Response: We thank the commenters for participating in the
rulemaking and acknowledge their support of this action. We address
NOX emissions in our modeling section below. We address the
inclusion of additional coal-fired EGUs in our cost and modeling
sections below.
Comment: We received five comment letters and emails from citizens
and a representative from one organization that stated general
opposition.
Response: These comments were too general to give us a basis for a
specific response. Please see our detailed responses in this action and
additional
[[Page 308]]
detail in our RTC document, in which we provide substantial
explanations and reasons for disapproving elements of the Texas and
Oklahoma SIPs and finalizing our FIP.
Comment: As a general matter, a number of commenters took issue
with our usages of the terms ``reasonable'' and ``significant'' as used
in our proposal and TSDs and contended they were inappropriate or
extra-statutory terms.
Response: We consider the general use of ``reasonable'' and
``significant'' in this action to be appropriate. The word
``reasonable'' is not extra-statutory in this action because it is part
of the statutory term ``reasonable progress,'' see CAA ection 169A(g).
In turn, ``significant'' may be used according to its ordinary meaning
(as in our reference above to ``significant comments''). This word is
elsewhere employed consistent with our guidance and previous actions.
See, e.g., our Reasonable Progress Guidance at 3-2. These terms are
generally used in rulemaking actions, including use by Texas and
Oklahoma in their regional haze actions.\59\ We use these terms
appropriately throughout this rulemaking action, for example, when
explaining it was ``reasonable'' to expect great variation in the
effectiveness of emission reductions between two sources given the
difference in distances between these two facilities and the Class I
areas, or when describing CENRAP visibility modeling as demonstrating
that 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 were attributable to Texas sources.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See, e.g., our proposal at 79 FR 74844 (noting our
agreement with ``Texas' determination that was not reasonable to
request additional controls from other states at this time'') and
74823 (describing how Oklahoma's response to public comments on its
regional haze SIP ``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'').
\60\ 79 FR 74841 and 74854.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. State and Federal Roles in the Regional Haze Program
Some commenters argued that our proposal to disapprove Texas' and
Oklahoma's regional haze SIPs disregarded the primary role of the
states under the CAA, the Regional Haze Rule, and relevant case law. We
do not agree. Congress designed the CAA to provide for states to take
the lead in developing SIPs but also required EPA to review SIPs for
compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements. We recognize
that states have the primary responsibility of drafting a SIP to
address the requirements of the regional haze program. We also
recognize that we have the responsibility of ensuring that the state
plans, including regional haze SIPs, conform to the CAA requirements.
We have determined that the Texas and Oklahoma SIPs do not meet certain
elements of these Federal requirements and are accordingly partially
disapproving these SIPs.
Additionally, our review of SIPs is not limited to a ministerial
review and approval of a state's decisions. Some commenters argued that
the principles of cooperative Federalism in the CAA require EPA to
defer to states in their development of SIPs, so long as necessary
statutory requirements are met. Commenters stated that our proposal
ignores such limits and would impose FIPs that ignore the primary
implementation role given to Texas and Oklahoma. We disagree with the
commenters' arguments regarding cooperative Federalism. Under this
framework, the CAA directs us to act if a state fails to submit a SIP,
submits an incomplete SIP, or submits a SIP that does not meet the
statutory requirements. Thus, the CAA provides us with a critical
oversight role in ensuring that SIPs meet the CAA's requirements.
Commenters stated that Texas' plan was complete by operation of
law, met all requirements, and that we had no authority to impose a
FIP. We disagree. The commenters confuse the action of merely
submitting a SIP and having it deemed complete with the action of
submitting a SIP that complies with the applicable Federal
requirements. We agree that the CAA gives each state flexibility in
developing a SIP, but in doing so, it must ensure the SIP meets Federal
requirements. We must review the state's SIP and determine whether it
meets such Federal requirements. If it does not, we must disapprove it
(or portions thereof), and adopt a FIP to address the disapproved
parts. In undertaking such a review, we do not ``usurp'' the state's
authority arbitrarily, as some commenters stated, but rather we ensure
that such authority is reasonably exercised. In this instance, portions
of the states' SIPs were not approvable for reasons discussed elsewhere
in this document, the responses to comments, and the proposed
rulemaking.
Some commenters argued that the appropriate remedy for a
substantially inadequate plan under our Regional Haze Rule is periodic
updates, as opposed to a FIP. We disagree. The Regional Haze Rule's
requirements for comprehensive periodic revisions (see 40 CFR
51.308(f)) and periodic progress reports (see 40 CFR 51.308(g)) are
very different from the authority to impose a FIP when there is a
determination that a SIP is not approvable. As we have stated
elsewhere, we have the authority and obligation to impose a FIP to fill
in such gaps. The provisions of the Regional Haze Rule regarding
states' ongoing responsibility to periodically revise their regional
haze SIPs do not override this responsibility.
C. Our Clarified Interpretation of the Reasonable Progress and Long-
Term Strategy Requirements
Several commenters criticized the aspect of our proposal that
provided potential commenters and states with clarification regarding
our interpretation of the reasonable progress and long-term strategy
provisions found at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and (3). Some of these
commenters alleged that our proposal did not clarify an existing
interpretation, but rather outlined a new one that was being applied to
Texas and Oklahoma after the fact. They argued that the provisions in
question require upwind states to include in their long-term strategy
only those measures necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals
set by downwind states, regardless of whether the goals were based on
sound analyses and adequate interstate consultation or reflect all
reasonable control measures. Some commenters argued that upwind states
have no obligation to conduct four-factor analyses with respect to
downwind Class I areas at all. In essence, these commenters asserted
that the only obligation that the CAA and Regional Haze Rule impose
upon upwind states is a requirement to consult with their neighbors and
make good on any commitments made during the consultation process. They
further argued that their preferred interpretation is mandated by the
plain language of the Regional Haze Rule, such that the interpretation
laid out in our proposal is plainly erroneous and not entitled to
judicial deference. Other commenters asserted the opposite. They agreed
with our clarifications and argued that our interpretation of the
provisions found at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) and (3) is not only reasonable,
but mandated by the CAA and the plain language of the provisions
themselves.
After carefully considering these comments, we stand by our
clarified interpretation as outlined in the proposal. The alternative
interpretations offered by some of the commenters are not in accord
with the plain language of CAA sections 169A(b)(2) and (g)(1),
[[Page 309]]
which require both upwind and downwind states to include in their SIPs
``emission limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national goal'' and to
determine what controls are necessary to make reasonable progress by
considering the four statutory factors. The commenters' view that
upwind states are not required to conduct four-factor analyses for
downwind Class I areas is inconsistent with Texas' own view of the
requirements of the CAA and the Regional Haze Rule. Texas itself
conducted a four-factor analysis for downwind Class I areas (albeit a
flawed one) and stated in its own response-to-comments document that it
was required to do so.\61\ Indeed, the commenters' alternative
interpretations are premised largely on a fundamental misunderstanding
of the regional haze planning process. The commenters seem to suggest
that states set their reasonable progress goals first and then
determine what controls are necessary to achieve them. In their view,
if a downwind state sets a reasonable progress goal that does not
assume emission reductions from an upwind state, then the upwind state
has no obligation to include control measures in its long-term
strategy. Such an interpretation is not consistent with the CAA, our
regulations and guidance, or how such analyses are conducted in
reality. To set their reasonable progress goals, states consider the
anticipated visibility conditions at a Class I area in a future year.
In order to do so, they must first determine the level of emission
reductions that will result once the control measures necessary to make
reasonable progress are installed and estimate the visibility benefit
anticipated from those reductions. In determining the control measures
necessary to make reasonable progress, states must conduct four-factor
analyses, considering costs and other factors. If an upwind state were
not required to participate or if emission reductions from upwind
sources were not considered in this process, there would be no way for
downwind states to set reasonable progress goals that account for all
reasonable control measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ See, e.g., Appendix 2-2 to the Texas Regional Haze SIP at
24 (``Further, a four-factor analysis is necessary for the set of
sources in the respective areas of influence that impact each of the
Class I areas that Texas' emissions impact.'') (emphases added)
(``The TCEQ has used the four-factor analysis, as required, for the
set of Texas sources impacting Class I areas, to determine whether
all reasonable reductions have been required.'') (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consideration of Visibility in the Reasonable Progress Analysis
Comment: Many commenters maintained that, unlike with BART,
visibility is not one of the statutory or regulatory factors that
states must consider in determining reasonable progress and setting
reasonable progress goals. As a result, some commenters argued that EPA
is not permitted to disapprove a state's four-factor analysis based on
the manner in which a state considered visibility impacts or visibility
benefits in determining reasonable progress. They argued that EPA's
statutory role does not extend to dictating ``how'' a state considers
the four factors, especially considering the flexibility states have
when determining reasonable progress. Other commenters asserted that
EPA placed too much weight on visibility, a non-statutory factor, in
analyzing Texas' SIP and in promulgating a FIP. Some commenters alleged
that states and EPA were barred from considering visibility in a
reasonable progress analysis altogether. Several commenters suggested
that, had we not considered visibility benefits when promulgating a FIP
for Texas, we would not have required any SO2 controls. One
commenter cited to WildEarth Guardians v. EPA \62\ to support its
contention that neither the CAA nor the Regional Haze Rule requires
source-specific analysis in the determination of reasonable progress.
Other commenters cited to American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA \63\ to
support their assertion that we impermissibly isolated visibility as a
factor and in so doing constrained authority Congress conferred on the
states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2014).
\63\ Am. Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We disagree with these comments. The commenters appear to
be stating that states (or EPA when promulgating a FIP) either cannot
or need not consider visibility in any way in determining reasonable
progress and that we therefore must approve a state's reasonable
progress goals and long-term strategy as long as all four mandatory
reasonable progress factors are analyzed to some degree. This view is
at odds with the overarching purpose of the CAA's visibility
provisions. Congress declared as a national goal in CAA section
169A(a)(1) the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' CAA section
169A(b)(2) required the Administrator to promulgate regulations to
assure ``reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal.'' Thus,
the entire purpose of the reasonable progress mandate is to achieve the
national goal of natural visibility conditions at each Class I area.
CAA section 169A(g)(1) goes on to state that, in determining
``reasonable progress,'' states must consider four factors: ``the costs
of compliance, the time necessary for compliance, and the energy and
nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining
useful life of any existing source subject to such requirements.'' This
consideration is commonly referred to as the ``four-factor analysis.''
\64\ The crux of the commenter's argument seems to be that, because
this list of factors does not include visibility, states can ignore
visibility altogether or, if they choose, consider it in any fashion
they want.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Correspondingly, under Sec. 51.308(d)(1) of the Regional
Haze Rule, promulgated in response to this mandate, states must
``establish goals (expressed in deciviews) that provide for
reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility
conditions'' for each Class I area within a state. Reasonable
progress goals are interim goals that represent measurable,
incremental visibility improvement over time toward the goal of
natural visibility conditions. Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) requires
states to consider the four statutory factors when establishing
their reasonable progress goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While we agree that visibility is not one of the four mandatory
factors explicitly listed for consideration in CAA section 169A(g)(1)
or 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), the term ``reasonable progress'' itself
means reasonable progress towards the national goal of natural
visibility conditions. The Supreme Court has stated that, ``[i]n
determining whether Congress has specifically addressed the question at
issue, a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a
particular statutory provision in isolation. The meaning--or
ambiguity--of certain words or phrases may only become evident when
placed in context. It is a `fundamental canon of statutory construction
that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a
view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.' A court must
therefore interpret the statute `as a symmetrical and coherent
regulatory scheme' and `fit, if possible, all parts into an harmonious
whole.' '' \65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132-
33 (2000) (quoting Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S.
803, 809 (1989), Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 569 (1995),
and FTC v. Mandel Brothers, Inc., 359 U.S. 385, 389 (1959)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To ensure a coherent regulatory scheme, we believe that states (or
EPA when promulgating a FIP) can consider
[[Page 310]]
visibility when determining reasonable progress in at least two ways.
First, states can consider the visibility impacts of sources when
determining what sources to analyze under the four-factor framework.
CAA section 169A(b)(2) does not provide any direction regarding which
sources or source categories a state should analyze when determining
reasonable progress. Similarly, CAA section 169A(g)(1) refers to ``any
existing source subject to such requirements,'' but unlike the BART
provisions, does not identify which existing sources or source
categories should be subject to reasonable progress requirements. Given
this statutory ambiguity, we believe that allowing states to consider
visibility impacts when determining the scope of the reasonable
progress analysis is a reasonable interpretation of the statute ``as a
harmonious whole.'' Accordingly, states can develop screening metrics
that target those sources with the greatest visibility impacts for
further analysis. Our 2007 guidance advocated this approach, and nearly
all states, including Texas, used metrics like Q/d to consider the
potential visibility impacts of their sources and screen out those
sources with low visibility impacts.\66\ We followed this same approach
in our FIP by using both Q/d and a second metric based on a source's
modeled percent contribution to total visibility impairment at impacted
Class I areas. If states or we could not consider visibility impacts as
a way of identifying which sources should be considered for additional
controls, then states would have no rational way to differentiate
between hundreds of sources that vary in distance from Class I areas,
emit different visibility impairing pollutants in varying amounts, and
are subject to diverse meteorological conditions that affect the
transport of visibility-impairing pollutants. The result would be a
cumbersome analysis encompassing hundreds of sources (or in the case of
Texas, well over a thousand), many of which may have little if any
impact on visibility in Class I areas. Congress could not have intended
such an incongruous result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ For example, in VISTAS states, to select the specific point
sources that would be considered for each Class I area, VISTAS first
identified the geographic area that was most likely to influence
visibility in each Class I area and then identified the major
SO2 point sources in that geographic area. The distance-
weighted point source SO2 emissions (Q/d) were combined
with the gridded extinction-weighted back-trajectory residence
times. The distance-weighted (Q/d) gridded point source
SO2 emissions were then multiplied by the total
extinction-weighted back-trajectory residence times on a cell-by-
cell basis and then normalized. VISTAS Area of Influence Analyses,
2007, is available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, once a universe of sources has been identified for
analysis, we believe that states can consider the visibility
improvement that will result from potential control options when
weighing the four statutory factors. Allowing consideration of
visibility improvement is appropriate for several reasons. Most
importantly, it aligns with Congress' national goal, which is to remedy
existing impairment of visibility in Class I areas. While section
169A(g)(1) of the CAA contains a list of factors states must consider
when determining reasonable progress, we do not believe that list is
exclusive. As the Eighth Circuit Court acknowledged in North Dakota v.
EPA, states can take visibility improvement into account when
evaluating reasonable progress controls so long as they do so in a
reasonable way.\67\ We have iterated this position in previous regional
haze actions. For example, in our final rule on the Montana regional
haze SIP, we stated, ``We agree that visibility improvement is not one
of the four factors required by CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), however, it (along with other relevant factors) can
be considered when determining controls that should be required for
reasonable progress.'' \68\ Similarly, in our final rule on the Arizona
regional haze SIP, we concluded that, ``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.''
\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 766 (8th Cir. 2013).
\68\ 77 FR 57864, 57899, 57901; see also Montana Proposed Rule,
77 FR 23988, 24062.
\69\ 79 FR 9318 n.137 (finalized based on this same reasoning at
79 FR 52420); TX TSD at 7 n.6; FIP TSD at 12; 79 FR 74874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, allowing states to consider visibility improvement
alongside the four statutory factors ensures that only those cost-
effective controls that will achieve reasonable visibility benefits are
required during each phase towards the national goal. If states were
not permitted to consider visibility improvement when conducting their
control determinations, then states arguably would have to require all
cost-effective controls during the first planning period (assuming no
limiting energy or non-air quality environmental impacts) regardless of
whether some of those controls would be far more beneficial than
others.\70\ Oddly, some of the commenters appear to be suggesting that,
if we had not considered visibility benefits in our analysis, we would
not have controlled certain sources. On the contrary, we decided not to
require certain cost-effective controls in this planning period because
they would not achieve as much benefit as other controls. If these
commenters are correct and the consideration of visibility benefits is
impermissible in a four-factor analysis, then we would have required
all cost-effective controls, including those at the Parish and Welsh
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ We also note that practical implementation concerns could
arise if a state as large and source-numerous as Texas required all
cost-effective controls at once.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that Congress did not provide any direction as to how
states should consider ``the costs of compliance'' when determining
reasonable progress. One permissible way a state could ``consider''
costs is to compare them to prospective benefits. In other words, we
believe the first statutory factor is capacious enough to allow for a
comparison of cost-effectiveness to visibility improvement. Finally, we
note that our 2007 guidance explicitly permits states to consider other
relevant factors when conducting a four-factor analysis,\71\ and many
states, including Texas, did so. In conclusion, we believe that states
are permitted, but not required, to consider visibility improvement
alongside the four statutory factors when making their reasonable
progress determinations, with the important caveat that they must do so
in a reasonable fashion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ ``In determining reasonable progress, CAA Section
169A(g)(1) requires States to take into consideration a number of
factors. However, you have flexibility in how to take into
consideration these statutory factors and any other factors that you
have determined to be relevant.'' 2007 Guidance at 2-3, 4-2, and 5-
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters alluded that visibility improvement is irrelevant
to a four-factor analysis because Congress did not include it as one of
the four factors, but did include it as a factor to be considered in
determining BART. We do not find this reasoning to be persuasive. The
sources that Congress subjected to the BART requirement (i.e., sources
grandfathered from the PSD requirement) were not necessarily sources
that would have an impact on visibility impairment. As such, Congress
included specific language in CAA sections 169A(b)(2)(A) and 169A(g)(2)
to ensure that only those grandfathered sources that cause or
contribute to visibility impairment and that would
[[Page 311]]
result in visibility improvement if controlled would be required to
install BART. On the other hand, the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions is central to the notion of reasonable progress,
so Congress had no need to include language regarding visibility
improvement in CAA section 169A(g)(1).
We also disagree with the commenters that we cannot disapprove a
state's SIP where the state has considered visibility improvement in an
unreasonable fashion. As the Eighth Circuit explained in North Dakota,
``[a]lthough the state was free to employ its own visibility model and
to consider visibility improvement in its reasonable progress
determinations, it was not free to do so in a manner that was
inconsistent with the CAA.'' \72\ Like the State of North Dakota, Texas
chose to evaluate visibility improvement alongside the four statutory
reasonable progress factors, but did so in an unreasonable way. We
discuss several ways that Texas' consideration of visibility
improvement in its reasonable progress determinations was unreasonable
elsewhere in this document, in our proposal, and in our Texas TSD.\73\
One point worth mentioning here, however, is that Texas estimated the
visibility improvement of potential controls by making comparisons to
degraded background conditions instead of to natural background
conditions, which is precisely the same mistake that North Dakota
made.\74\ The end result of this and other errors in Texas' analysis
was that Texas unreasonably concluded that the total cost of additional
controls was not worth the visibility benefits of those controls and
that no additional controls were reasonable for this planning
period.\75\ We are appropriately disapproving this portion of Texas'
SIP. The fact that Texas' decision to evaluate visibility improvement
was ``discretionary'' does not mean that Texas was free to exercise
that discretion in an unreasonable manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ North Dakota, 730 F.3d at 766.
\73\ See Section B.2 of the Texas TSD and Section V.C.3 of our
proposal (79 FR 74818).
\74\ In contrast, Texas conducted a proper visibility analysis
using natural background conditions elsewhere in its SIP when the
state assessed the visibility impacts of its BART sources. See Texas
Regional Haze SIP, Appendix 9-5 at 2-11 (``The source's HI [haze
index] is compared to natural conditions to assess the significance
of the source's visibility impact. EPA guidance lists natural
conditions (bnatural) by Class I area in terms of Mm-\1\
(EPA, 2003b) and assumes clean conditions with no anthropogenic or
weather interference. The visibility significance metric for
evaluating BART sources is the change in deciview (del-dv) from the
source's and natural conditions haze indices.'').
\75\ Texas 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.'' Texas regional haze SIP at 10-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that the Tenth Circuit's decision in WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA does not address the issues present in this case. There, the Tenth
Circuit Court merely held that the CAA does not require a state to
conduct a source-specific reasonable progress analysis. The Court did
not hold that a state is free to conduct any type of analysis
irrespective of whether or not the analysis is reasonable. Nor did the
Court hold that the CAA prevents states or the EPA from conducting a
source-specific analysis if that approach is determined to be
appropriate.
Finally, we disagree with the commenter that we elevated visibility
improvement to a place of primary importance, either in disapproving
Texas' SIP or in promulgating our FIP. The flaws with Texas'
consideration of visibility benefits were only one aspect of our
disapproval. Moreover, we stated on multiple occasions in our proposal
that we considered all four statutory factors in our analysis. Our
analysis does not give greater weight to one factor over another;
rather, we considered all four factors fully, revealing that the cost
factor, which included visibility improvement consideration, was the
most determinative in our decisions. The American Corn Growers Ass'n v.
EPA case is inapposite. There, the D.C. Circuit Court faulted how EPA
assessed the statutory fifth factor of visibility improvement in a BART
determination (not a reasonable progress determination) by using a
regional, multi-source, group approach to assessing the visibility
improvement factor, while assessing the other four statutory BART
factors on a source-specific basis. Here, not only is the analysis at
issue not being performed under BART, but we did not give greater
weight to our consideration of visibility improvement within the cost
factor, or consider the cost factor in a different fashion from the
other three reasonable progress factors.
Comment: Some commenters stated that regional haze is the
contribution of numerous emission sources to visibility impairment and
that, while the contribution from any single source may be
``insignificant,'' the aggregate impact from all sources is
significant. These commenters argued that, by using the Q/d screening
metric, the EPA already took potential visibility impacts (and benefits
of control) into account. They argued that the EPA cannot use
visibility again during the four-factor analysis as an ``off-ramp'' to
not control a source. Furthermore, the EPA should not break a facility
down into its constituent parts because doing so can diminish each
individual impact to the point where it becomes relatively
insignificant. Such a ``divide and exempt'' approach is contrary to
Congress' goal that Class I areas eventually return to natural
visibility conditions. One commenter stated that the EPA should have
conducted four-factor analyses for all 38 facilities identified in the
Q/d analysis.
Response: We agree that regional haze is, by definition, visibility
impairment caused by numerous emission sources. We also agree that,
while some sources may have very small visibility impacts, aggregate
impacts can be significant. However, while there are undoubtedly
thousands of sources within Texas that individually have small
contributions to regional haze, there are also many sources that, even
in isolation, have relatively large visibility impacts. In this first
planning period, we identified the most significant sources that impact
visibility, determined whether cost-effective controls were available
for these sources, and balanced the costs of those controls against
their visibility benefits. As we discussed in more detail above, if we
had adopted the commenters' suggestion and controlled all large sources
where cost-effective controls were available, we likely would have
controlled many additional sources. Given the iterative nature of the
regional haze program, we think that it was a reasonable approach to
require only those cost-effective controls with the largest benefits
this planning period. We expect that Texas will control additional
sources, which by then will be the largest contributors to impairment,
during future planning periods.
As we explain further in supporting documents, we also disagree
with the commenter's suggestion that we should have screened only by
using the Q/d metric. A Q/d analysis compares a source's emissions and
distance to nearby Class I areas to provide an initial estimate of the
potential visibility impacts of those sources. After conducting our Q/d
analysis, we then used photochemical modeling to estimate the
visibility impacts of this set of sources in a much more refined manner
that accounts for chemistry, meteorological conditions, and stack
parameters in addition to emissions and location. The results of our
modeling indicated that a subset of 38 facilities were the primary
contributors to visibility impairment at each Class I area. We then
used the modeling results to narrow the group of sources further
because it was reasonable to conduct a
[[Page 312]]
full four-factor analysis only for the subset of sources with the
largest facility-and unit-level visibility impacts, as described in
detail in our supporting documents.
E. Consultation Between Oklahoma and Texas
Comment: The regulations require that Texas' long-term strategy
reflect the emission reductions requested and agreed to by the CENRAP
states. EPA points to no flaws in the CENRAP regional planning process
in which Texas and Oklahoma participated together. The EPA asserts that
the TCEQ should have provided information necessary to identify
reasonable reductions, which the Regional Haze Rule does not require.
Oklahoma did not request additional controls on Texas sources or
disagree with Texas' determination that no additional controls were
warranted during the first planning period.
Nonetheless, the EPA arbitrarily disapproved the Texas consultation
process with Oklahoma without reference to its rules, guidance, and
prior SIP approvals. The proposal never details what information
Oklahoma lacked in establishing its reasonable progress goals, and EPA
must provide a more adequate explanation of how additional information
would have changed Oklahoma's ultimate determination that additional
controls on Texas sources would not move the Wichita Mountains
perceptibly closer to its regional haze goals.
Response: We disagree that participation alone in a Regional
Planning Organization (RPO) process (here CENRAP) will always be enough
to meet the requirements for consultation under the Regional Haze Rule.
The rule does not negate the requirement that a state have a complete
and technically adequate analysis so that consultations are well
informed. The RPOs, such as CENRAP, provided technical analyses,
including emission inventory development and air quality modeling to
project future visibility conditions and additional information on
sources of visibility impairment to facilitate consultations and
support the development of the states' regional haze SIPs.
Although Texas participated in CENRAP, it retained the duty to do
whatever additional analysis was necessary to fully address the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule for addressing its long-term
strategy and setting its reasonable progress goals. While the long-term
strategy requirements allow a state to rely on the RPO technical
analysis, that is true only to the extent it provides the necessary
information. A state must address any gaps in that analysis. For Texas,
inadequate information existed not only for the reasonable progress
analysis for its own Class I areas, but also for the long-term strategy
development for addressing significant impacts at the Wichita
Mountains. CENRAP was not required, nor did it provide state-specific
analyses and information on the cost-effectiveness and visibility
benefits of potential control strategies under consideration by each
state to address the specific sources or groups of sources within that
state that have the largest visibility impacts. Rather, CENRAP provided
more general information on overall projected visibility conditions,
potential controls and associated costs for some sources and the
potential benefit of regional emission reductions to inform the
development of potential control strategies that may require additional
analysis.\76\ For example, while the CENRAP analysis identified that
impacts from EGUs in Texas were significant, it did not provide a
refined analysis to fully assess the cost-effectiveness and visibility
benefits of controlling those sources, including not providing
information on the cost-effectiveness of scrubber upgrades for those
sources with existing, underperforming scrubbers. As Texas states in
its regional haze SIP, ``While Texas participates in CENRAP and
benefits from the technical work coordinated by the RPO, Texas has sole
responsibility and authority for the development and content of its
Regional Haze SIP.'' \77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ CENRAP conducted a control sensitivity analysis to evaluate
the impact of point source emission reductions across all CENRAP
states given a maximum dollar per control level of $5,000/ton;
however, the results ``were intended to be a starting point for
control discussions that would require much greater refinement.''
Technical Support Document for CENRAP Emissions and Air Quality
Modeling to Support Regional Haze State Implementation Plans,
September 12, 2007 at 2-37).
\77\ 2009 Texas Regional Haze SIP at 3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recognizing that the information made available by CENRAP indicated
the significant impact of Texas emissions and potential for cost-
effective controls, Texas used the CENRAP analysis as a starting point,
and performed supplemental analysis for both its reasonable progress
and long-term strategy demonstrations. However, that additional
technical analysis performed by Texas was flawed and therefore did not
provide the type of information necessary to fully evaluate the
reasonableness of controls at Texas sources with the largest potential
to impact visibility at its own Class I areas and the Wichita
Mountains. Allowing this lack of adequate information to continue was a
critical misstep for ODEQ in setting its reasonable progress goals, and
a critical misstep for Texas when determining its fair share of
emissions reductions under the long-term strategy requirement. The
plain language of the CAA requires that states consider the four
factors used in determining reasonable progress in developing the
technical basis for the reasonable progress goals both in their own
Class I areas and downwind Class I areas. Such documentation is
necessary so that interstate consultations can proceed on an informed
basis, and so that downwind states can properly assess whether any
additional upwind emissions reductions are necessary to achieve
reasonable progress at their Class I areas. Therefore, Texas had an
obligation to provide appropriate information to Oklahoma so it could
establish a proper progress goal for the Wichita Mountains. Further,
Texas had an obligation to conduct an appropriate technical analysis,
and demonstrate through that analysis (required under paragraph
(d)(3)(ii)), that it provided its fair share of emissions reductions to
Oklahoma. In summary, Texas was required through the consultation
process to provide Oklahoma the information it needed to establish its
reasonable progress goals for the Wichita Mountains, and it failed to
do so.
Comment: Oklahoma possessed more than adequate information about
impacts and potential controls but correctly decided it was not
reasonable to request any further reductions from Texas sources during
the first planning period. Oklahoma was in agreement with Texas on the
goal and measures for the Wichita Mountains. EPA may disagree with that
choice in hindsight and may wish Oklahoma's and Texas' agreement was
different, but that is an unlawful basis for disapproving Oklahoma's
reasonable progress consultation with Texas and disapproving Oklahoma's
reasonable progress goals.
Response: While we agree that Oklahoma possessed more than adequate
information from the CENRAP analyses about impacts from Texas sources
at a certain level of aggregation, and some knowledge concerning
potential controls for some of these sources, we do not agree that it
was reasonable for Oklahoma to stop at this point. Despite the
information it did have, Oklahoma never explicitly asked Texas for
reductions even though there was clear evidence from the CENRAP
analyses that Texas sources, particularly EGUs in northeast Texas, were
[[Page 313]]
significantly impacting the Wichita Mountains and that cost-effective
controls were likely available on some of these sources.
The Regional Haze Rule required that Oklahoma use the consultation
process under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv) in the development of reasonable
progress goals in tandem with Texas. Nevertheless, throughout the
consultations, Oklahoma failed to explicitly request that Texas further
investigate whether reasonable controls were available or that Texas
reduce emissions from these significantly impacting sources to ensure
that all reasonable measures to improve visibility were included in
Texas' long-term strategy and incorporated into Oklahoma's reasonable
progress goals for the Wichita Mountains. This failure resulted in the
development of improper reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains.
Comment: Even if EPA's disapproval of Oklahoma's reasonable
progress goals were authorized and supported, that disapproval does not
allow EPA to disapprove Texas' long-term strategy. Regardless of EPA's
view of Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals for the Wichita Mountains,
it is undisputed that Texas' SIP includes the measures necessary to
secure Texas' agreed-to apportionment of emission reductions to meet
the reasonable progress goals for the Wichita Mountains established by
Oklahoma, and thus EPA must approve Texas' SIP.
Response: We disagree that disapproval of Oklahoma's reasonable
progress goals for the Wichita Mountains does not allow us to
disapprove Texas' long-term strategy. We are disapproving the Texas
long-term strategy because the analysis underlying it is technically
flawed. Because of these flaws, Texas' SIP submittal does not include
all the measures necessary to secure its apportionment of the emission
reductions needed to meet the progress goal that should account for all
reasonable control measures for the Wichita Mountains, or its own Class
I areas. We are disapproving the Oklahoma reasonable progress goals for
the Wichita Mountains not because of the technically flawed Texas long-
term strategy, but because Oklahoma's consultations with Texas were
flawed, which prevented it from adequately developing its reasonable
progress goals for the Wichita Mountains. Also, because Oklahoma's
consultations with Texas were flawed, Oklahoma did not adequately
consider the emission reduction measures necessary to achieve the
uniform rate of progress for the Wichita Mountains and did not
adequately demonstrate that the reasonable progress goals it
established were reasonable based on the four statutory factors. See
our previous responses concerning the comments on Texas allegedly
meeting the ``agreed-to apportionment.''
Comment: EPA never raised any of the concerns it asserts and it
never second-guessed the process or the data that the states were
developing--as it does now, years after that process has been completed
and on the eve of the next planning period. In truth, Texas and
Oklahoma did exactly what EPA encouraged them to do.
Response: Our task under the CAA is to review a SIP once it is
formally submitted by the state and determine if it meets the CAA and
our rules. There is no requirement in the CAA that we must review,
evaluate, and comment on a state's proposed SIP revision before it is
formally submitted to us. Nevertheless, we note that we sent comment
letters to Texas and Oklahoma during their public comment periods,
raising many of the issues presented herein. We stated that Texas
should specifically demonstrate that it included all measures necessary
to obtain its share of the emission reductions necessary for achieving
reasonable progress in the Wichita Mountains and document its technical
basis. Furthermore, we stated that the Texas reasonable progress/long-
term strategy technical analysis raised concerns about whether it
appropriately evaluated whether there were additional reasonable
controls available to help reduce its impact on the Wichita Mountains.
For Oklahoma, we stated it did not appear that ODEQ actually requested
reductions from Texas and we urged Oklahoma to ensure Texas was aware
of its sources' impact and encourage reductions as necessary. In both
letters, we stated that additional concerns would surface during the
review of the final SIP submittals.
Comment: EPA's consultation disapprovals of Oklahoma and Texas are
the first time EPA has disapproved a state regional haze consultation.
This new approach of second-guessing regional agreements--years after
they are reached and implemented--would undermine and chill the
regional planning process, and discourage states from participating.
Response: We disagree that this is a new approach on the
consultation requirements and we also disagree that our position
undermines or chills the regional planning process. While our
regulations allow states to work together in RPOs, like CENRAP, this is
not a stopping point for states to fall back on as a rationale not to
meet the CAA and Regional Haze Rule. We have not disapproved other
states' reasonable progress/long-term strategy consultation processes
because the particular facts of the situation for Texas and Oklahoma
did not arise. We believe our clarification that upwind states have an
obligation to reasonably assess potential control measures to address
impacts in Class I areas in downwind states will encourage states to
work together to address regional haze.
F. Source Category and Individual Source Modeling
Comment: EPA proposed to disapprove Texas' regional haze SIP
because EPA determined that Texas was required to conduct a source-
specific analysis of certain facilities to meet the reasonable progress
requirements. EPA guidance and judicial precedent have stated that a
source-specific analysis or source-by-source demonstration is not
required to determine reasonable progress.
Response: We disagree with these comments as our proposal to
disapprove the SIP was decidedly not based on the supposed use of a
source category-based analysis by Texas. Therefore, these comments have
not accurately described the proposed basis of disapproval. We
understand many of these comments arose because our proposal included a
statement that ``individual sources were not considered by the TCEQ.''
This statement was not offered to propose a basis for disapproval, but
we understand it is susceptible to being taken out of context
(particularly in consideration of the comments received). It is perhaps
more plain to state that individual sources were not effectively
considered by the TCEQ. As our proposal and the Texas SIP itself make
clear, Texas did, in fact, partially evaluate controls for certain
individual sources. In evaluating these controls, Texas employed a
large, superficially refined control set consisting of a mix of large
and small sources from a number of different source categories located
within varying distances of Class I areas. It did assess individual
source data for some factors such that we do not necessarily agree with
commenters who brand it a ``source category analysis.''
Whatever its label, we proposed to disapprove Texas' reasonable
progress analysis because it was flawed in several specific ways. A
primary flaw was that the control set was over-inclusive. It included
controls on sources that served to increase the total cost with little
visibility benefit. As was
[[Page 314]]
noted in our proposal,\78\ Texas adopted this approach despite evidence
in the record of identified source-specific, cost-effective controls
that would have resulted in large emission reductions on certain EGUs,
and despite source apportionment modeling that identified large impacts
from EGU sources in northeast Texas. Our proposal explained that this
approach obscured benefits that might be obtained from individual
sources and only considered aggregated costs. As we also explained, the
submitted analysis failed to study or consider scrubber upgrade
candidates. It was accordingly under-inclusive of large, highly cost-
effective emissions reductions that would lead to significant
improvements in visibility. These points are validated by the technical
record for this FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 79 FR 74838 (``[W]e 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.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, whether the state's analysis is labelled a source
category analysis, an analysis of multiple individual sources, or some
hybrid, we conclude that it contained serious deficiencies that would
materially affect the outcome of the state's SIP process. As a result,
we conclude this component of the SIP requires disapproval.
Finally, it bears noting that the approach we have taken in our FIP
to identifying appropriate controls does not dictate the approach that
Texas or any other state must take to assess controls. Given Texas'
size and the range of distances from point sources to Class I areas,
the mix of controls at EGUs and other large point sources in the state,
and the overall significance of the impacts from these point sources,
we considered it appropriate to undertake a source specific analysis to
avoid the potential for over-controlling sources.\79\ In some
circumstances, depending on the types of sources at issue, the impacts
from these sources relative to other causes of visibility impairment,
the types of controls under consideration, and other such factors, a
source category approach can be appropriate. Ultimately, however, while
there is flexibility in available analytical approaches, states cannot
adopt an approach to reasonable progress, which by its nature overlooks
cost-effective controls that would otherwise be viewed as being
beneficial.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ On this point, it also bears noting that Texas' EGUs
operate within a state that is at least three times larger than 38
of the states and a full 60% larger than California, the next
largest of the contiguous states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Because of guidance and precedent that ``source category''
analyses can be appropriate, individual sources or point sources cannot
be subject to source-specific controls to meet reasonable progress.
Individual sources can be subject to control for purposes of addressing
BART or RAVI requirements but additional, source-specific controls may
not lawfully be imposed.
Response: We disagree with the argument that, because a source
category analysis may be appropriate in some circumstances, sources
cannot be subject to source-specific controls to ensure reasonable
progress toward improving visibility. It is unclear how a state would
develop a SIP containing ``emission limits, schedules of compliance,
and other measures may be necessary to make reasonable progress,'' as
required by CAA section 169(A)(b)(2), without the option of source-
specific controls going forward. There is nothing in the visibility
provisions of the CAA or the Regional Haze Rule suggesting otherwise.
Comment: Information on FGD scrubber upgrades cannot be used to
disapprove the SIP because that information was acquired through EPA's
authority to obtain information under CAA section 114, but the state
has no equivalent corresponding authority. EPA comment letters and
communications in past years had not informed the state of the
importance of analyzing scrubber upgrades.
Response: Neither of these observations would justify our approving
a flawed component of a SIP revision--in this case an analysis within
that SIP revision--that, among other things, had unreasonably
overlooked the option of FGD upgrades. Our 2005 BART rule discussed the
state evaluation of scrubber upgrades in several places.\80\ The
technical information in our proposal validates FGD upgrades as an
option that should have been considered, and we consider this technical
record to have been reinforced and further validated with additional
information and comments provided in support of the proposal. Even as
we acknowledge that the TCEQ does not have authority (or any present
delegation of authority) to request information under CAA section 114,
this is not any kind of determinative limitation on the state's
technical and regulatory capacities and tools for producing and
developing information on an air pollution control measure such as FGD
upgrades. Texas has engaged in air quality control planning and air
pollution prevention under the CAA for decades, and the Texas agency or
agencies responsible for SIP adoption and implementation are required
to possess the necessary legal authority under state law to adopt and
implement all SIP measures.\81\ Consequently, in this case, the TCEQ
bore the responsibility of developing or requesting information needed
to properly assess scrubber upgrades. Lastly, as we state above, any
past EPA comment letters would be intended to be helpful to the
improvement of any SIP revision that is under development, but they do
not constitute agency action on that SIP revision or constitute any
assurance of positive action on that revision upon submission and
review. Instead and as always, EPA has to formally discharge its
responsibilities to review any SIP submittal under the provisions of
CAA section 110(k). Accordingly, the issue of TCEQ's knowledge, notice,
or lack thereof on FGD scrubber upgrades cannot be resolved in any way
that would shield the SIP revision from this basis for disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See for instance 70 FR 39171: ``You should evaluate
scrubber upgrade options based on the 5 step BART analysis
process.''
\81\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(E); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(E)
(requiring assurances of ``. . . adequate, personnel, funding, and
authority under State . . . law to carry out'' SIP requirements);
Section 2.1(c) of appendix V to 40 CFR part 51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Constitutional Law
One commenter cited to the Commerce Clause, Fifth Amendment and
Constitutional non-delegation principles in support of its contention
that EPA should not be able to regulate sources under our regional haze
program. We disagree with these comments. First, under the Commerce
Clause, the commenter argues that we cannot regulate regional haze on
the theory that regulated conduct--such as ``carbon emissions'' from
coal-fired power plants--will have some effect on interstate commerce.
We disagree with the comment because owners and operators of the Texas
sources subject to this regional haze FIP are engaged in economic
activities (the operation of coal-fired power plants) that cause haze-
forming air pollution to travel into other states and substantially
affect interstate commerce. Each of the Federal Class I areas receives
substantial numbers of visitors, including those from out-of-state,
each year. Our regulation of these sources of visibility impairing
pollution pursuant to the CAA is squarely within the Federal
government's Commerce Clause authority. Our regulation of emissions
from coal-fired power plants, which cause and contribute to regional
haze in multiple states, to fill a gap left by disapproval of a SIP
seeks to fulfill
[[Page 315]]
the regional haze provisions of the CAA, which in turn are
constitutional exercises of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause
of the U.S. Constitution.
Second, the commenter contends that our Regional Haze Rule suffers
from a non-delegation problem. We disagree. The CAA's visibility
provisions provide extensive intelligible principles that guide our
exercise of discretion. CAA section 169A, as well as other provisions,
required us to promulgate regulations directing the states to revise
their SIPs to include emission limits and other measures as necessary
to make ``reasonable progress.'' \82\ Congress defined reasonable
progress to be the consideration of four statutory factors, including
cost and energy impacts.\83\ Congress also directed our regulations to
require BART for a specific universe of older sources, and again
provided a set of statutory factors states must consider when
determining what control technology constitutes BART.\84\ These two
sets of statutory factors, among several other provisions and
definitions in CAA section 169A that provide specific instructions to
EPA and states, clearly constitute intelligible principles under the
framework set forth in the case cited by the commenter. The Regional
Haze Rule, which we promulgated pursuant to the statutory mandate in
CAA section 169A, reflects these same intelligible principles and has
been upheld by the D.C. Circuit Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2).
\83\ Id. at 7491(g)(1).
\84\ Id. at 7491(b)(2)(A) & (g)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third, a commenter claims that the EPA has commandeered the states
in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. We disagree
with this comment. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that, ``the Federal
Government may not compel the states to implement Federal regulatory
programs.'' \85\ The CAA in no way compels a state to implement Federal
regulatory programs. The CAA, instead, authorizes the EPA to promulgate
and administer a FIP if a state fails to submit an adequate SIP.\86\
The EPA will implement the FIP, with no actions required by any part of
the government of Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 925 (1997).
\86\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Stay of Effective Date, Consolidated Appropriations Act, and
Executive Orders 13405 and 13211
Comment: Any final action should stay the effectiveness and
effective date of the action or establish a delayed effective date to
allow for ``judicial vetting'' of EPA's determinations.
Response: We have reviewed these requests and do not agree that
taking these measures with our final rule would be appropriate. Our
final rule initiates the effectiveness of the action to ensure the
requirements of the CAA are carried into effect. This result is
consistent with the CAA and with the regulatory rulemaking process more
generally. We note that CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) allows, in limited
fashion, for a stay of effectiveness of a rule during any proceeding
for reconsideration, but this authority presupposes the rule's
finalization, the rule's effectiveness, and the filing of an
administrative petition for reconsideration. Making the rule effective
also ensures the finality of the action ``for purposes of judicial
review.'' See CAA section 307(b). Nothing in our response here limits
or inhibits the filing of a petition for judicial review or the powers
of a reviewing court.
Comment: EPA should update both its atmospheric modeling platforms
as part of the upcoming Appendix W rewrite and the cost manual in order
to support reasonable future assessments of visibility impacts and
appropriate control strategies consistent with the Committee Report
associated with the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014.
Response: As a general matter, wherever possible, we intend to
follow the committee report instructions associated with the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014, even where not specifically
incorporated by reference into the CAA itself. We are currently working
to update our ``Guideline on Air Quality Models'' in appendix W to part
51 of title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, and we proposed updates on
July 29, 2015. Also, as of the date of responding to this comment, we
have proposed updates to chapters within our Control Cost Manual.
Comment: One commenter stated that if we change the final rule to
not include SO2 reductions at one of the affected
facilities, we must conduct an analysis under Executive Order 13045--
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. Another commenter suggested that polluters need to reconsider a
business model that burdens low income communities, especially those
with minority populations, with the effects of air pollution, and urged
that EPA is accountable to low income, underserved, and vulnerable
communities in Texas that are constantly being ignored.
Response: As explained more fully in a later section of this
document and in our RTC document, Executive Order 13045 does not apply.
To the extent our final rule limits emissions of SO2, this
will also increase the level of environmental protection and beneficial
effect on human health 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.
Comment: EPA has improperly avoided analyzing and evaluating
potential energy-related impacts of the proposed rule on reliability
and prices of electricity in Texas and the ERCOT region, despite
Executive Order 13211 requiring such evaluation. The EPA is using a
loophole in Executive Order 12866, despite meeting the cost and effect
criteria and the order's purpose, to avoid evaluating the potential
energy impacts of the proposed action as required by Executive Order
13211. Moreover, the proposed rule is inconsistent in claiming the rule
is both of national scope and effect and not of general applicability.
Additionally, CAA section 169A(g) requires that the state and the
Administrator consider the energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance when determining BART. Finally, citing ERCOT's
recent report, the proposed FIP affects a significant portion of Texas'
base load power generation fleet and the potential for adverse effects
from the EPA's proposed rule is actually increased, not lessened,
because the costs and impacts of the rule are focused within a smaller
region. Therefore, regardless of Executive Order 13211 applicability,
EPA should evaluate and consider the impacts of the proposed FIP on the
reliability and price of electricity in Texas.
Response: As explained more fully in a later section of this
document and our RTC document, Executive Order 13211 does not apply as
this action is not a rule of general applicability under Executive
Order 12866. Our determination regarding this is not inconsistent with
our determination that the rule is of national scope and effect, as
these are different determinations that we fully evaluated under their
respective standards, and are not directly comparable. Additionally, we
did consider the commenter's concerns regarding grid reliability and
price of electricity, as discussed more fully in the Grid Reliability
section of this document, so we did not ``utilize a loophole'' in the
applicability provisions of Executive Order 12866 to
[[Page 316]]
avoid consideration of the concerns raised in this comment.
I. Controls in Addition to CAIR/CSAPR, and CSAPR Better Than BART
Comment: Texas is the only state included in CSAPR for which EPA is
issuing a FIP for reasonable progress. EPA proposed to issue a FIP that
would replace Texas' reliance on CAIR to satisfy the BART requirement
for EGUs with reliance on CSAPR. But EPA's proposal otherwise
disregarded CSAPR's more stringent SO2 and NOX
emission budgets for Texas, as compared to CAIR, as well as the
additional trading restrictions imposed by CSAPR. For all other states
that have relied on either CAIR or CSAPR, EPA found such participation
to satisfy the states' reasonable progress obligation for the first
planning period for those sources. EPA should not require controls
beyond BART for BART sources because it is reasonable to conclude that
no additional emissions controls are necessary for BART sources in the
first planning period.
Response: As discussed elsewhere in this document, although we
proposed to rely on CSAPR to address the BART requirements for EGUs in
Texas, we are not finalizing that proposed action. On July 28, 2015,
the D.C. Circuit Court issued its decision in EME Homer City \87\
upholding CSAPR but remanding without vacating a number of the Rule's
state emissions budgets, including Texas' budgets. We are currently in
the process of determining the appropriate response to the remand, and
the extent to which the SO2 and NOX CSAPR budgets
for Texas will change is currently unknown. The uncertainties regarding
the CSAPR SO2 budgets are particularly relevant given our
rule's focus on this pollutant.\88\ Even assuming, however, that EME
Homer City had not invalidated the CSAPR NOX and
SO2 budgets for Texas and that we were taking final action
to address the BART requirements through reliance on CSAPR, we do not
agree that we are prohibited from requiring controls beyond CSAPR for
purposes of reasonable progress. We noted in 2005 that the
determination that CAIR provided for greater reasonable progress than
BART did not answer the question of whether more than CAIR would be
required in a regional haze SIP.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ EME Homer City Generation v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir.
2015).
\88\ ``In short, EPA's 2014 SO2 emissions budgets for
Texas, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina require each of those
States to reduce emissions by more than the amount necessary to
achieve attainment in every downwind State to which it is linked.
The reductions on those four States are unnecessary to downwind
attainment anywhere. Those emissions budgets are therefore
invalid.'' EME Homer City, at 129 (citing EME Homer, 134 S. Ct.
1584, 1608-9 (2014)) (internal quotations omitted).
\89\ 70 FR 39104, 39143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, such a simplistic comparison ignores the meaningful
differences between Texas and the other states cited by commenters in
which no controls on NOX and SO2 from EGUs beyond
CSAPR were required. As explained in our proposed rulemaking, allowing
Texas to rely on CSAPR to meet its reasonable progress obligations is
not appropriate, considering the large impact of Texas sources on
visibility at Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita
Mountains and the availability of cost-effective controls even after
considering CAIR/CSAPR's previously projected reductions.
Comment: EPA should disapprove Texas' determination to exclude all
BART-eligible sources from being subject to BART and EPA should do
source by source BART for NOX. Further, if EPA does not
finalize the proposed controls for reasonable progress, then EPA should
do source by source BART for SO2. EPA's proposal to rely on
CSAPR as an alternative to BART is unlawful for three reasons. First,
EPA's proposal exempts sources from BART requirements without complying
with the statutory prerequisites for such an exemption. Second, even if
EPA could relieve the sources of the obligation to install BART
controls, the ``Better than BART'' rule upon which EPA relies is
flawed. Third, the ``Better than BART rule'' is no longer valid given
the substantial changes in CSAPR allocations and compliance deadlines.
Response: As discussed above, we are not finalizing our proposed
action to rely on CSAPR to address BART due to the partial remand of
CSAPR in EME Homer City. We will address the question of appropriate
SO2 and NOX BART limits for EGUs in Texas in a
future rulemaking. Comments concerning the appropriateness of CSAPR as
an alternative for BART in Texas are not relevant to this action.
Additionally, we are finalizing the proposed controls for reasonable
progress. Therefore, the comment that we should do source-by-source
BART for SO2 if the reasonable progress controls are not
finalized is moot.
J. Installation of Controls Beyond the First Planning Period
Several comments assert that our FIP authority is limited to
``filling the gaps'' in a state's SIP submission. These commenters
further contend that our FIP authority is limited by the scope of the
SIP submission. Because the required reasonable progress goals should
be met at the conclusion of the first planning period, the commenters'
argument continues, our FIP authority is likewise limited to those
controls that can be implemented by 2018. We disagree. Our authority to
use a FIP to address a ``gap'' or ``inadequacy'' in a SIP refers to a
``gap'' in the plan's coverage of requirements contained in the statute
and regulations, and is not limited to the specific ``gap'' left by the
disapproved portions of the scope of action covered in the state's SIP
submission, as commenters suggest.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ See CAA Sections 110(c) and 303(y).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this action, we are determining whether Texas has addressed the
regional haze requirements set forth in the CAA and our implementing
regulations. Our FIP determines that under a proper assessment of
reasonable progress factors, additional controls for some sources in
Texas are warranted for the first planning period. Regulatory delays
created by a complex Texas submission and EPA actions regarding the
state's regional haze requirements, including the time needed for EPA
to assess the complex 2009 submission and the thousands of comments
received on our proposed action, cannot provide an exemption from the
CAA requirement to address regional haze. Nor can regulatory delays
make additional delays excusable when the requisite CAA analysis
concludes the controls are warranted at the earliest opportunity to
make reasonable progress. Additionally, there is nothing in the CAA or
the regional haze rules that constrains our FIP authority to only those
controls that can be installed in the first planning period. While
reasonable progress goals reflect that degree of visibility improvement
attainable during the first planning period (which extends to 2018), as
was indicated in our proposal, the long-term strategy requirements of
the program by their very nature look beyond these interim goals to the
state's ``long term'' approach to addressing regional haze and may
include control measures and accompanying visibility improvements that
extend beyond the first planning period.\91\ The commenter's concerns
center upon controls that are not accounted for in the numerical
reasonable progress goals, but rather as we acknowledge, are part of
the long-
[[Page 317]]
term strategy and needed for reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 79 FR 74874, citing Guidance for Setting Reasonable
Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze Program, Section 5.2. By
statute, the long-term strategy for making reasonable progress may
extend ``ten to fifteen years.'' CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(B); 42
U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments also asserted that our proposed FIP disregards the ``time
necessary for compliance'' factor of the reasonable progress analysis.
As we discuss in detail in the RTC document, we are required by
regulation to ``consider'' time necessary for compliance when
establishing reasonable progress goals, and we satisfied this
requirement by proposing reasonable progress goals that account only
for those controls that can be fully installed within the first
planning period, as is consistent with our Reasonable Progress
Guidance.\92\ For the scrubber retrofits that may require up to five
years to fully install, we exercised our authority to propose a long-
term strategy including emission limits that require controls that may
not be operational during the planning period and therefore are not
included in the reasonable progress goals. We also note that we expect
that design and construction of the scrubber retrofits will begin
within the planning period, in order to meet the five-year compliance
date. This approach is consistent with other FIPs issued by EPA and
takes into account the time engagement required to promulgate a FIP
within a planning period and the significance of the CAA's contemplated
ten to fifteen year long-term strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See our Reasonable Progress Guidance, page 5-2: ``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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other comments asserted that our requirement for controls outside
of the planning period is inconsistent with previous FIPs. We disagree
with this comment. First, we have proposed or promulgated FIPs
requiring controls with compliance dates beyond the first planning
period, including FIPs for Arkansas and Wyoming. The Oklahoma FIP
includes requirements beyond the first planning period as the result of
a stay during litigation. Further, we have applied the requirements of
the regional haze program to ensure consistency in the requirements
upon the sources subject to regulation. If we were to follow the
commenters' arguments and fail to require application of necessary
controls on Texas sources past the first planning period, those sources
would be treated inconsistently with sources in other states that were
required to apply the controls necessary to meet the CAA's requirement
to address regional haze. We cannot agree to inconsistent application
of necessary controls at Texas sources due to delays in promulgating a
FIP or time-intensive installation schedules, but rather, we address
these program requirements through the long-term strategy, which, as
discussed above, allows for control strategies that can begin design
and construction but cannot be completed within the planning period.
Several comments assert that our regulatory delays preclude EPA
from imposing certain emission limitations that may not be achieved
within the first planning period. Despite any delays in finalizing our
action on the Texas SIP or in promulgating the FIP, we have a duty to
act on the SIP and a duty to fulfill the regional haze requirements of
the Act, including the authority to promulgate a FIP that imposes the
controls required by the CAA where a SIP submission fails to do so.
This duty and authority is not forfeited or constrained by delays,
whatever their cause. We likewise disagree with commenters who consider
it inappropriate for controls to be required after the planning period
because corresponding visibility benefits may not be realized during
the planning period. The fact that benefits of such controls may not be
realized within the first planning period does not affect our
determination that the controls are necessary nor deprive us of our
authority to impose the requirements.
A commenter asserted that all of the controls required under the
proposed FIP can be installed within the first planning period. We
agree that in some cases scrubber retrofits can and have been installed
in less than five years; however, we do not have the information
necessary to make that determination for each specific facility
included under the proposed FIP. Thus, we proposed an installation
timeframe consistent with past successful BART-related scrubber
retrofits that, while conservative, ensures the necessary time to
install the controls.
K. Cost
We received numerous comments related to the cost analyses we
performed to support the seven scrubber retrofits and the seven
scrubber upgrades we proposed. These comments were received from both
industry and environmental groups, and covered all aspects of our cost
analyses.
Some of the comments we received from industry concerning our
proposed scrubber retrofits were objections to our use of the IPM cost
algorithms that were developed by Sargent and Lundy (S&L) under
contract to us. As we discuss in our Cost TSD, we programmed the DSI,
SDA, and wet FGD cost. algorithms, as employed in version 5.13 of our
IPM model, into spreadsheets.\93\ Industry stated these cost algorithms
were not accurate enough to warrant their use in individual unit-by-
unit cost analyses and that our use of them violated our Control Cost
Manual. Others stated the IPM cost algorithms do not consider site-
specific costs, or in the case of wet FGD, do not adequately consider
wastewater treatment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ See discussion beginning on page 3 of our Cost TSD for more
information concerning our use of the IPM cost algorithms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we disagree with these commenters and conclude that the
IPM cost algorithms provide reliable, study-level, unit-specific costs
for regulatory cost analysis such as required for BACT, BART, and
reasonable progress.\94\ We received other comments relating to our
scrubber retrofit cost analyses, but none of them caused us to revise
our scrubber retrofit cost-effectiveness basis. We also received a
number of comments that our proposed emission limits were too
stringent. We disagree with these comments and present several lines of
evidence, including real-world data demonstrating that our proposed
emission limits are not only achievable, but are in fact conservative
in many cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ We believe that the IPM cost algorithms provide study level
accuracy. See pdf page 17 of our Control Cost Manual: ``[a]``study''
level estimate [has] a nominal accuracy of 30% percent.
According to Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, a study estimate
is `. . . used to estimate the economic feasibility of a project
before expending significant funds for piloting, marketing, land
surveys, and acquisition . . . [However] it can be prepared at
relatively low cost with minimum data.' ''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we discuss in our proposal,\95\ our scrubber upgrade analyses
were based on information we received in response to our requests under
CAA section 114(c). This information was claimed as CBI under 40 CFR
2.203(b). As a consequence, we are obligated to protect the
confidentiality of that information while it is subject to such claims,
which precludes us from publicly posting this in our docket at
regulations.gov. CBI information, while a part of our rulemaking
docket, is protected from public disclosure under our CBI requirements.
Although we received some public domain comments on our proposed
scrubber upgrades, most were claimed as CBI. We analyzed that
information, and as we discuss below in our comment response summary,
we have modified certain aspects of our analyses. Like our proposed
scrubber upgrade cost analyses, our revised scrubber upgrade cost
analyses are similarly treated as CBI but are available
[[Page 318]]
for review by the respective facilities. This prevents us from being
able to publicly disclose the details of our analyses. Our revised
scrubber upgrade analyses changed our proposed cost-effectiveness basis
from where all scrubber upgrades were less than $600/ton, to where all
scrubber upgrades ranged from between $368/ton to $910/ton. This is
well within a range that we believe is cost-effective, given the
visibility benefits that will result from the installation of those
controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74876, and section 4.5 of
our FIP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below we present a summary of our responses to the more significant
comments we received that relate to our proposed cost analyses.
Comment: We received information from Luminant and NRG claimed as
CBI concerning our proposed scrubber upgrades. These companies hired
S&L who alleged that we made various errors in our cost analyses and
that our proposed SO2 emission rates were too low. In
related comments, Luminant stated that it hired S&L to review our
scrubber upgrade cost analyses and, in so doing, it found multiple
flaws. S&L states that many of our assumptions are not valid,
especially those regarding the accuracy and scope of the CBI estimates
we relied upon, our calculation of SO2 baseline emissions,
achievable efficiency, and our calculations of the operating costs. We
also received comments from the TCEQ that we should have provided more
detail about how we developed the costs for these scrubber upgrades.
Earthjustice \96\ submitted information concerning previous scrubber
upgrades that supports the reasonableness of our assumed control level
of 95%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ When we refer to Earthjustice, we also mean the National
Parks Conservation Association and the Sierra Club as these groups
collectively submitted comments. These groups also contracted with
independent technical experts including Ms. Victoria Stamper, Dr. H.
Andrew Gray, and Dr. George D. Thurston.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As explained above, because Luminant and NRG claimed the
above information as CBI, we were required to separate out such CBI and
respond to it in a separate CBI protected document (organized by
claimants). Although this information is a part of our record to this
action, we cannot post it to our electronically posted public docket at
www.regulations.gov. We disagree with the TCEQ that we should have
provided more information concerning the cost of the scrubber upgrades
we analyzed. Our scrubber upgrade cost information was based on
information supplied under CBI claims by the affected facilities in
response to requests for information under CAA section 114(a).
Accordingly, although this information is still in our docket, and is
being used to support our decision making, it cannot be included in our
publicly posted docket at www.regulations.gov and can only be disclosed
by us to the extent permitted by CAA section 114(c) and our regulations
governing treatment of CBI as set out at 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
We generally disagree that our analysis was flawed. We specifically
used information provided by Luminant's and NRG's own independent
contractors (e.g. S&L) whom they hired to assist in providing
information responsive to our CAA section 114 requests. We have
reviewed the scrubber upgrade cost analyses performed by S&L that were
provided with separate comments from NRG and Luminant and adopted S&L's
methodology, which mainly concerned operational costs. However, we
noted many errors and undocumented cost figures in S&L's analyses. We
corrected these errors and rejected some of S&L's undocumented
assertions and/or costs. Nevertheless, in order to produce a
conservative scrubber upgrade cost analysis and set many of the issues
that Luminant raises aside, we incorporated many of Luminant's cost
items. The resulting costs for Luminant's scrubber upgrades increased
slightly, resulting in a range of $368/ton to $910/ton for all of the
scrubber upgrades, but remained well within a range that we believe is
cost-effective, given the visibility benefits that will result from the
installation of those controls.
Comment: San Miguel stated that it should not be included in our
FIP, but if it was included, its SO2 emission limit should
be increased and its emission averaging period should be changed from a
monthly basis to an annual basis.
Response: We have reanalyzed the monthly emission data for San
Miguel, including calculating the 30 BOD average for it since it
completed its scrubber upgrades. We reaffirm our proposed conclusion
that based on the coal that San Miguel has historically burned over the
last several years, and its demonstrated ability to remove 94% of the
sulfur from that coal, that it should be able to meet our proposed
emission limit of 0.60 lbs/MMBtu based on a 30 BOD average. We also
believe additional spare capacity exists in San Miguel's scrubber
system. However, similar to what we discussed in our proposal,\97\ and
in section I.B.3.b, of this action, we offer San Miguel the opportunity
to install a Continuous Emissions Monitoring System (CEMS) at its
scrubber inlet and demonstrate that it maintain at least 94% control
based on a 30 BOD average. Our RTC document has more details on these
options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See discussion beginning on 79 FR 74885.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The TCEQ summarized its approach to analyzing controls for
reasonable progress and stated that its approach was adequate. In
particular, the TCEQ defended its use of a $2,700/ton threshold for
control, which it stated was used in CAIR, and its decision that the
cost of the controls was not worth the improvement in visibility.
Response: As we note in our proposal,\98\ we disagree with the TCEQ
that its approach to reasonable progress was adequate. We note that to
the extent that TCEQ's cost threshold was reasonable, our estimate of
the costs of the controls required by our FIP fall below the $2,700/ton
threshold used by Texas, with one exception. For the one source with
estimated costs exceeding $2,700/ton, the costs of controls is less
than the $2,700 threshold selected by Texas, after adjusting for the
escalation of costs over time.\99\ The TCEQ's potential control set
consisted of a mix of large and small sources, located at various
distances from Class I areas, with a large geographical distribution.
Some controls would likely result in significant visibility benefits,
but some would result in little to almost no visibility benefits.
Because it only estimated the visibility benefit of all the controls
together and weighed those benefits against the total cost of
controlling the mix of sources under consideration, the TCEQ was not
able to assess the benefit of controlling individual sources or the
subset of sources with significant, and potentially cost-effective,
visibility benefits. Larger individual benefits were obscured by the
inclusion of those controls with little visibility benefit that only
served to increase the total cost figures. As a result, despite its own
conclusions that controls below $2,700/ton were available for a number
of sources,\100\ and CENRAP's modeling results that Texas point sources
impact the visibility at the Wichita Mountains several times more than
the impacts from Oklahoma's own point sources, Texas ultimately decided
to not control these sources.
[[Page 319]]
Furthermore, Texas' analysis did not include consideration of scrubber
upgrades on key sources with large visibility impacts and potentially
very cost-effective controls. Texas' flawed analysis prevented it from
properly considering whether reasonable controls were available on the
subset of sources or group of sources with the largest visibility
impacts. Although our Regional Haze Rule and our Reasonable Progress
Guidance provide states with latitude in approaching reasonable
progress, states must still meet the requirements of the CAA and
Federal requirements. We conclude that Texas' approach was flawed and
this fundamental critical flaw in Texas' analyses cannot be approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\98\ 79 FR 74838.
\99\ Conservatively escalating the $2,700/ton value from when it
was first developed for the CAIR rule, which was finalized on March
10, 2005, to the time of our analysis, which was conducted in 2014,
results in a value of $3,322/ton (i.e., the Chemical Engineering
Plant Cost Index for 2005 = 468.2, and that for 2014 = 576.1; $2,700
x 576.1/468.2 = $3,322).
\100\ See Appendix 10-1 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP. For
example, the costs of scrubbers for Big Brown (Acct No F10020W)
Units 1 and 2 were determined to be $1,573 and $1,540, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Earthjustice agreed with our conclusion that Texas'
approach to reasonable progress obscured potentially cost-effective
controls. Earthjustice also generally supported our reasonable
progress/long-term strategy analysis, concluded that in comparison with
other actions our costs were conservative (high) but reasonable, but
stated that additional units should have been proposed for control.
Earthjustice criticized our emission baseline methodology of
eliminating the high and low values from the 2009-2013 emission data
and averaging the resulting three years of data. It reanalyzed our
scrubber retrofit cost-effectiveness calculations for Big Brown,
Monticello, Coleto Creek, Welsh Units, W. A. Parish, and Tolk Units 1
and 2, using a straight 5-year average of the 2009-2013 emissions, and
concluded our costs were too high. Earthjustice generally stated our
assumed DSI SO2 removal efficiency was too high.
Earthjustice believed we should have considered coal blending with low
sulfur coal and lignite drying. Earthjustice also provided an analysis
for Novel Integrated Desulfurization (NID). Earthjustice concluded that
our calculated cost-effectiveness values were too high, and that NID
was also a viable alternative to SDA and wet FGD and offered some
advantages.
Response: We confirm that one of our intentions in performing our
cost analyses was to conservatively estimate many of the individual
cost parameters (tending toward a higher cost estimate) and demonstrate
that even doing this, our proposed scrubber upgrade and scrubber
retrofit cost analyses were cost-effective. We believe we have met that
goal. We disagree with Earthjustice that we should have proposed
additional units for control and respond to this comment in the
Modeling section of this document and the RTC document. We continue to
believe our five-year emission baseline methodology, with the
elimination of the highest and lowest emission years, is appropriate.
The BART Guidelines, which we drew upon for some of our reasonable
progress/long-term strategy analyses, state that the emission baseline,
``should represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual
emissions for the source. In general, for the existing sources subject
to BART, you will estimate the anticipated annual emissions based upon
actual emissions from a baseline period.''[hairsp]\101\ We eliminated
the high low values from the 2009-2013 emission to better address
issues such as variations in coal sulfur content, capacity usage,
operations, etc., and make the baseline more representative of typical,
recent plant operations. The difference between our baseline
calculations and a straight 2009-2013 average is small and would not
change our conclusion that the scrubber upgrades we proposed are very
cost-effective. We also believe our DSI analysis strategy was
appropriate. We analyzed DSI at both a 50% control level that is likely
achievable for all the units, and the highest level of control the
units were potentially capable of achieving, with design factors and
costs adjusted accordingly, thus bracketing the problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ 70 FR 39167.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We do not believe there is enough information concerning NID
installations at this time to warrant an intensive analysis of that
technology. Given the vendor advertised control efficiency of NID, the
selection of NID technology rather than wet FGD would not change our
proposed SO2 limits. With the exception of Tolk, the non-air
quality environmental impacts of a NID and wet FGD are similar and do
not warrant eliminating either technology. We proposed that the units
in question meet certain SO2 emission limits, but we did not
mandate a specific control technology in doing so. Consequently, any
unit, including the ones discussed herein, may elect to use a NID to
achieve our required SO2 emission limits.
With respect to the comment that we should have considered blending
the coal used at the units with low sulfur coal, we note that most of
the units in question either burn lower sulfur Powder River Basin (PRB)
coal or they blend it with lignite. We do not believe we have the
necessary technical information (e.g., fuel sulfur content,
availability, cost, contractual information, etc.) to properly consider
fuel blending or fuel switching. Nevertheless, the emission reductions
achieved by switching to cleaner coal are much less than the emission
reductions anticipated due to the implementation of the required
controls. We agree that in some circumstances coal drying can be a
viable technology for improving boiler efficiency and, in the process,
reduce emissions because less coal is burned to achieve the same heat
input to the boiler. However, we are not required to consider every
potential technology under the reasonable progress and long-term
strategy provisions of the Regional Haze Rule, which applies to the
analysis in question. We considered both SDA and wet FGD, and the next
most promising SO2 removal control, DSI. Were we to have
considered coal drying, it would have ranked below DSI in its ability
to remove SO2.
Comment: Luminant provided general objections to our cost analyses
and stated our analysis relies entirely on a cost-per-ton metric but
ignores what it considers the more meaningful cost-per-deciview metric.
Response: Luminant's general cost comments are addressed with
specificity in the cost section of our RTC document. We reject
Luminant's contention that we should have used the $/dv metric, a
contention we also rejected and addressed in our Oklahoma FIP.\102\ We
note that to use the $/dv metric as the main determining factor would
most likely require the development of thresholds of acceptable costs
per deciview of improvement for both single and multiple Class I
analyses. In Oklahoma v. EPA, the Tenth Circuit Court recognized our
authority to use a different metric when promulgating a FIP.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Response to Technical Comments for Sections E. through H.
of the Federal Register Notice for the Oklahoma Regional Haze and
Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA-
R06-OAR-2010-0190, 12/13/2011, pdf 116.
\103\ ``When promulgating its own implementation plan, [EPA] did
not need to use the same metric as Oklahoma. The guidelines merely
permit the BART-determining authority to use dollar per deciview as
an optional method of evaluating cost effectiveness.'' Oklahoma v.
EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1221 (10th Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: S&L cited to capital costs at Monticello 3 and Sandow 4,
including spray headers and mist eliminators, that we mistakenly
removed from our scrubber upgrade cost analyses.
Response: S&L is correct that we did in fact remove these capital
costs from our scrubber upgrade cost analyses because we noted these
costs were included in a 2013 Use Determination Application to the
TCEQ, which identified that new replacement tower spray nozzles and
mist eliminators had been installed. We wrongly assumed
[[Page 320]]
that after having identified that its scrubber system could be upgraded
cost-effectively, and having performed some of those modifications,
Luminant had installed new upgraded spray headers and nozzles rather
than replacing its worn out spray header and nozzles with the less
efficient original design. However, based on the comment received on
this, we added these costs back into our updated scrubber upgrade cost
analyses and the result was a very minor increase in the cost-
effectiveness value (higher $/ton). This did not affect our conclusion
that upgrading the scrubbers for these units is very cost-effective.
Comment: S&L states that in escalating costs, we should have
assumed its 2006 reports were in 2005 dollars and we should have
escalated our costs out to 2015. S&L also objected to our use of a 10%
increase to our escalation to account for escalation outside of the
customary five-year window, our deletion of Allowance for Funds During
Construction (AFUDC), and our deletion of owner's costs. S&L, GLCC, and
CCP allege our use of a 30-year life for our scrubber retrofit and
scrubber upgrades analyses is inconsistent with our Control Cost
Manual. Earthjustice supported our 30-year assumed life.
Response: We agree with S&L that we should have assumed its 2006
reports were in 2005 dollars, and we have made the appropriate
correction to our escalation calculations. We disagree that we should
have carried our escalation costs forward to 2015, because we used the
most recent emission data that was available, for both the cost
analyses and modeling, which was 2013 data. As we explain in more
detail in the Cost section of the RTC document, based on consideration
of the CEPCI cost indices over the 2005-2013 period, we conclude that
our approach of adding an additional 10% to our escalated cost is
reasonable and likely conservative. As we have noted in a number of
previous actions, AFUDC and owner's costs are not allowable under the
Control Cost Manual overnight approach.\104\ We refer S&L to our
response to the scrubber life issue in our Oklahoma FIP in which we
supported a 30-year life.\105\ Because none of the facilities involved
have entered into (or offered to enter into) enforceable commitments to
shut down the applicable units earlier, we have continued to use a 30-
year equipment life for scrubber upgrades, as we believe that is
proper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ See for instance our ``Response to Technical Comments for
Sections E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice for the
Oklahoma RH and Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan,''
Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0190, 12/13/2011.
\105\ Response to Technical Comments for Sections E. through H.
of the Federal Register Notice for the Oklahoma RH and Visibility
Transport Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-
0190, 12/13/2011. See discussion beginning on page 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Xcel notes that in performing our dry scrubber cost
analysis for Tolk, we failed to consider that there is a general water
scarcity in the area with no surface water availability, and that to
obtain the additional amount of water necessary to support the
operation of dry scrubbers, Xcel would have to attempt to purchase
water rights from existing farmers along with a gathering system or
look at other costly alternatives. Based on the historical cost of
water rights in the area, this is an additional capital cost of
approximately $40 million that was not included in EPA's cost
estimates. Earthjustice encouraged us to investigate Xcel's water
rights, and estimated the cost to purchase additional water rights
based on assumptions we used to assess this issue for the Gerald
Gentleman facility in Nebraska.
Response: We have conducted an extensive investigation of the issue
raised in Xcel's comments, including additional communication with Xcel
and the High Plains Water District, in order to clarify some of Xcel's
assertions.\106\ We conclude that Xcel's asserted water requirements
for dry scrubbing are much higher than other similar dry scrubbing
installations, and the basis for the disparity is unsupported. As
confirmed by our communications with the High Plains Water District and
Xcel, we also conclude that Xcel has multiple lines of access to
adequate supplies of water sufficient to supply the proposed dry
scrubbers (SDA) without the need to buy additional water rights. First,
we calculate that water already available at Tolk is almost enough to
satisfy the additional water demand of our proposed dry scrubbers.
Second, we note that Xcel receives blowdown water from nearby Plant X
\107\ and that Xcel offered testimony to the Public Utility Commission
of Texas that two units in Plant X will retire in 2019 and 2020, which
will free up additional water that could be used to satisfy the
additional water demand of our proposed dry scrubbers. Third, we
believe that Xcel has access to additional unexploited water rights
that are more than adequate to supply our proposed dry scrubbers.
Lastly, we acknowledge that Tolk's ultimate sources of water, the
Ogallala Aquifer, continues to be depleted. However, considering the
water needed by our proposed dry scrubbers is by Xcel's own account
only approximately 9 to 12% of the total plant's needs, the aquifer's
depletion will be a limiting factor on the operation of the plant
itself, not on the operation of the scrubbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ Please see our docket for inclusion of this communication,
which are in the form of emails transmitting letters and other
information.
\107\ ``Plant X'' is the actual name of a nearby EGU also owned
by Xcel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Xcel alleged that in our cost analysis we failed to
consider that our proposed dry scrubbers would (1) end Tolk's sales of
its fly ash or require the installation of additional baghouse
capacity, and (2) require additional landfill capacity. Xcel also
alleged that we did not adequately consider DSI and non-air
environmental impacts, and that our assumption of a 30-year operating
life is wrong.
Response: We disagree with these comments. Our cost analysis did
include an additional baghouse that could be installed upstream of the
dry scrubber which can preserve Tolk's existing fly ash sales. Also,
our cost analysis included landfill costs, which based on Xcel's own
information, are adequate to cover the additional disposal costs. We
also believe our DSI cost methodology, in which we bounded the range of
expected DSI performance, was adequate and demonstrated that DSI was
not cost-effective when compared to the dry scrubber we costed for
Tolk. Lastly, as we discuss in our responses to other comments, we
believe our assumption of a 30-year life is proper, and we note that in
testimony to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUCT), Tolk
assumed similar equipment lives.
Comment: S&L states we overestimated SO2 reductions (and
thus our cost-effectiveness calculation was too low) for scrubber
upgrades due to our SO2 baseline methodology in which we
eliminated the high and low annual average values from 2009-2013 and
averaged the remaining three yearly values. Earthjustice stated we
overestimated our cost-effectiveness calculations for our scrubber
retrofits in part due to our SO2 baseline methodology.
Earthjustice stated it would have been more appropriate to use a five-
year annual average emissions baseline, five-year annual average
SO2 rate in lb/MMBtu, and five-year average gross heat rate
and MW-hrs generated, based on data from 2009 to 2013.
Response: We disagree with the commenters. As we note in our
proposal, we used the BART Guidelines for some aspects of our analysis
and believe our methodology is in agreement
[[Page 321]]
with the relevant language in that regard.\108\ We calculated our
baseline SO2 emissions by first acquiring the 2009 to 2013
emissions as reported to us by the facilities in question. This is
reflective of the actual emissions from the underperforming scrubber
systems installed at the units in question. We then calculated the
uncontrolled SO2 emissions by acquiring U.S. Energy
Information Agency coal usage data. We used these two figures to
calculate the level of control for each year. In so doing, we
eliminated the highest and lowest annual emission values from 2009-2013
to better address the issues S&L raises in its other comments
(variations in coal sulfur content, capacity usage, operations, etc.)
and to make the baseline more representative of typical, recent plant
operations. The difference between our baseline calculations and a
straight 2009-2013 average is small and does not change our proposed
conclusion that the scrubber upgrades we proposed are very cost-
effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ 70 FR 39167. ``The baseline emissions rate should
represent a realistic depiction of anticipated annual emissions for
the source.'' See also 79 FR 74874.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: S&L stated that our assumption that wet FGD retrofits can
achieve 98% reduction or a controlled SO2 emission rate of
0.04 lb/MMBtu is unrealistic and cannot be sustained on a continuous,
long-term basis. Earthjustice stated that our assumed scrubber retrofit
emission rates were not stringent enough.
Response: We disagree with S&L. First, we note that vendors
routinely guarantee SO2 emission limits at least as
stringent as, or more stringent than, what we have proposed. We have
also conducted extensive analysis of a number of SO2
scrubber retrofits in which we have plotted their 30 BOD SO2
emission limits.\109\ Of the units we analyzed, 13 retrofit units have
guaranteed control efficiencies of 95% to 99%, with eight of them
guaranteed at 98% to 99%. With one exception, these eight units are
achieving 98% to 99% SO2 control, when calculated using a
very conservative method we have adopted. We also demonstrate that
units similar to the ones in question are able to continuously sustain
SO2 limits lower than what we have proposed for at least one
year, and in some cases much longer. For instance, three of the units
have achieved a maximum 30-day BOD equal to or less than our proposed
SO2 emission limit for scrubber retrofits of 0.04 lb/MMBtu:
\109\ See our RTC document for much more detail on our analysis,
and the file, ``Selected scrubber retrofit efficiencies.xlsx,''
which is in our docket and contains the plots discussed. The
performance of each scrubber in our data set is summarized in the
file, ``Selected scrubber retrofit efficiencies.xlsx.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scherer Unit 2: 0.01 lb/MMBtu based on 485 data points \110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Where ``data point'' represents a valid daily
SO2 monitored value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iatan Unit 1: 0.02 lb/MMBtu based on 2,004 data points
Boswell Energy Center: 0.03 lb/MMBtu based on 1,881 data
points
Our technical conclusions are also consistent with past judicial
findings regarding achievable removal efficiencies and control rates,
including conclusions in the already five years past case of United
States v. Cinergy Corp., 618 F. Supp. 2d 942, 947 and 961-962 (S.D.
Ind. 2009).\111\ Thus, we disagree with S&L that our proposed scrubber
retrofit SO2 emission limits are not realistic or
maintainable on a long-term basis. We agree with Earthjustice that it
may be possible that many of the scrubber retrofit units can achieve
greater control efficiencies than we proposed. Greater control
efficiencies would result in a more favorable cost-effectiveness (lower
$/ton) and more visibility improvement. This is another area in which
we strove to be conservative in our analyses in order to demonstrate
that even with many conservative cost assumptions the scrubber
retrofits we proposed are cost-effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ While the underlying expert report submitted by the
Department of Justice in that case is protected from release under
Court order, the testimony of the government expert witness that
substantially accords with it, as well as our conclusions in
responding to this comment, has been added to our docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: S&L stated that our use of the IPM cost algorithms was not
in keeping with our Control Cost Manual and because of the limited
number of site-specific inputs, the IPM cost algorithms provide order-
of-magnitude control system cost estimates, but do not provide case-by-
case project-specific cost estimates meeting the requirements of the
BART Guidelines, nor do the IPM equations incorporate the cost
estimating methodology described in the Control Cost Manual.
Response: We disagree with S&L. As we stated in our Cost TSD, we
relied on the methods and principles contained within the Control Cost
Manual, namely the use of the overnight costing method. In fact, the
Control Cost Manual does not include any method for estimating the
costs of any of the SO2 control methods evaluated in this
action. We note our strategy of relying on a publicly available control
cost tool is similar to the strategy the states themselves employed in
the development of their own SIPs. For instance, as explained in the
Texas SIP, the TCEQ used the control strategy analysis completed by the
CENRAP, which depended on the EPA AirControlNET tool \112\ to develop
cost per ton estimates. We have used IPM cost models to estimate BART
costs in other similar rulemakings including our Arizona regional haze
FIPs,\113\ the Wyoming regional haze FIP,\114\ and to supplement our
analysis in the Oklahoma FIP.\115\ S&L used real world cost data to
construct its cost algorithms and confirm their validity. These cost
models have been updated and maintained since their introduction in
2010 and have been continuously used by us since that time. These
control costs are based on databases of actual control project costs
and account for project specifics such as unit size, coal type, gross
heat rate, and retrofit factor, and they require unit specific inputs
such as reagent cost, waste disposal cost, auxiliary power cost, labor
cost, gross load, and emission information. We believe that the IPM
cost models provide reliable study-level, unit-specific costs for
regulatory cost analysis such as required for BACT, BART, and
reasonable progress. Lastly, we are confident in the basic methodology
behind the S&L cost algorithms such that in our recent proposal for
updating the SCR chapter of the Control Cost Manual,\116\ we presented
an example costing methodology that is based on the IPM S&L SCR
algorithms, which were developed using a similar methodology to the wet
FGD, SDA, and DSI cost algorithms discussed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Our AirControlNET tool is out of date and no longer
supported.
\113\ 77 FR 42852 (July 20, 2012).
\114\ Memorandum from Jim Staudt to Doug Grano, EPA, ``Review of
Estimated Compliance Costs for Wyoming Electricity Generating Units
(EGUs)--revision of previous memo'', February 7, 2013, EPA-R08-OAR-
2012-0026-0086.
\115\ 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011).
\116\ 80 FR 33515.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: S&L stated that the IPM cost algorithms do not adequately
consider site specific information and it cites to a number of
possibilities including demolition and relocation of equipment,
modifications that may be required to the existing ash handling
systems, replacement of the existing induced draft fans or booster fan
modifications, modifications/upgrades to the existing auxiliary power
system, and labor productivity. S&L criticized our use of a retrofit
factor of 1.0 for all units, and stated that the inlet temperature of
Big Brown and Monticello units was 360-370 F, which
[[Page 322]]
is above the 300 F assumed value in the IPM algorithms, and would
result in a flue gas volume increase of 10%, requiring additional
costs.
Response: We note that the IPM cost algorithms, which are derived
from real world costs, already have retrofit issues built into them.
Our assumption of a retrofit factor of 1.0, which represents an average
retrofit difficulty, likely overestimates the costs of some facilities
(e.g., Tolk) that have no retrofit issues. We solicited comments on all
aspects of our scrubber retrofit cost analyses, but received little of
the site-specific information to which S&L cites. Also, S&L provides no
documentation for those it does cite. Regardless, these types of issues
result in small increases in costs that are well within the required +/
-30% accuracy \117\ and do not affect cost-effectiveness conclusions
due to the conservative nature of our estimates, as demonstrated
elsewhere in these responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ Control Cost Manual, p. 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S&L does not provide any documentation to support its contention
that the IPM wet FGD cost algorithms are based on a generic scrubber
inlet temperature of 300 F. We have researched all available references
on this issue and cannot find anything to support this conclusion.
Rather, we conclude that the IPM cost algorithms estimate costs from
regression equations based on actual completed projects. There are a
number of factors other than temperature that affect the volume of gas
flow that passes through a scrubber system. These include the amount of
in-leakage in the system (which often increases due to inefficient or
worn seals in the air preheater) and the type and characteristics of
the coal that is being burned. This is made clear by examination of two
of the scrubber retrofit reports for Big Brown (one of the units S&L
cites), which were issued by S&L in 2004 and 2007, we received in
response to our CAA Section 114 requests.\118\ The 2004 report
indicated that the design flue gas flow rate at the scrubber inlet was
approximately 19.7% less than that in the 2007 report. However, both
reports indicated that the reference temperature at the inlet was 370
[deg]F--the same temperature S&L references in its comment--and both
were at the same pressure. It is clear there are many variables that
impact flow beyond temperature. We therefore conclude that S&L has not
documented its temperature assertion, available information does not
support it, and its temperature inference is too simple to properly
characterize the situation. In any case, even assuming a 10% increase
in gas flow rate, would not result in a significant enough increase in
cost to impact our decision regarding these facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ LUMINANT_000277496.pdf and LUMINANT_REGHAZ_1-000001183 to
-000001257.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: S&L states the IPM cost module includes costs only for
minor physical and chemical wastewater treatment. However, wastewater
treatment standards proposed by EPA, and anticipated to be published as
a final rule in 2015, will likely require significantly more advanced
treatment of FGD wastewaters. S&L states this could add $30-$40 million
to the cost of a retrofit wet FGD control system and we should have
included these costs in our estimates.
Response: Because our wastewater treatment rules have not been
finalized, and therefore we do not know with certainty whether any
additional costs may be incurred, it is not appropriate for us to
include those costs in our cost-effectiveness calculations. Even if
those costs prove to be substantial, other options are available,
including zero liquid discharge systems and the selection of a
SO2 control technology that achieves the emission limit
without generating a wastewater stream, such as NID scrubbers, which we
believe are capable of achieving our emission limits, and have been
selected in some recent installations.\119\ In addition, we believe
that at least one of the studies that produced actual costs that were
used to construct the IPM cost algorithms included wastewater treatment
costs. Lastly, we did not receive any documentation from any facility
to substantiate any wastewater treatment costs, including the figures
that S&L cites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\119\ We recently proposed approval of NID as BART for the Flint
Creek Unit 1 in Arkansas (80 FR 18944). Other recent installations
include the Homer City Units 1 and 2, Boswell Unit 4, Brayton Point
Unit 3, and Indian River Unit 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Luminant and others allege we did not properly balance
costs and visibility benefit and stated we should have used the dollar
per deciview ($/dv) metric.
Response: We disagree that the $/dv metric is more meaningful than
our use of the $/ton metric in conjunction with our consideration of
the visibility benefit from the installation of controls. As we noted
in our Oklahoma FIP,\120\ use of the $/dv metric would most likely
require the development of thresholds of acceptable costs per deciview
of improvement for BART determinations for both single and multiple
Class I analyses, and we have not developed such thresholds. This
decision by EPA not to use this metric in a FIP was reviewed and upheld
in Oklahoma v. EPA by the Tenth Circuit Court.\121\ We see no reason to
deviate from our view of the dollar per deciview metric in the
reasonable progress context that applies here. We also note that the
use of the dollar per deciview metric is further complicated in the
present case due to our use of CAMx modeling. As we discuss in our
proposal and elsewhere in the Modeling section of this document and in
Modeling Sections of our RTC document, there is no way to directly
compare the CAMx modeling we used in our proposed Texas/Oklahoma FIPs
with previous CALPUFF modeling results because of differences in the
models, model inputs, and metrics used.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Response to Technical Comments for Sections E. through H.
of the Federal Register Notice for the Oklahoma Regional Haze and
Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA-
R06-OAR-2010-0190, 12/13/2011, pdf 116.
\121\ Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1221 (10th Cir. 2013).
\122\ See our FIP TSD, page A-35 and modeling section of the RTC
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
L. Cost Versus Visibility Benefit
Comment: Our proposed controls would not result in perceptible
visibility improvements and thus should not be finalized. Commenters
also stated that the required controls result in miniscule or
insignificant visibility improvements.
Response: We disagree that the Regional Haze Rule requires that
controls on a source or group of sources result in perceptible
visibility improvement.\123\ As we noted in our TSDs, we derived much
of our approach to the analysis of control costs and visibility impacts
from the BART Guidelines.\124\ 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: \125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ It is generally recognized that a change in visibility of
1.0 deciview is humanly perceptible.
\124\ See the discussion in our FIP TSD, beginning on page 6.
\125\ 70 FR 39129.
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.
We accordingly disagree that selection of control measures should be
contingent upon perceptible visibility improvement. As we stated in our
previous rulemaking addressing the BART determinations in Oklahoma:
\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ 76 FR 81739.
[[Page 323]]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Thus, in our visibility improvement analysis, we have not
considered perceptibility as a threshold criterion for considering
improvements in visibility to be meaningful. Rather, we have considered
visibility improvement in a holistic manner, taking into account all
reasonably anticipated improvements in visibility and the fact that, in
the aggregate, improvements from controls on multiple sources will
contribute to progress towards the goal of natural visibility
conditions. Visibility impacts below the thresholds of perceptibility
cannot be ignored because regional haze is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic
area. In this action, as discussed below, we found that the required
cost-effective controls reduce visibility impairment from those sources
with the largest visibility impacts and result in meaningful visibility
benefits towards the goal of natural visibility conditions.
As we have noted and discussed in a separate response to comment,
the results of the CAMx modeling we have utilized in our proposal
cannot be directly compared to the results of CALPUFF modeling, which
has been utilized in the vast majority of other BART and reasonable
progress/long-term strategy actions, because of differences in the
models, model inputs, and metrics used.\127\ Many of these differences
result in CAMx modeled visibility impacts and benefits that are much
lower than the CALPUFF modeled visibility impacts and benefits relied
on in other actions. We disagree with commenters that the visibility
benefits from the controls in our FIP are miniscule when the
differences in modeling analyses are considered. We observe that
several comments that are critical of the extent of the visibility
benefits have cited only to benefits from the scrubber upgrades,
omitting the total anticipated visibility benefit from all required
controls. As we discuss in the FIP TSD and in separate responses to
comments, we believe it is necessary to consider visibility benefits
based on ``clean'' natural background conditions to assess the full
potential for visibility benefits from controls. For example, we
estimated that the required controls provide for over 3 dv improvement
on 20% worst days at the Wichita Mountains when estimated using a
``clean'' background and result in improving projected visibility
conditions by 0.45 dv over the visibility conditions projected by
CENRAP and Texas for 2018 and an estimated 0.62 dv improvement in the
visibility conditions in 2018 when considering recent actual emissions
(values are for 20% worst days). The required controls result in a
greater than 5% improvement in overall visibility conditions at the
Wichita Mountains on the 20% worst days. We also estimate that the
required controls significantly reduce the projected delay in meeting
natural visibility, helping to achieve that goal 25 to 30-years earlier
at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountain by our projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ FIP TSD at A-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CENRAP modeling showed that Texas sources have significant
visibility impacts at the Wichita Mountains and the Texas Class I
areas. Our analysis identified those point sources with the greatest
contributions to visibility impairment at these Class I areas, and the
required controls reduce visibility impairment from those sources with
the largest impacts where controls were determined to be available and
reasonable for this first planning period. For example, the Monticello
and Big Brown facilities are projected to contribute approximately 1.3
Mm-\1\ and 1.2 Mm-\1\, respectively, to
visibility impairment on the 20% worst days at the Wichita Mountains in
2018 based on the CENRAP 2018 projected emissions for these
facilities.\128\ This is 1.7% and 1.5% of the total visibility
impairment at the Wichita Mountains.\129\ In our FIP TSD we noted that
Texas used an impact extinction level threshold of 0.5
Mm-\1\ (a level less than half of the estimated impact from
the Monticello or Big Brown facilities) from all sources in a state as
a threshold for inviting another state to consult. Oklahoma selected a
threshold of 1.0 Mm-\1\ to determine which states should
consult in analyzing visibility impairment at the Wichita
Mountains.\130\ We also noted that the largest projected contribution
from all point sources within a state at the Wichita Mountains after
Texas (14%) is Oklahoma at 3.9%. In other words, elimination of all
point sources in Oklahoma would result in less visibility benefit
(3.9%) than the required controls (greater than 5%). As these facts
demonstrate, the identified facilities have significant impacts on
visibility conditions. Our technical record makes it equally plain that
the required controls reduce impacts from these sources and result in
meaningful visibility benefits towards the goal of natural visibility
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\128\ 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).
\129\ We note that the impacts from Big Brown and other
facilities are even larger when considering recent actual emissions
rather than the CENRAP 2018 projected emissions.
\130\ See Texas Regional Haze SIP Appendix 4-1: Summary of
Consultation Calls and Section X.A. of the Oklahoma Regional Haze
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Texas' choice of 0.5 deciview as a benchmark for total
visibility improvement (from all sources) to use in its four-factor
analysis was reasonable and consistent with EPA guidelines. Under the
BART Guidelines, a source ``contributes to any visibility impairment,''
and thus becomes subject to BART, if it has an impact greater than 0.5
deciview at any Class I area. It is thus logical that a level of
visibility improvement at a single Class I area that is less than the
threshold at which a source becomes subject to BART in the first place
would be deemed insignificant for all sources. Indeed, in other
regional haze actions, EPA has ``defer[red]'' to states' consideration
of the 0.5 deciview threshold. And given Congress's special emphasis on
BART sources, Texas' reference to the BART 0.5 deciview threshold to
evaluate reasonable progress for the first planning period was
conservative, and Texas could reasonably determine that total
visibility benefits below the BART threshold for an individual source
should be deferred until a later planning period for reasonable
progress.
Response: We disagree that Texas' choice of a 0.5 dv visibility
threshold, including the manner in which it was applied, was proper in
its analysis. First, the quote from our BART Guidelines was based on
CALPUFF modeling and not CAMx modeling. Texas extrapolated results from
CAMx modeling to estimate the visibility improvement due to all the
identified controls in their analysis and then compared it to a
threshold developed for CALPUFF modeling. As we state in the FIP TSD
and discuss in detail in our response to comments, ``[a] common metric
used in BART visibility modeling using CALPUFF is the BART screening
level of 0.5 del-dv used by most states for screening out facilities
from further BART consideration. However, there are a number of factors
that make the two analyses different and not comparable, invalidating
the use of the BART screening metric, or other such comparisons with
modeled visibility impacts for reasonable progress with
[[Page 324]]
CAMx or CMAQ.'' \131\ In the FIP TSD and in separate responses to
comments we discuss the differences in the models, model inputs, and
metrics used. Many of these differences contribute to CAMx modeled
visibility impacts and benefits for reasonable progress being much
lower than the CALPUFF modeled visibility impacts and benefits for BART
relied on in other actions. As detailed in the FIP TSD, these
differences include the emission rates modeled, the metrics used and
whether the deciview impacts are calculated based on ``clean'' natural
background conditions or a ``dirty'' background based on degraded
visibility conditions projected for 2018. The CALPUFF emissions modeled
for BART are representative of maximum emission rates and are therefore
usually significantly larger (often in the range of double) than
average emission rates used in CAMx modeling for a reasonable progress
analysis. One of the main metric differences is that the CALPUFF
analysis for BART utilizes a clean background and compares the 8th
highest daily maximum impact from the specific source modeled to
compare against a 0.5 dv threshold to indicate significant impacts
while the visibility benefit that was estimated by Texas to assess the
benefit of additional controls for reasonable progress was based on a
``dirty'' or degraded background and average benefits over the 20%
worst days observed by the monitor at the Class I area which may or may
not be inclusive of the highest impact days from the specific source
modeled with CALPUFF for BART. As we discuss in detail in the FIP TSD,
because the deciview metric is a logarithmic function of extinction,
visibility impacts and improvement calculated based on ``dirty''
conditions are substantially lower than those calculated based on
natural ``clean'' conditions.\132\ These differences were not
considered in Texas' visibility analysis and selection of threshold. We
note that Texas did calculate visibility impacts compared to natural
visibility conditions and focused on the maximum impact from the
modeled sources in their BART visibility analysis, which also relied on
CAMx photochemical modeling, to determine the significance of
visibility impacts from BART sources for BART screening purposes.
However, in assessing the benefit of additional controls for reasonable
progress, Texas only considered visibility benefits averaged over the
20% worst days based on a ``dirty'' or degraded background.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\131\ FIP TSD at A-35 and modeling section of the RTC document.
\132\ FIP TSD at A-38. ``For example, see Figure A.3-5 which
shows the del-dv change due to a 10 (1/Mm) change at both the 2018
projected extinction level [``dirty background''] and the 2064
natural visibility conditions [``clean background''] extinction
level for the Wichita Mountains. In the `dirty background' case the
10 (1/Mm) yields a 1.26 del-dv, whereas in the `clean background'
case the same 10 (1/Mm) yields a 3.86 del-dv improvement. In this
example, the `clean background' situation yields a del-dv
improvement 3 times greater than the `dirty background' for the same
level of extinction improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The difference between comparing visibility improvement on a
``clean'' and ``dirty'' background is analogous to comparing the change
in sound volume that would occur if one person stopped singing loudly
in an empty room (clean background) to the change that would occur if
one person stops singing loudly in a room crowded with a 100 people
singing loudly (dirty background). In both cases, to return the room to
natural background sound level, the individual singers must be
addressed, but there will be little or no perceptible difference in
volume when one singer in the crowded room stops singing. To carry the
analogy further, our analysis was designed to identify the Texas
sources with the greatest visibility impact (the loudest singers) and
address them in this first planning period.
Second, the 0.5 dv threshold in the context of BART is used to
assess the maximum total visibility impact from all BART units at a
facility. If the impact from all the BART sources at a facility is
above the threshold, then each BART unit must be evaluated for
controls, and therefore the visibility improvement anticipated from
controls would be less than 0.5 dv on a facility basis, and much less
than 0.5 dv on a unit specific basis for BART sources with multiple
BART units. For these reasons, the BART threshold of 0.5 dv has no
relation to the analysis Texas performed and is inappropriate. We also
note that we discuss in the preamble to the final Regional Haze Rule
and Guidelines for BART Determinations that a threshold less than 0.5
dv may be appropriate.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\ ``. . ., if there were 100 sources each changing
visibility by 0.1 deciviews, the total impact would be a 10-deciview
change in visibility. In this hypothetical example, all 100 sources
would be contributing, in equal amounts, to substantial visibility
impairment . . . .'' 70 FR 39121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even setting aside Texas' approach of aggregating sources with
varying impacts on visibility, the use of a 0.5 dv threshold as applied
by Texas for determining the significance of visibility benefits of all
controls combined would have ensured that little visibility improvement
would occur during this planning period. Texas and Oklahoma
acknowledged in their SIP submittals that sources in Texas have a large
impact on visibility at the Wichita Mountains; indeed, the visibility
impacts at this Class I area from Texas point sources are several times
greater than the impacts from Oklahoma's own point sources. Based on
CENRAP 2018 modeling, all point sources in Texas combined have a
visibility impact in terms of light extinction of 10.58
Mm-\1\ at the Wichita Mountains, which based on ``dirty''
2018 CENRAP projected background conditions equals a 1.34 dv impact for
the 20% worst days. Therefore, adopting the 0.5 dv threshold, using
Texas' approach to assessing reasonable progress measures, would
require the identification of a control set large enough (and with a
correspondingly large total cost) to address over one-third of the
total impacts from all Texas point sources, before the visibility
benefit would be considered significant. To put this into context,
achieving the national goal at the Texas Class I areas will require
just over ten deciviews of improvement (approximately a reduction in
light extinction of 35 Mm-\1\), a task that EPA has
estimated could reasonably take until 2064. Given that the Regional
Haze Rule recognizes that improving visibility is an iterative process
that will take many years, declining to establish any additional
measures to ensure reasonable progress until Texas could identify a
combined set of cost-effective and affordable controls that could
achieve 0.5 dv or more improvement is unreasonable, especially when
there are cost-effective and affordable controls that result in
meaningful visibility improvements towards the goal of natural
conditions. We also note that delaying even incremental action during
this first planning period pushes out the likely date of achieving
natural conditions well past 2064.
Comment: Earthjustice stated that based on its analysis,\134\ our
proposed FIP would result in billions of dollars in public health
benefits. According to Earthjustice, the same pollutants that cause
visibility impairment also cause significant public health impacts.
Nitrogen oxides are precursors to ground level ozone, which is
associated with respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased
lung function. Similarly, sulfur dioxide increases asthma symptoms,
leads to increased hospital visits, and can form particulates that
aggravate respiratory
[[Page 325]]
and heart diseases and cause premature death. We received many
additional comments from groups, private citizens, and a member of
Congress that expressed similar public health, welfare, and economic
benefits, including ecosystem and tourism benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Written Report of George D. Thurston Regarding the Public
Health Benefits of EPA's Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Texas And
Oklahoma Regional Haze, April 18, 2015. Visibility And Health
Modeling Technical Support Document to Comments Of Conservation
Organizations, prepared by Dr. H. Andrew Gray, April 20, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We appreciate the commenters' concerns regarding the
potential health benefits of air pollution controls to improve air
quality In Class I areas. We generally agree that the same emissions
that cause visibility impairment can also cause health related
problems, such as respiratory ones. We agree that although our action
addresses visibility impairment, our FIP requires emissions reductions
that will result in co-benefits for public health, welfare, and
economic benefits. However, for purposes of this action, we are not
authorized to specifically consider these types of benefits under the
regional haze program.
M. Natural Conditions
Comment: We received comments from the TCEQ and a number of
facilities and trade organizations that we should have approved Texas'
natural conditions calculations for Big Bend and the Guadalupe
Mountains. These commenters state that Texas rightly discarded our
default values in favor of its refined estimates in accordance with our
guidance. In doing so, these commenters state Texas rightly assumed all
the visibility impairment due to coarse mass and fine soil was due to
natural causes. Earthjustice stated that Texas did not properly support
its calculations. Earthjustice stated that because Carlsbad Caverns in
New Mexico (approximately 40 miles from the Guadalupe Mountains) uses
the same monitor and we previously approved New Mexico's use of our
default natural conditions estimate, allowing Texas to use a different
value is inconsistent.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the Regional Haze Rule
and our guidance \135\ do allow states to develop an alternate approach
to estimate natural visibility conditions. However, in adopting an
alternate approach, that approach must be fully supported and
documented. The TCEQ's analysis and our own observations do support a
conclusion that much of the contribution of coarse mass and fine soil
to the visibility impairment at the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend is
due to natural sources. They do not demonstrate that 100% of this
contribution is due to natural sources. Like us, the FLMs did not agree
with the assumption that 100% of the coarse mass and soil was natural,
and pointed to human activity in the region. The FLMs ``suggested that
the commission could judiciously use 80 percent as the natural source
of coarse and fine dust and 20 percent of coarse and fine dust due to
human activity.'' \136\ Although the TCEQ presented the FLM's
suggestion in its SIP, it ultimately adopted its own estimate, based on
its unproven 100% coarse mass and soil assumption. Another option that
we noted in our proposal that was open to the states, and the one we
used in proposing the natural conditions for the Texas Class I areas in
our FIP, was the ``new IMPROVE equation'' that was adopted for use by
the IMPROVE Steering Committee in December 2005.\137\ This refined
version of the IMPROVE equation provided more accurate estimates of
some of the factors that affect the calculation of light extinction.
The TCEQ started with this refined version of the IMPROVE equation, but
further altered some of its parameters concerning the contributions of
coarse mass and fine soil, without adequate documentation. We found
that the TCEQ's documentation was flawed, but we are under no
obligation to follow in the TCEQ's footsteps and make whole its
methodology, when we had already provided guidance with default natural
visibility conditions, which were further refined by the 2005 IMPROVE
Steering Committee. We agree with Earthjustice that it is reasonable to
expect that both Carlsbad Caverns and the Guadalupe Mountains should
have the same or nearly the same natural conditions. We urge Texas and
New Mexico to work together to resolve this issue in the next planning
period. Even as we are disapproving Texas' natural conditions
estimates, we conclude that our determinations for emissions
limitations for EGUs in the FIP for the first planning period would be
justified on the basis of natural conditions estimates at either levels
in the SIP or the levels in the FIP, given the level of visibility
impairment at each Class I area above the different estimates for
natural conditions and the availability of cost-effective controls at
those sources with the largest visibility impacts that result in
meaningful progress towards the natural visibility goal. Furthermore,
as we noted in our proposal, based on both our recalculated natural
conditions and the Texas natural condition estimates that we are
disapproving, Texas' Class I areas are not projected to meet the
uniform rate of progress in 2018 according to the CENRAP modeling and
are not projected to meet the goal of natural visibility conditions by
2064.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\135\ Guidance for estimating natural visibility conditions
under the Regional Haze Rule, EPA, September 2003, p 1-11.
\136\ Appendix 2-2 of the Texas Regional Haze SIP.
\137\ 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. See our proposal
for additional information on the IMPROVE program and the new
IMPROVE equation.
\138\ 79 FR 74832
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Luminant's contractor AECOM noted that in developing its
SIP, Texas found that some of the haziest days at its two Class I areas
are the result of uncontrollable natural conditions such as windblown
dust and wildfire emissions. AECOM developed a daily threshold
percentage of total aerosol extinction \139\ caused by CM, OMC, and
soil species for each Texas Class I area. This threshold was developed
by constructing histograms of the 20% worst days for a ``noticeable
step-up in frequency'' of higher contributions of CM, OMC, and soil.
AECOM then added this additional extinction to our default natural
conditions extinctions, resulting in alternate natural conditions
estimates that it suggests we adopt. AECOM states that with these new
natural conditions, the uniform rates of progress will be met for Big
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ Note that although natural conditions are ultimately
expressed in deciviews (dv), the IMPROVE equation first calculates
aerosol extinctions by contributions to extinction by all relevant
species, of which coarse mass and fine soil are two. Total
extinction is then converted to deciviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: Although AECOM restricts its assumption to specific days,
it nevertheless assumes that all coarse mass, organic mass carbon and
soil visibility impacts at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are
100% due to natural causes. AECOM provides no documentation to support
this conclusion. Although we agree that much of those species
contributions are due to natural sources, we do not believe that all of
these contributions are due to natural sources. Fires, windblown CM and
soil do have both anthropogenic and natural origins. As an initial
matter, we believe that AECOM erred in assembling its histograms. We
reconstructed these histograms and note they differ significantly from
those AECOM presented. In fact, we believe the ``noticeable step-up in
frequency of higher contributions of CM, OMC, and soil (i.e., from
right to left)'' that AECOM points to is more muted for
[[Page 326]]
both Class I Areas when the histograms are assembled correctly, to the
point it is essentially absent for the Guadalupe Mountains. We noted
other problems that cause us to conclude that AECOM's methodology
should not be used. Moreover, under the Regional Haze Rule, even if it
were concluded that the uniform rate of progress will be met for Big
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains, this does not change the requirement
that the reasonable progress goals be selected based on proper
consideration of the four factors. As discussed in the proposal and the
RTC document, the uniform rate of progress is not a ``safe harbor''
under the Regional Haze Rule.
N. Consistency With Our Other Regional Haze Actions
We received a number of comments alleging specific instances of
inconsistency with our previous SIPs and FIPs, as well as with our
regional consistency rules at 40 CFR 56.5(a)(1) and (2). We have
extracted all of these alleged instances of inconsistency, and we
address them in detail in a separate consistency section within our RTC
document. We recognize that we have a duty to ensure our regional haze
actions are carried out in accordance with the CAA, Federal
regulations, and our policies, and are as consistent as reasonably
possible with other regional haze actions as required under our
regional consistency rules (40 CFR 56.5(a)(2)), recognizing the fact-
specific nature of individual regional haze plans and determinations.
As we discuss below, we believe that in this action, which is one of
the last remaining regional haze SIP reviews of the first planning
period, we have been as consistent with our previous actions as is
reasonably possible. We disagree that our action is inconsistent with
the reasonable progress requirements or our prior SIP actions. While
our regional consistency regulations and policies require us to carry
out our actions pursuant to the CAA in a consistent manner across EPA
regions as reasonably as possible, they do not require uniformity
between those actions in all circumstances and instead, ``allow for
some variation'' in actions taken in different regions.\140\ As
explained in detail in the separate consistency section of our RTC
document, we believe that we have acted consistently with the CAA and
our regional haze regulations in taking these specific actions for
Texas, and in accordance with 40 CFR 56.5, our final action is ``as
consistent as reasonably possible'' \141\ with other actions given the
specific facts presented in Texas and Oklahoma. We thus disagree with
these comments. We note that staff from Region 6 have worked closely
with EPA headquarters throughout the proposed and final actions
regarding the Texas and Oklahoma regional haze requirements, including
in the analysis and conclusions contained in the SIP and FIP
determinations included in this final rule. As explained fully in our
RTC document, we note that commenters' citation to the National
Environmental Development Association's Clean Air Project v. EPA (NEDA
CAP) case is distinguishable from our action here.\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 80 FR 50258.
\141\ 40 CFR 56.5(a)(2).
\142\ National Environmental Development Association's Clean Air
Project v. EPA (NEDA CAP), No. 13-1035 (D.C. Cir., May 30, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Developing solutions to the complex problem of regional haze
requires effective consultation among states. During the first planning
period, the states worked together through RPOs to help develop their
regional haze SIPs. To assist in this effort, we provided tens of
millions of dollars to the RPOs following the issuance of the 1999
Regional Haze Rule to fund the development of the technical tools and
analyses necessary to address regional haze and to facilitate
consultation among the states. The states set up five RPOs to address
visibility impairment from a regional perspective. The technical
analyses done by the RPOs for the first round of regional haze SIPs
greatly increased the understanding of the problem of visibility
impairment at the Federal Class I areas, including that of the specific
contribution of different species of pollutants.
Given the regional differences in the degree of visibility
impairment, the pollutants of concern, and the impacts of fire and
international emissions, we did not prescribe a one size fits all
approach to reasonable progress. The RPOs accordingly adopted somewhat
different approaches to recommending potential measures to ensure
reasonable progress. However, the RPOs and the states all agreed that
large stationary sources of SO2 are the typically the
primary cause or one of the primary causes of anthropogenic visibility
impairment at this time. In addition, in some regions of the country,
the RPOs and the states also recognized NOX as a similarly
important cause of visibility impairment.
In our review of the regional haze SIPs, we have attempted to take
into account the differences among states in assessing the
reasonableness of each state's SIP submittal. By its nature, each
regional haze decision is a very fact specific determination requiring
the consideration of multiple factors. After examining all instances of
perceived inconsistency with other actions, we believe that when all of
the factors are considered in their full context, the situation for
Texas and Oklahoma differs sufficiently from these other actions cited
as being inconsistent with this action to warrant the approach that we
have taken. Furthermore, we found that in many instances some
commenters reproduced incomplete quotes from our previous actions, or
otherwise took those quotes out of their proper context, leading to an
inaccurate characterization of the facts in some cases.\143\ Often a
sentence immediately preceding or following the reproduced quote in
fact provided that context. In other cases, commenters called out a
particular difference between some aspect of our technical analysis in
comparison to what was used in a previous SIP or FIP, without providing
the reasoning for those differences. In many other cases, the
commenters simply misunderstood or otherwise misinterpreted the
facts.\144\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\143\ See for example: (1) Our response to Luminant's comment
concerning the ``contribution of coal combustion sources'' in the
Alaska SIP, (2) Our response to CCP's comment concerning the
consideration of visibility in the North Dakota SIP, or (3) Our
response to CCP's comment concerning Texas' use of a $2,700/ton cost
threshold.
\144\ See for example: (1) The TCEQ's comment letter at page 14
concerning the Arkansas-Missouri consultations, (2) the AECT's
comment letter at page 9 that we did not allow Texas to consider
emissions from natural sources, such as wildfires and dust storms,
in establishing natural visibility conditions, (3) The CCP's comment
letter at page 8 concerning Texas' use of a $2,700/ton cost
threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many commenters compared our CAMx modeled visibility impairments or
improvements with those in other actions modeled using CALPUFF and
concluded that our proposed visibility improvements were not enough to
merit controls when compared to those other actions. These commenters
universally failed to account for the differences between these two
modeling platforms, the model inputs, and the metrics used.\145\ Many
of these differences result in CAMx modeled visibility impacts and
benefits that are much lower than the CALPUFF modeled visibility
impacts and benefits relied on in other actions. As we have noted and
discussed in separate responses to comments and the FIP TSD, the
results
[[Page 327]]
of the CAMx modeling we have utilized in our analysis cannot be
directly compared to the results of CALPUFF modeling, which has been
utilized in the vast majority of BART and other reasonable progress/
long-term strategy actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ See our FIP TSD, beginning on page A-35, in which we
explain why key differences in CALPUFF and CAMx preclude the
comparison of their respective results and why CAMx results for RP
are generally much less than CALPUFF results for BART for the same
facility/emissions due to the model inputs and metrics used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some commenters criticized us for disapproving the reasonable
progress and long-term strategy consultations between Oklahoma and
Texas, when other state-to-state consultations similarly failed to
result in additional controls. Often these comparisons were made
without regard to the specific facts, such as the magnitude of the
visibility impacts that Texas sources have on the Wichita Mountains in
Oklahoma in relation to the relative impact of the sources in those
other actions, or the overlooked cost-effective controls that were
available to Texas sources to address those impacts. Other commenters'
comparisons simply focused on the result without regard to the
substance: They noted instances where two other states consulted and
neither required additional controls, and concluded that Texas was
being treated unfairly.
Commenters also argued that our proposed disapproval of Texas'
reasonable progress analysis was based on Texas' decision not to
undertake a source-by-source analysis of emission controls. The
commenters pointed to a number of other regional haze SIPs approved by
EPA where states had relied on analyses of the reasonableness of
controls for various source categories. The commenters claimed that
these examples demonstrate that we accepted analyses of source
categories in other states and that we should not, therefore,
disapprove Texas' reasonable progress analysis on the grounds that it
failed to look at controls on a source-by-source basis. These
commenters ignore the fact that Texas' reasonable progress analysis
was, in part, based on a source-by-source analysis. However, Texas set
that analysis aside in favor of comparing the combined costs of all
controls-- not those for specific source categories-- against its
calculation of the total visibility benefit. More importantly, however,
as we have explained elsewhere in this action, our objection to Texas'
approach to evaluating potential reasonable progress controls was not
grounded in whether it used a category or source-by-source analysis.
Rather, our disapproval of Texas' reasonable progress analysis is based
on the fact that its flawed methodology ignored cost-effective controls
that, as we demonstrated in our proposal, would result in significant
visibility benefits.
Commenters also raise questions concerning our approval of regional
haze SIPs where states relied on implementation of CAIR or CSAPR to
satisfy BART. The commenters argue we repeatedly found that
participation in these trading programs also satisfied reasonable
progress obligations for these states. One commenter claimed it would
be illogical to find that CAIR or CSAPR was an appropriate substitute
for BART but to then require controls for reasonable progress. We noted
in 2005 that the determination that CAIR provided for greater
reasonable progress than BART did not answer the question of whether
more than CAIR would be required in a regional haze SIP.\146\ As we
have explained, we are not finalizing our proposal to rely on CSAPR to
satisfy the BART requirements for EGUs in Texas, and at this point it
is not certain what Texas' CSAPR budgets will be in the future.
However, the remand of the CSAPR budgets for Texas aside, we do not
agree that we have been inconsistent in our treatment of Texas. These
commenters ignore the meaningful differences between Texas and the
states cited. These include the significant impacts that point sources
in Texas have on the visibility at the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma,
even after the projected reductions from CAIR/CSAPR, the availability
of cost-effective controls that would address the largest visibility-
impacting sources, the flaws in Texas' technical evaluation of the
reasonable progress and long-term strategy provisions, and the flawed
consultations between Texas and Oklahoma. We also note that Texas
itself did not rely on its participation in CAIR to satisfy the
reasonable progress requirements without further consideration of
controls on its EGUs. Rather, Texas considered controls on a
combination of EGUs and non-EGUs, but ultimately rejected them based on
a flawed analysis of the reasonableness of such controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\146\ 70 FR 39104, 39143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
O. Modeling
Comment: We received comments that we should have prepared a
modeling protocol and made it available for public/stakeholder review
and comment. The commenters state that a modeling protocol is required
by EPA modeling guidance.
Response: EPA is not required to develop a modeling protocol and
take public comment on it. Our guidance and 40 CFR part 51 Appendix W
do not require us to develop a modeling protocol for our technical work
conducted to support review or rulemaking. We developed a workplan and
consulted with national experts at EPA HQ as needed to develop the
proposal that included modeling files, documentation of how the
modeling was conducted and results. We included all this information in
the materials for the proposal and took comment on all aspects of our
analyses and techniques.
Comment: We received comments that our selection of the CAMx model
rather than CALPUFF is inappropriate and unjustified. The commenters
stated that we did not justify the use of CAMx to model visibility
impacts from individual sources and at large distances, and our use of
CAMx here is outside of the model's capabilities. Furthermore, these
commenters assert that our concerns regarding using CALPUFF are not
clear, and they have concerns that overprediction of impacts are also
present in CAMx and therefore do not justify the use of CAMx. These
commenters also state that we failed to consider and discuss bias and
uncertainty in the modeling results and instead relied on the model
predictions as definitive results.
Response: We did include a number of reasons in our proposal and
Modeling TSD for our selection of the photochemical grid model CAMx
over CALPUFF. One of the primary reasons is we evaluated the Texas SIP
for reasonable progress and not BART, and the differences in the
purposes of these analyses supports the use of different models when
the resources are available to utilize a photochemical model.
Reasonable progress requires the evaluation of changes in emissions
from one or more facilities on visibility impairment at downwind Class
I areas, in order to properly account for chemical transformations of
those emissions, the model used must also include the other pollutants
in the airshed, for which CALPUFF is not as well suited. Reasonable
progress analyses typically look at the changes in visibility on the
20% worst days, and this evaluation was done by most states, including
Texas and Oklahoma, by utilizing a photochemical grid model (PGM) such
as CAMx or CMAQ and not CALPUFF. Therefore, our use of CAMx for
evaluation of additional potential controls is consistent with the
state's SIP submission.
We also discussed our selection of CAMx vs. CALPUFF and included in
the Modeling TSD a number of references to performance analysis
comparisons between the two models. There are also many comparisons
available in journal articles and online that support using a
photochemical grid model (most of these comparison
[[Page 328]]
studies are found in the Modeling TSD and the rest are in the docket).
Some of the references we provided in the proposal raised concern that
the use of CALPUFF could result in model over-prediction and other
model performance issues at the distances at which we were evaluating
most of the sources in our proposal. CALPUFF model results are used
directly, whereas photochemical grid model results such as those
achieved through use of CAMx are evaluated with Relative Response
Factors (RRFs) to help remove potential bias concerns. While no model
is free from bias issues, previous evaluations of the CENRAP databases
we used for our analyses have been evaluated and the CENRAP CAMx model
performance was considered adequate because the modeled outputs
compared well to past measured conditions. As discussed in the
following response, the only changes to the CENRAP basecase CAMx
modeling we made were to update both the CAMx model version used and
the chemical mechanism in order to use the best science and while
ensuring model performance was still acceptable.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ Additional information is also included in the Environ
Memorandums for the 2002 and 2018 modeling, (TX166-010-08
Memo_TXHAZE_2002CAMx_ENV_29July2013, TX166-010-09
Memo_TXHAZE_2018CAMx 16Sept13), the FIP TSD, and in the modeling
section of our RTC document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, there are many reasons for the selection of CAMx over
CALPUFF for the purposes of this rule making. CAMx is better suited for
evaluating the reasonable progress metric of improvement on the 20%
worst days. It is also better suited for evaluating multiple sources in
a complex airshed. In addition many references point to CALPUFF's
potential overprediction at the distances at issue here. Any bias
issues in CAMx are ameliorated by tethering the model to real
monitoring data, through the use of relative response factors generated
by modeling of base and future cases to predict future monitored
values.
Comments: We received comments that we failed to perform a full
model performance evaluation and instead compared model results to the
CENRAP modeling results despite deviations from CENRAP's modeling
protocol. These commenters also assert that we failed to update the
modeled emission inventories or consider more recent emissions data,
such as the 2011 NEI and EPA's recent projected 2018 emission inventory
showing large reductions from the Mercury Air Toxics Standards Rule
(MATS). They state that recent monitor data are representative and
indicate that our modeling is not representative of anticipated future
conditions and was not considered during model performance evaluation.
Response: We did not do a detailed model performance of the 2002
basecase because that had already been done by CENRAP. The only changes
we made in the 2002 basecase was to use a newer version of the CAMx
model and an updated chemical mechanism to utilize improvements in the
science for our analysis and decisions. As we discussed in our proposal
materials, these changes were not large and did not warrant a full
model performance evaluation. We did compare model results with
previous results and determined that model results were very similar
and deemed acceptable. It is not uncommon in the modeling community to
do some small updates such as we did and not perform a full updated
model performance analysis.
With regard to comments that we should have performed a more
complete update of the inventory, a full emission inventory update for
all emission categories such as biogenic, mobile, non-road, area, and
point sources for 2002 and 2018 was well beyond the scope of our review
of the SIP submittal. Such an update was not necessary to evaluate
whether the modeling and analyses submitted with the original SIP could
have led to a conclusion that additional reasonable progress controls
are appropriate. Once our evaluation concluded that it could be
appropriate for some sources to be better controlled for reasonable
progress, we did do minor updates to evaluate the most recent emission
levels of EGUs in Texas for the ones being further evaluated for
potential controls in our 2018 emissions. Because of the additional
focus on these particular sources it was appropriate to use more up to
date emissions. We also used the most recent CAMx model version and
updated chemical mechanism that included improvements to the source
apportionment of single point sources and plume in grid algorithms to
use the most recent science for our evaluations.
We evaluated the existing CENRAP 2002 and 2018 emission inventories
and whether to update parts of these emission inventories in 2018.
After our initial modeling analyses, we did update emissions for the
EGUs evaluated for potential controls to use recent actuals in the 2018
modeling, which were thought to better represent emissions from EGUs in
Texas based on comments from Texas and EGU owners.\148\ We also updated
the 2018 emissions for two other sources based on permitting and
additional controls. We considered updating the EGU inventory with the
emissions inventory from the modeling performed for the MATS
rulemaking. At the time of proposal, the best information available was
that no other major controls were planned to be installed on EGUs in
Texas for SO2 emissions in response to MATS, therefore using
the recent actuals that we used for 2018 emission rates (prior to any
potential reasonable progress controls) was the most reasonable
emission inventory to use in our further modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ Texas comments on Draft IPM modeling conducted by EPA for
potential national rule making platform provided on June 26, 2014.
In this docket's materials as ``TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft
modeling platform dated June 24, 2014 2018 EMP signed.pdf''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, we disagree with the commenter that the SIP modeling and
our further evaluation of 2018 expected levels are not representative.
In fact, the recent ambient monitoring data at the IMPROVE sites in the
three Class I areas (2011-2013) are influenced by meteorology that has
lower than normal transport of pollution from sources in Texas when
compared to the base period on which projections are based (2000-2004)
and to the 30-year meteorology analysis of transport to the three Class
I areas (1984-2013). Thus, examining the 2011-2013 time period
overstates the progress that can be expected over long term. In
response to comments and information provided we conducted further
analysis to appropriately evaluate whether the base period was suited
for projections to 2018 and also an analysis of how the meteorology
accompanying the more recent monitoring data for 2011-2013 compared to
normal meteorology conditions. We further note that 2014 also was not
quite a normal year \149\ and likely similarly biased low for
visibility impacts at the Class I areas, but even so monitoring data in
2014 did increase compared to the 2011-13 data. Overall, we conclude
that our evaluation of 2002 and 2018 levels and the controls needed for
reasonable progress are based on representative periods and that recent
monitoring trends are not as representative and not expected to
continue if meteorology is more in line with 30-year climatological and
transport norms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\ Some preliminary analyses of meteorology and pollution
levels in 2014 indicated a higher frequency of cold fronts during
the summer of 2014 that led to cleaner air from the arctic mixing
with the air in the region and resulted in lower pollution build-up
and transport of pollution to Class I areas in Oklahoma and Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We received comments that CAMx is not the approved model
in 40 CFR part 51, appendix W for
[[Page 329]]
modeling long-range transport for visibility.
Response: Neither the regional haze regulations nor appendix W
requires the use of a specific preferred model for photochemical grid
modeling for visibility (regional haze), but we have approved the use
of regional scale photochemical grid models such as REMSAD and
CMAQ.\150\ CAMx is another regional scale photochemical grid model that
was utilized by the RPOs and states and approved by EPA. CENRAP
conducted its final CAMx source apportionment modeling for the regional
haze analysis to be utilized in consultations of its nine state members
in development of their SIPs. We approved most of these SIPs that
included modeling analyses using CAMx and CAMx is clearly acceptable
for evaluating long range transport for visibility. Texas also used
CAMx in its reasonable progress analysis. Furthermore, Texas used CAMx
to screen small groups of sources and individual sources as part of its
BART screening and we approved that approach in 2006/7,\151\ based on
modeling enhancements that Texas contracted to be developed to assist
in assessing single point source visibility impacts on visibility at
Class I areas. The visibility impact analysis we performed with CAMx is
commensurate with the work originally done by Texas in 2006/7 for its
BART screening. Overall, Appendix W gives us discretionary authority in
the selection of what models to use for visibility assessments with
modeling systems, and models such as CALPUFF, CMAQ, REMSAD, and CAMx
that have all been used for that purpose. In this specific situation we
determined that CAMx had the best scientific modeling approaches and
tolls and was best suited for the complex analysis that we needed to
perform.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\150\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix W, Section 6.2.1 (e&f).
\151\ EPA, TCEQ, and FLM representatives verbally approved the
approach in 2006 and in email exchange with TCEQ representatives in
February 2007 (see email from Erik Snyder (EPA) to Greg Nudd of TCEQ
Feb. 13, 2007 and response email from Greg Nudd to Erik Snyder Feb.
15, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We received comments that our CAMx modeling significantly
overstates visibility impacts and improvements on which we based our
proposal. Commenters describe the ETEX and CAPTEX tracer studies and
conclude that the results of these studies prove that CAMx
overestimates visibility impacts by a factor of 3. These commenters
also claim that these results also show an overestimate in CALPUFF
results by a factor of 6 (ETEX) or a factor of 3 to 4 (CAPTEX). When
this factor of 3 over-prediction is taken into consideration,
commenters state, using the over-prediction amount to scale down
modeled visibility improvement from controls results in small
improvements and controls should not be required.
Response: We disagree with the commenters' conclusion about the
ETEX and CAPTEX tracer studies and the relevance of these tracer study
analyses. The analysis provided allegedly indicating that CAMx
overestimates visibility impacts by a factor of 3 is an incorrect
interpretation and has flaws in the evaluation and conclusions. Details
on our technical evaluation and conclusions on why the commenters'
analysis is flawed is in the RTC document. We do not condone the
calibration of model results to try to adjust for potential
biases.\152\ Furthermore, the bias amount indicated by the commenter is
flawed and is based on limited sampling of model performance
evaluations that exist. As stated in a response above, our CAMx
modeling analysis utilized a technique called RRF that limits the
potential impacts of modeling performance issues since the modeling
results are used in a relative sense and absolute modeling values are
not directly used. Due to this and other reasons, we do not think that
the CAMx modeling overstates the impacts. In fact, several pieces of
information indicate the impacts may be underestimated (see modeling
section of the RTC document for full discussion and references). Some
information indicates that using Plume-In Grid may result in
underestimation of a source's impacts. As discussed previously, in
particular in the Cost versus Visibility Benefit and Modeling sections,
we also disagree that the impacts are small, and we do think the
impacts are large enough and the benefits of lowering emissions to meet
the FIP emission limits are great enough to require these reductions.
As discussed in a separate response to comment in this section, the
CALPUFF modeling submitted by the commenter had flaws and is not
appropriate even before they did their inappropriate scaling of
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ App. W, Section 7.2.9(a) ``. . . Therefore, model
calibration is unacceptable.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Commenters provided back trajectory data (72 hours, 500m)
using HYSPLIT \153\ and monitored data for 2002 and 2011-2013 for the
20% worst days for Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita
Mountains. They conclude that these data show that only a small number
of back trajectories \154\ come from regions with sources being
analyzed and considered for controls. For Big Bend, the back-
trajectories submitted by the commenters show the majority of back-
trajectories coming from Mexico. For the Guadalupe Mountains, back-
trajectories also primarily came from Mexico and visibility impairment
is mostly due to natural sources. Back-trajectories for the Wichita
Mountains rarely come from sources that we are proposing to control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\ HYSPLIT is a model developed by NOAA to utilize national
meteorological modeling files to assess potential air transport.
\154\ The HYSPLIT model is designed to utilize archived
meteorological fields to generate back trajectories. The model user
will pick a certain receptor (in this case one of the Class I Areas)
and a specific time (in this case an hour on the day when monitoring
indicated there was high visibility impairment) and then the model
will assess the meteorological fields and use the wind speed and
direction for previous hours to indicate a centerline trajectory of
where the air that was monitored was in the hours before the day and
time selected. In essence the product is usually a jagged curved
line with hourly wind vectors that traces back a centerline for a
number of hours (example 72 hours). The back trajectory is a
centerline of the wind and the model user has to keep in mind that
dispersion and mixing occur so there are areas on either side that
can contribute as well and the further back in time the back
trajectory is processed the wider the areas on either side of the
centerline that could have contributed becomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: The commenters' back trajectory analysis for the base
period and 2011-2013 is flawed and did not follow the NOAA draft
guidance they cited and appropriate HYSPLIT modeling techniques.\155\
In addition, our evaluation, discussed in the modeling section of the
RTC document, shows that the 2011-13 time period is not representative
of climatological norms regarding the transport wind flows to the three
Class I areas. We also find that the base time period 2000-2004 was
more representative of climatological norms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\155\ NOAA is National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
NOAA is the developer of HYSPLIT and has previously provided draft
guidance on the use of the HYSPLIT model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We reached these conclusions by performing our own HYSPLIT modeling
of a 30-year period (1984-2013) and concluded that in years with wind
flow patterns consistent with the climatological norms over that period
a significant number of days have back trajectories that did include
areas where the sources proposed for additional controls are located.
Furthermore our analysis of the 2011-13 period which was less
representative of normal pollution transport patterns also showed a
number of back trajectories went through or near the areas with the
sources being considered for controls. Therefore these back
trajectories do indicate the sources being considered
[[Page 330]]
for control would be expected to reduce visibility impacts at the three
Class I areas.
Our analysis of 30-years of back trajectories to assess whether the
2011-13 and 2000-2004 periods were within the climatological norm also
indicated that the base period (2000-2004) was more similar to the
climatological norm than the 2011-2013 period, so we conclude that
using the base period is more representative for projecting 2018
levels.
In sum, the number of trajectories that go near the sources in
Texas is large enough to not rule them out from consideration for
potential control. In general, we have treated back trajectories as a
tool to potentially screen an area out if no trajectories go through an
area but if some trajectories go through an area then the area may be
evaluated further or, as in this case, the full analysis may rely on
more sophisticated tools such as CAMx.
The commenter indicated that a number of back trajectories went
through Mexico but failed to mention that many of these also went
through Texas. Therefore, sources in Mexico and Texas could contribute
emissions to the visibility impairment at the Class I Areas. We have
concluded that the back trajectory data provided by the commenter do
not support their assertions that transport from the regions with those
sources we are controlling is rare. The data they have provided are
inconsistent with the guidance and general practices and are for years
that are not representative of normal climatological patterns with
respect to transport wind flow to the Class I areas. Furthermore, the
back trajectories submitted by the commenter do in fact show transport
from regions of Texas for some days. Our additional analysis identified
the normal wind patterns over a 30-year period and determined that
based on normal conditions, transport does occur from the regions in
Texas with those sources we are controlling.
HYSPLIT is a meteorological transport model but does not assess the
dispersion of and impacts from pollutants from differing sources and
does not have chemistry to correctly assess the potential impacts of
secondary particulate matter. We used the CAMx model, which does
account for pollutants and utilizes atmospheric chemistry mechanisms to
calculate changes in visibility impacts from the proposed emission
reductions at specific sources. As discussed in a response to comment
above in this section, photochemical grid models such as CAMx are best
suited for this analysis and determination of the benefit of potential
emission reductions.
Comment: Commenters submitted CALPUFF modeling for Coleto Creek
Unit 1 for 2004-2006. Results indicate that visibility impacts from the
facility are below the 0.5 dv subject to BART threshold. The commenter
states that tracer studies suggest CALPUFF overestimates visibility
impacts by a factor of 4.5 (on average) and adjusts the CALPUFF model
results down by this factor. The commenter concludes that Coleto
Creek's calibrated impacts are very small and any visibility benefit
from controls would be even smaller.
Response: We have reviewed the CALPUFF modeling provided for Coleto
Creek Unit 1 and do not concur with the conclusions that Coleto Creek's
impacts are small. We have a number of concerns with the CALPUFF
modeling provided: (1) It utilizes the wrong years for modeling; (2)
the modeling does not comply with the original BART CALPUFF modeling
protocol that Texas and EPA approved; and (3) it uses some
inappropriate assumptions, including the calibrating of modeling
results based on limited analyses using other databases and locations
that are not directly comparable to assessing impacts from Coleto
Creek's units. The 0.5 dv threshold was utilized as a BART threshold,
but our action is for reasonable progress and the 0.5 dv threshold was
not set as an applicable threshold in the Regional Haze Rules for
reasonable progress (see response in the Cost versus Visibility Benefit
section of this document). We used a photochemical grid model which is
more scientifically robust than the CALPUFF modeling system and is more
appropriate for longer transport distances, such as the distances
between Coleto Creek and the Class I areas in Texas and Oklahoma. We
performed a multi-tiered analysis in order to identify the Texas
facilities with the largest impacts on visibility at Class I areas (in
Texas and Oklahoma) and Coleto Creek's facility did rank as one of the
largest impacting sources of the more than 1,600 sources considered in
Texas. As discussed in another response in this section, we do not
condone calibrating CALPUFF model output values. We discuss the
commenters' use of the tracer studies in the RTC document but their
analysis and conclusions are flawed and not representative of the
larger collection of information available that also is discussed in
more detail in the RTC document. In conclusion, based on our analysis
with CAMx, we think both the visibility impacts of the sources and the
benefits from the proposed emission reductions are large enough to be
beneficial for reasonable progress.
Comment: Focusing on visibility impacts on the 20% worst days
ignores larger impacts from these sources and other sources on other
days. This approach is also inconsistent with CALPUFF modeling for BART
of the maximum impact from a source for comparison with a 0.5 dv
threshold. Consideration of impacts on other days will identify sources
for control analysis that will result in visibility improvement on
other days and make progress towards the goal of natural visibility
conditions.
Response: Under the reasonable progress and long-term strategy
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, the state or EPA in
promulgating a FIP must establish reasonable progress goals that
provide for improvement on the most impaired days, demonstrate that the
established goals are reasonable and develop coordinated emission
management strategies to achieve those goals. The most impaired days
are defined as the average visibility impairment for the 20% of
monitored days in a calendar year with the highest amount of visibility
impairment.\156\ Because the rule focuses on improving visibility on
the most impacted days, we believe it is reasonable and appropriate to
focus our analysis on sources that significantly impact visibility on
those 20% worst days. While we generally agree with the commenter that
this may ignore visibility impacts from sources that impact visibility
on days other than the most impaired days, visibility impairment on the
current 20% worst days will be reduced as a result of controls
implemented to address visibility impairment for this first planning
period, and we believe that in the future the most impaired days may
shift and be impacted by different sources. Analysis and development of
future regional haze SIPs for future planning periods can aim to
address those sources that impact any new set of most impaired days.
Furthermore, targeted reductions at those sources that significantly
impact the most impaired days will also result in improved visibility
on days outside of the most impaired days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ This is the definition in the Regional Haze Rule, but it
contains an obvious typographical error. It should be interpreted to
mean that visibility on the most impaired days is defined as stated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CALPUFF modeling is used to provide estimates of the maximum
visibility impacts from a source based on maximum emissions and
simplified chemistry, irrespective of the relationship to the 20% worst
days. It is
[[Page 331]]
possible that CALPUFF modeling of some of the subset of the 38 sources
identified based on Q/d that were not analyzed for additional controls
could show significant impacts on the maximum or 98th percentile day,
but our CAMx photochemical modeling (which includes all emissions
sources and has a realistic representation of formation, transport, and
removal processes of particulate matter that causes visibility
degradation) provides additional information that allows for the
identification of the sources with the greatest impacts on the 20%
worst days.
Comment: EPA should have required additional controls on sources
beyond what we proposed in our FIP to assure even greater reasonable
progress. Certain controls are reasonable and consistent with the
proposed controls when impacts at Class I areas other than the Texas
Class I areas and the Wichita Mountains are considered. Some specific
facilities, such as Oklaunion and H.W. Pirkey, fall above the 0.3%
impact threshold for impacts at the Class I areas of interest and
should have been evaluated for controls. EPA evaluated controls for
Parish and Welsh but did not require controls despite significant
visibility benefit and reasonable costs.
Response: We focused our control analysis on the Texas Class I
areas and the Wichita Mountains. As discussed in more detail elsewhere
in this action, we are disapproving portions of the Texas and Oklahoma
regional haze SIPs, including the Texas long-term strategy
consultation, the Oklahoma reasonable progress consultation, the
Oklahoma established reasonable progress goal for Wichita Mountains and
the Texas reasonable progress/long-term strategy analysis and
consideration of reasonable controls at Texas sources necessary to
establish the Texas and Oklahoma reasonable progress goals. In
developing a FIP to address the deficiencies in the Oklahoma and Texas
SIPs, we had to analyze the visibility impacts and the availability of
reasonable progress controls at Texas sources that impact visibility at
the two Texas Class I areas and the Wichita Mountains and establish
reasonable progress goals including consideration of an appropriate
reasonable progress control analysis for these areas. We expect New
Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri to consider remaining impacts
from Texas sources on their Class I areas including the information on
visibility impacts from specific sources provided by our analysis, as
well as incorporate corrections and updates to emission reductions in
consultations and development of their regional haze SIPs for the next
planning period.
We disagree with commenters and we note, as further detailed in our
RTC document, that when recent actual emissions and unit-level
visibility impacts are considered, the units at the facilities
identified by the commenters, such as Oklaunion and Pirkey, fall below
the percent of visibility impairment threshold we established to
identify units for additional control analysis. This threshold was
established to identify a reasonable set of units that had the greatest
visibility impacts for additional control analysis for this planning
period. We note that any increases in actual emissions at these
facilities in the future should be considered during development of the
regional haze SIP for future planning periods. In future planning
periods, as the facilities with the greatest impacts are controlled,
the percent of total visibility impairment due to these lower impact
facilities will increase and they in turn should be considered for
additional control.
Considering the visibility benefits and costs, we disagree that we
should have required controls on units at Parish and Welsh. In
evaluating the cost of controls, we also weighed how effective the
reductions were in achieving visibility benefits. We considered the
anticipated visibility benefit in deciviews (for both a ``dirty
background'' and a ``clean background'') as well as the reduction in
extinction and the percentage of visibility impairment addressed by the
controls. Based on our evaluation of these visibility metrics within
the cost factor of the four-factor reasonable progress analysis, we
determined that additional controls on Parish and Welsh were not
required for reasonable progress for the first planning period. In the
FIP TSD and the proposed FIP, we note lesser visibility improvement
benefits at the three Class I areas for the W. A. Parish and Welsh
units compared to the benefits at other facilities that mainly impact
the Wichita Mountains. We also note that when considering the costs of
controls and the relative visibility benefit, the Parish scrubber
retrofits would be slightly more expensive with respect to $/ton but
would be much less effective in improving visibility at the Wichita
Mountains, when compared to the required controls at the Monticello or
Coleto Creek units. For the Welsh scrubber retrofits, the costs ($/ton)
would be approximately 50% greater than the cost of scrubber retrofits
at Monticello or Coleto Creek and would result in approximately 50%
less visibility improvement at the Wichita Mountains. We also
considered comments on cumulative visibility benefits of these controls
and determined that the cumulative visibility benefits of each new
scrubber at the Parish and Welsh units would be less than those at each
of the units where we proposed scrubber retrofits and less than that at
each of the units with proposed scrubber upgrades with the exception of
Limestone, at a cost significantly higher than the estimated cost of
scrubber upgrades. Similarly, the total cumulative visibility benefit
of controlling the three units at Welsh and the four units at Parish
would be less than half the benefit from all the required scrubber
retrofits or all the required scrubber upgrades, and at a greater
average $/ton cost.\157\ While controlling the Welsh and Parish units
would result in some additional cumulative visibility improvement,
based on our evaluation and weighing of the cost and consideration of
the visibility benefits of these controls at the Wichita Mountains, we
determined their individual projected visibility improvements do not
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 and we note that as the required controls
are implemented the significance of impacts and potential benefits from
the Parish and Welsh units will increase in terms of percentage of
extinction. As discussed in the modeling section of the RTC document,
we disagree with comments that this determination is inconsistent with
the determination to require controls at Tolk Station or with the
determination of required controls in other states for the purpose of
reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\157\ See TX-116-007-_33_Vis_modeling_summary.xlsx in the docket
to this action for visibility benefits of controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We agree with the commenter that on a $/ton basis, scrubber
upgrades on Parish unit 8 are very cost-effective. However, the
visibility benefit and reduction in emissions from this control would
be very low when compared to all the other evaluated scrubber upgrades.
The estimated visibility benefit from upgrading the scrubber would be
an order of magnitude less than all the other evaluated scrubber
upgrades and not large enough to require as reasonable progress for
this planning period.
Comment: EPA should have analyzed oil and gas sources and
NOX controls for certain point sources in Texas.
Response: With regards to comments on additional controls for
NOX, as
[[Page 332]]
discussed in the proposed FIP, we agree with Texas that the predominant
anthropogenic emissions impacting visibility are nitrate and sulfate
emissions, primarily from point sources.\158\ As described in more
detail in the FIP TSD, in our initial analysis we focused on point
sources and we identified facilities with the greatest potential to
impact visibility based on a Q/d analysis considering both
SO2 and NOX emissions. We then used photochemical
modeling to estimate the visibility impacts due to the emissions from
these facilities, considering SO2, NOX, and all
other emitted pollutants. Based on the results of that visibility
modeling, we identified a subset of facilities for additional control
analysis and determined that the visibility impacts due to these
facilities was almost entirely due to their sulfate emissions.
Therefore, we determined that to address the visibility impacts on the
20% worst days from these sources, it was only necessary to evaluate
sulfate controls for this planning period. Our analysis identified
those sources that had the greatest visibility impacts, which we then
further analyzed for controls. This analysis did not identify any
individual point sources (with the exception of the PPG Glass Works
facility) with significant visibility impacts due to NOX
emissions among the group of sources with the greatest visibility
impacts. We address our evaluation of NOX controls for the
PPG Glass Works in our RTC document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\158\ 79 FR 74838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oil and gas emissions are the largest component of area source
emissions but are only part of the total NOX area source
emissions. Oil and gas sources that fall within the point source
category were considered in our initial Q/d analysis and photochemical
modeling used to identify sources for additional control analysis.
Similarly with regard to comments on controlling oil and gas sources,
visibility impacts from NOX emissions from area sources are
relatively small compared to impacts from point sources of
SO2 and NOX at the Class I areas impacted by
Texas emissions. Focusing on point source emissions of NOX
and SO2 captured those sources with the greatest impacts on
visibility and was a reasonable approach for this planning period.
Comment: Visibility impairment from the ``Other 29'' sources not
analyzed for controls are still significant and additional controls
should be required. Furthermore, some of the ``1,600 +'' sources not
further analyzed collectively contribute to total visibility
impairment.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\159\ ``Other 29'' refers to the facilities identified as having
the greatest potential to impact visibility based on the Q/d
analysis but were then eliminated from further analysis based on
photochemical modeling results. ``1,600 +'' refers to all point
sources in Texas from the TCEQ's 2009 point source inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: Our Reasonable Progress Guidance discusses the steps to
follow in identifying reasonable controls and establishing reasonable
progress goals. The key pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment at each Class I area should be determined. ``Once the key
pollutants contributing to visibility impairment at each Class I area
have been identified, the sources or source categories responsible for
emitting these pollutants or pollutant precursors can also be
determined. There are several tools and techniques being employed by
the RPOs to do so, including analysis of emission inventories, source
apportionment, trajectory analysis, and atmospheric modeling'' (page 3-
1). As discussed in more detail in our proposal and in a separate
response to comment in the modeling section of the RTC document, we
determined that it was reasonable to focus our analysis on point
sources of SO2 and NOX.\160\ This was based on
review of emissions and source apportionment results indicating that
these sources were most responsible for anthropogenic contributions to
visibility impairment. We then used a Q/d analysis to identify those
sources with the greatest potential to impact visibility based on
emissions and distance. Additional analysis using photochemical grid
modeling was then completed to estimate the visibility impact from
those sources. Based on consideration of facility level and estimated
contributions to visibility from units at the modeled facilities, we
identified those sources that had the greatest visibility impacts to
analyze for additional controls. We agree with the commenter that
collectively the ``Other 29'' sources and ``1,600+'' sources contribute
a sizeable percentage of the total visibility impairment. However, on
an individual basis, these point sources have lower contributions and
smaller potential for visibility improvements relative to the nine
facilities evaluated for additional controls. For example, the proposed
controls on only 7 facilities address 5.8% of the total visibility
impairment at the Wichita Mountains, while controls on all of the
``Other 29'' sources would address 4.4% of the total visibility
impairment. Consistent with our guidance, we identified those key
pollutants and sources with the greatest impact on visibility
impairment for this first planning period. We also note that the
``Other 29'' includes impacts from San Miguel and the PPG Glass Works
facility that were considered for additional controls, and the JT Deely
units that are scheduled to shutdown in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ 79 FR 74838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Regional Haze Rule requires the identification of reasonable
progress controls and the development of coordinated emission control
strategies in order to make reasonable progress towards the goal of
natural visibility conditions. Faced with a very large and unwieldy
universe of sources, we followed our guidance and chose an approach
that focused on the portion of the universe of Texas sources that
contributed the greatest impact to visibility impairment, by
establishing a threshold of 0.3% contribution to total visibility
impairment on a unit basis for this planning period, thereby
identifying a reasonable set of units at nine facilities to analyze for
additional controls.\161\ Our four-factor analysis concluded that
controls on units at seven of the nine facilities analyzed for
additional controls were required. As these controls are implemented,
the percentage impact from those facilities not controlled will become
larger (on a percentage basis) and will be analyzed in future planning
periods. In other words, some of the ``Other 29'' will be identified as
the greatest impacting sources and should in turn be analyzed for
additional reasonable progress controls in a future planning period.
This methodology can be used as a consistent procedure to identify
facilities for additional control analysis in this and future planning
periods and would ensure continuing progress towards the goal of
natural visibility conditions. The USDA Forest Service commented that
``the methodology and metrics that EPA used are the most comprehensive
seen to date for any SIP/FIP in the country that we have reviewed, and
should serve as a model for future efforts to consider the contribution
and/or potential benefits of individual sources to visibility.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\161\ As discussed elsewhere, San Miguel has already upgraded
its scrubber and therefore it was not included in our modeling
analysis of additional controls and not included among the nine
facilities discussed here. In our FIP, we are finalizing our
determination that San Miguel maintains an emission rate consistent
with recent monitoring data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We received comments on the methodology used to identify
sources for analysis. Commenters stated that our analysis, beginning
with a Q/d analysis and the use of a 0.3% of total impairment threshold
for identifying
[[Page 333]]
sources for additional analysis was arbitrary, capricious, or improper.
In addition, commenters contend that the Q/d analysis selects the wrong
sources because it does not consider stack parameters or meteorology.
Other commenters suggested that all 38 facilities identified as having
the greatest potential to impact visibility by the Q/d analysis should
have undergone a four-factor analysis. We also received comments that a
lower threshold should have been used, that the threshold was applied
inconsistently, and that the 0.3% threshold screened out sources that
have a significant visibility impact and should have been evaluated for
controls.
Response: We disagree with the commenters' assertion that our
analysis, beginning with a Q/d analysis, was arbitrary, capricious, or
improper. As explained below and elsewhere in this document, our
complete analysis identified those sources with the greatest visibility
impacts at the Wichita Mountains and the Texas Class I areas based on
consideration of a source's emissions, location, and modeled visibility
impairment. Once identified, we performed additional control analysis
on these sources to determine through the four-factor analysis if
controls were available and cost-effective.
As we discuss at length in the FIP TSD and in our RTC document, we,
states (including Texas) and RPOs (including CENRAP) have used a Q/d
analysis to identify those facilities that have the most potential to
impact visibility at a Class I area based on their emissions and
distance to the Class I area. These identified facilities could then be
considered for further evaluation to estimate visibility impacts, and
then undergo the reasonable progress analysis for determination of
reasonable progress controls. The BART guidelines \162\ discuss
identifying sources with the potential to impact visibility based on a
Q/d approach consistent with the method followed in this action.
Furthermore, this approach has also been recommended by the FLMs' Air
Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) \163\ as an initial screening
test to determine if an analysis is required to evaluate the potential
impact of a new or modified source on air quality related values (AQRV)
at a Class I area. In the Texas regional haze SIP, the TCEQ relied on a
Q/d approach as one of the initial steps to identify sources for
additional analysis.\164\ We used a similar Q/d approach to identify 38
sources, from the more than 1,600 point sources in Texas that had the
most potential to impact visibility due to their location and size. In
other words, we started by looking at every point source in Texas \165\
and narrowed the field to a much smaller subset of sources with the
most potential to impact visibility based on their emissions and
location. This approach is a widely used method as an initial step to
evaluate a facility's potential to impact air quality and identify
those sources with large enough emissions close enough to a receptor to
need additional analysis. Using this methodology, we considered every
point source in Texas and narrowed the list to a much smaller list of
facilities with the greatest potential visibility impacts based on just
emissions and distance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\162\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III (How to
Identify Sources ``Subject to BART'')
\163\ Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work
Group (FLAG), Phase I Report--Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report
NPS/NRPC/NRR--2010/232, October 2010. Available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/FLAG_2010.pdf.
\164\ TX RH SIP Appendix 10-1. ``The group of sources was
further reduced to eliminate sources that are so distant from any of
the ten Class I areas that any reduction in emissions would be
unlikely to have a perceptible impact on visibility. The list was
restricted to those sources with a ratio of estimated projected 2018
base annual emissions (tons) to distance (kilometers) greater than
five to any Class I area.''
\165\ The Texas point sources are defined as industrial,
commercial, or institutional sites that meet the reporting
requirements of 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAC) Sec. 101.10.
Permitted point sources in Texas are required to submit annual
emissions inventories. The data are drawn from TCEQ's computer-based
State of Texas Air Retrieval System (STARS). Annual emission data
from 2009 were utilized to calculate the Q/D value for all point
sources with reported emissions in Texas. 2009 emissions data
available in the docket as ``2009statesum.xlsx''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the Q/d analysis, we took the additional step of using
photochemical modeling, utilizing CAMx with Plume-In-Grid (PiG) and
Particulate Source Apportionment Tagging (PSAT). As the commenter
states, the Q/d analysis does not take into account stack parameters,
meteorological conditions, or chemistry. Given the large geographic
distribution of sources and distances to the Class I areas, we
recognized that it was highly likely that only a subset of these 38
facilities would have the greatest visibility impacts on downwind Class
I areas once meteorology and transport conditions, atmospheric
dispersion, chemistry, and stack parameters were taken into
consideration, as CAMx with PiG and PSAT can do. We determined it was
appropriate to use photochemical modeling to assess the visibility
impact from those sources identified by our Q/d analysis. In the same
way that Q/d is used as an estimate of the potential visibility impact
due to emissions and distance, the photochemical modeling aims to
estimate the visibility impacts albeit in a much more refined manner
that accounts for chemistry and meteorological conditions. We also note
that some RPOs and states used a combination of back trajectory
analysis, source apportionment modeling results, and Q/d as a more
refined approach to identify sources for additional control analysis
for reasonable progress.\166\ Our modeling results indicated that a
subset of the 38 facilities were the primary contributors to visibility
impairment at each Class I area. The results of this modeling were used
to verify our initial identification of sources and further eliminate
sources from a full four-factor analysis based on facility-level
impacts and consideration of estimated unit level impacts, as described
in detail in the FIP TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ To select the specific point sources that would be
considered for each Class I area, VISTAS first identified the
geographic area that was most likely to influence visibility in each
Class I area and then identified the major SO2 point
sources in that geographic area. The distance-weighted point source
SO2 emissions (Q/d) were combined with the gridded
extinction-weighted back-trajectory residence times. The distance
weighted (Q/d) gridded point source SO2 emissions are
multiplied by the total extinction-weighted back-trajectory
residence times (Q/d * Bext-weighted RT) on a grid cell by grid cell
basis and then normalized. See VISTAS Area of Influence Analyses,
2007 available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a number of different approaches used by states in
identification of sources for reasonable progress evaluation but these
approaches usually centered around the general premise of evaluating
the biggest sources and the biggest impacts on visibility. As we
explain in the FIP TSD, we considered the visibility modeling results
in a number of ways to determine a reasonable approach to identify
those sources with the largest impacts for additional analysis for
controls for this planning period. We examined the model results for
extinction and percent extinction of the modeled facilities as well as
estimated impacts based on more recent actual emissions. We considered
both facility level and unit level impacts. We concluded that any unit
with an estimated impact greater than 0.3% would be further evaluated.
We believe that using a percent impacts approach is appropriate because
of its linkage to the reasonable progress concept. For example, a
source that has a smaller absolute impact on a relatively cleaner area
but a higher percentage impact might be considered for control so that
the cleaner area can potentially make progress. We used the 0.3%
threshold only as a way to identify a reasonable
[[Page 334]]
set of sources to evaluate further. At this point, the resulting
reasonably broad set of sources served as a starting place from which
to further analyze individual source impacts in the second round of
modeling, and balance them against any cost-effective controls that
could be identified.
In summary, our analysis properly identified the sources in Texas
with the greatest individual visibility impacts for additional control
analysis. Commenters are incorrect in their assertion that the
visibility impacts from the identified sources are miniscule, or that
we started our analysis with the wrong sources. Starting from the
entire universe of Texas point sources, we systematically eliminated
those facilities that had less potential to impact visibility based on
careful consideration of emissions, location, and finally modeled
visibility impacts. After identifying those facilities with the
greatest visibility impacts, we performed the four-factor analysis to
evaluate whether reasonable progress controls were available and cost-
effective.
Comment: We received comments that EPA established the deciview as
the required metric for establishing and tracking progress towards the
reasonable progress goal. EPA's use of extinction or percent extinction
and establishment of thresholds is arbitrary, capricious, illegal and
without precedent.
Response: We disagree with the commenters that our use of metrics
other than deciviews for certain purposes is contrary to regulations.
The commenters fail to distinguish between the metrics used to describe
overall visibility conditions at a Class I area and the metrics that
can be used to describe the visibility impairment due to an individual
source, group of sources, a state's sources, or some other portion of
the visibility impairment at a Class I area. In describing the overall
visibility conditions at a Class I area, we established the deciview as
the principle metric. This applies to the calculation of current,
baseline, and natural visibility conditions at a Class I area, as well
as the reasonable progress goals established as the visibility
condition goal for the Class I area at the end of the current planning
period. We agree with the commenters that the use of the deciview
metric is required in a number of places within the rule that discuss
overall visibility conditions and assessing progress towards meeting
the desired visibility conditions. Specifically, the state must (1)
establish reasonable progress goals expressed in deciviews (40 CFR 51.
308(d)(1)); (2) determine the uniform rate of progress in deciviews (40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B)); and (3) determine the baseline and natural
visibility conditions expressed in deciviews and the number of
deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed the natural conditions
(40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)). Consistent with these requirements, we
calculated the baseline and natural visibility conditions, the uniform
rate of progress, and the number of deciviews by which baseline
conditions exceed the natural conditions in deciviews for Big Bend and
the Guadalupe Mountains, as well as established reasonable progress
goals for the Wichita Mountains and the Texas Class I areas in
deciviews.
The deciview metric provides a scale that relates to visibility
perception and therefore is useful in assessing the overall visibility
conditions that are being or will be perceived at the Class I area. The
commenters cite to several actions and the Regional Haze Rule where the
benefits of using the deciview metric are discussed, however this is
only discussed in the context of overall visibility conditions, such as
determining current or natural visibility conditions. This is very
different from the fraction of visibility impairment attributable to a
source or group of sources. We note that in the final Regional Haze
Rule, we do in fact mention the use of light extinction as another
metric that states may choose to use.
There is no requirement to use the deciview metric in describing
the visibility impairment due to a source or group of sources as part
of the analysis required for identifying reasonable controls under
reasonable progress. In describing how to identify sources or source
categories responsible for visibility impairment, our guidance \167\
provides states with considerable flexibility to utilize various tools
and techniques that would necessarily involve the use of various
metrics other than deciviews. Many states and RPOs, including Texas and
CENRAP, relied on a Q/d analysis, described and discussed in depth in
separate responses to comments and in our proposed FIP, to identify
sources for additional control analysis. The Q/d analysis relies on an
annual emissions divided by distance metric, not deciviews. The VISTAS
RPO relied on a metric derived from Q/d and residence-time, not
deciviews.\168\ Some states relied on a simple analysis of emissions to
determine which sources should be analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, U.S. EPA, OAQPS, June 1, 2007, page 3-1
\168\ VISTAS Area of Influence Analyses, 2007, available in the
docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When assessing the various contributions to visibility impairment
due to either source categories or pollutant species from other states
and international sources, Texas routinely relied on light extinction
and percent of total visibility impairment metrics. For example,
Chapter 11 of the Texas regional haze SIP describes the contributions
due to sulfate, nitrate, and other pollutants on the 20% worst and 20%
best days at the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend in terms of light
extinction (inverse megameters, Mm-\1\). Similarly, the
extinction metric is used by Texas (see section 11.2.3 of the Texas
regional haze SIP) to assess the level of impact on other Class I areas
from Texas sources. Texas also used the extinction metric to determine
which states significantly impact the Texas Class I areas, applying an
impact extinction level threshold of 0.5 Mm-\1\ from all
sources in a state as a threshold for inviting a state to consult.\169\
Source apportionment modeling performed by the RPOs was utilized by
every state to assess the various contributions to visibility
impairment at their Class I areas in terms of light extinction and
percent contribution to total light extinction. The CENRAP PM source
apportionment tool (CENRAP PSAT tool) utilized by all CENRAP states,
including Texas and Oklahoma, to review the results of the source
apportionment modeling provides results in two ways: Light extinction
(inverse megameters) and percentage of total extinction. In our action,
we also utilized the methodology and metrics used by the RPOs to
evaluate the source apportionment results, the only difference being
that our source apportionment modeling provided information on
visibility impacts from individual sources instead of source
categories, or regions/states. In the FIP TSD, we provide information
on visibility impacts from the individual sources in terms of
extinction, percentage of total extinction, and in deciviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\169\ See Texas Regional Haze SIP Appendix 4-1: Summary of
Consultation Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We evaluated the information in terms of light extinction and
percentage of total impact to identify a reasonable subset of sources
with the largest visibility impacts to analyze for additional controls.
Because the overall visibility conditions at different Class I areas
can vary greatly, particularly Class I areas in the Eastern U.S.
compared to Class I areas in the Western U.S., we determined that it is
not enough to consider just the magnitude of extinction from a
facility; we must also
[[Page 335]]
consider the percentage of total impairment metric at each Class I
area. As we state in the FIP TSD, ``We believe that using a percent
impacts approach is appropriate because of its linkage to the RP
concept. For example, a source that has a smaller absolute impact [in
terms of extinction] on a relatively cleaner area but a higher
percentage impact might be considered for control so that the cleaner
area can potentially make progress.'' Using the percentage of total
visibility impairment metric allows us to somewhat normalize the
extinction differences between Class I areas so that we can utilize the
same approach at each Class I area and identify a reasonable set of
sources to analyze that if controlled would result in meaningful
visibility benefits towards meeting the goal of natural visibility at
every Class I area. For every Class I area to have the opportunity to
reach the natural visibility goals, it is necessary to identify the
sources or source categories that significantly impact visibility,
identify available controls and analyze whether those controls are
reasonable. Had we established a strict threshold based on extinction,
we would have had to establish a different threshold for each Class I
area. Using a percentage approach, such as the 0.3% of total visibility
impairment on a unit basis we used in this action, results in
identification of a subset of sources that includes those sources with
the greatest visibility impacts at each Class I area. As stated by the
USDA Forest Service in its supportive comments, the use of this
methodology and metrics, including the use of a small percentage
threshold on the 20% worst days is linked to the concept of reasonable
progress. We believe it could serve as the model for future efforts to
consider the contribution and potential benefits of individual sources
to visibility. After identifying which sources to analyze for
additional controls based on the percentage impact on a unit basis, we
determined which controls were reasonable based on consideration of the
four factors, including comparison of cost to the anticipated
visibility benefit (deciview improvement, extinction, percentage of
total extinction, and the percentage of the total impact from Texas
point sources addressed by the control).
Comment: We received comments on the method we used to adjust CAMx
results. Commenters stated that we developed a linear relationship
between emissions and extinction and then adjusted CAMx modeled
extinction linearly with emissions to match proposed controlled
emission levels. The commenters stated that the relationship between
emissions and light extinction is not linear and that interactions
between nitrate and sulfate create a complicated relationship. The
commenters cited to the CAMx user guide which they claim supports that
the relationship is non-linear. In contrast, Earthjustice said that our
approach was reasonable.
Response: We disagree with the comments that the methodology used
to estimate visibility benefits from control level emissions was
unjustified or unreasonable, and agree with Earthjustice that our
approach was reasonable. The linear relationship we developed to
extrapolate extinction due to controlled emission rates was a
reasonable approach in our technical analysis.
We agree with the commenters that, in general, the relationship
between downwind concentrations and emissions can be complicated and
non-linear due to complex chemistry, including the fact that reductions
in sulfur emissions can result in an increase in ammonium nitrate. Each
modeled emission scenario took this complex chemistry into account in
estimating the visibility impacts for that scenario. We estimated
control efficiencies for a high and low control case scenario that
would span the range and give a reasonable approximation of emission
reductions of potential controls and maximize the number of data points
available to estimate the visibility benefit due to a reduction in
emissions.\170\ Using the unit level High and Low modeled visibility
impacts and the 2018 facility level modeling described in the FIP TSD,
we examined the relationship between the various levels of emissions
from a modeled site and the modeled visibility impact at each Class I
area. For each facility and Class I area, the available modeled data
were linear with high correlation and the modeled emission levels were
relatively close to the estimated control levels examined. Therefore we
used the linear fit to extrapolate the anticipated visibility impact/
benefit from a given level of emission/control.\171\ We agree that
small perturbations relative to the model inputs can be approximated as
linear. However, as discussed in more detail in our response to this
comment in the RTC document, we disagree with the commenters that we
extended the linear treatment to large variations, and we note errors
in the commenters' assessment of the differences between modeled and
required control levels. The variations between the modeled High
control levels and the control levels required in the FIP are
relatively small. This is a small perturbation from the modeled levels,
a small difference in estimated extinction benefit from the modeled and
required control level, and does not impact our overall decisions on
the significance of visibility benefits from the required controls. We
agree with Earthjustice that the small level of uncertainty in the
visibility benefit from these controls introduced by the linear
extrapolation does not impact the overall conclusions. In every case,
the required control level emissions are the same or less than the high
control level modeled, and the visibility benefits from controls at the
required control level will be the same or more than those modeled at
the high control level. Therefore, the high level modeled visibility
benefits can be seen as a lower bound and even these support our
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\170\ See FIP TSD at A-54 for a more detailed description
\171\ See the file, ``Vis modeling summary.xlsx'' in the docket
for this action for our calculations and estimates of visibility
benefits from the examined levels of controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: We also received comments on the calculation of a deciview
impact or improvement based on natural ``clean'' background conditions
and the estimated visibility impacts/improvement based on recent actual
emissions rather than projected 2018 emissions. The commenters contend
that the use of natural background overstates the estimated visibility
benefit from the proposed controls and that these adjustments based on
recent actual emissions and natural background artificially increase
projected visibility improvement from the proposed controls. The
commenter states that the use of ``natural conditions'' is contrary to
the regulations, inconsistent with agency precedent, and arbitrary and
capricious and that the analysis does not address the relevant legal
issue and is not rationally connected to the final decision (i.e. what
is a reasonable progress goal for 2018).
Response: We disagree with the commenter that the use of ``natural
conditions'' is contrary to the regulations, inconsistent with agency
precedent, and arbitrary and capricious. We disagree with the commenter
that the analysis does not address the relevant legal issue and is not
rationally connected to the final decision (i.e., as defined by the
commenter as what is a reasonable progress goal for 2018). The Regional
Haze Rule requires that we identify reasonable controls based on
consideration of the four statutory factors and establish a reasonable
progress goal that reflects the
[[Page 336]]
anticipated amount of visibility improvement from implementation of
those controls in additional to all other ``on the books'' controls.
Specifically, Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) requires consideration of the
four factors and a demonstration of how these factors were taken into
consideration in selecting the visibility goal. We analyzed the time
necessary for compliance, energy and non-air environmental impacts, the
remaining useful life, and the costs of compliance including
consideration of the anticipated visibility benefits of specific
controls on individual units. As discussed in depth below, in
considering the anticipated visibility benefits from individual
controls, it was appropriate to consider estimated benefits on a
``clean'' or ``natural'' background.
In the FIP TSD, we discuss the need to estimate visibility benefits
using both a ``clean'' and ``dirty'' background: \172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\172\ See our FIP TSD, page A-39.
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/emission reduction may
have on the established RPG [reasonable progress goal] 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 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 considering the visibility benefits of potential controls, we
considered deciview improvements as well as the reduction in extinction
and percent extinction. By definition, the ``clean'' background
analysis using natural conditions eliminates the impact from all other
anthropogenic sources, domestic and international. This approach is
aimed at assessing the full potential visibility benefit of controls.
It is not reasonable to only assess the visibility benefit of controls,
the value of installing a control in the immediate future that will
permanently reduce visibility impacts from a source, in such a manner
that is dependent on the current level of emissions or impact from
other sources or other countries. For example, in considering only the
estimated visibility benefit from controlling Big Brown using a
``dirty'' background, an increase in visibility impacts from Mexico
emissions or emissions from another Texas point source would result in
a decrease in the visibility benefit in deciviews from installing
controls on Big Brown, making controls appear less beneficial. By using
a metric that is independent of all other emission sources (``clean''),
we avoid this paradox that the dirtier the existing air, the less
likely it would be that any control is required. This was also
explained in the preamble to the final Regional Haze Rule and
Guidelines for BART Determinations.\173\ The use of ``clean''
background is necessary to assess the full potential benefit from
controls and does not overstate the visibility benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\173\ Using existing conditions as the baseline for single
source visibility impact determinations would create the following
paradox: The dirtier the existing air, the less likely it would be
that any control is required. 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. We agree that this kind of
calculation would essentially raise the ``cause or contribute''
applicability threshold to a level that would never allow enough
emission control to significantly improve visibility. Such a reading
would render the visibility provisions meaningless, as EPA and the
States would be prevented from assuring ``reasonable progress'' and
fulfilling the statutorily-defined goals of the visibility program.
Conversely, measuring improvement against clean conditions would
ensure reasonable progress toward those clean conditions. 70 FR
39124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our use of ``clean'' background is also consistent with the
methodology used by Texas for BART visibility analysis, which also
relied on CAMx photochemical modeling with source apportionment. The
TCEQ utilized this approach in assessing the visibility impacts from
individual sources and groups of sources to determine their
significance for BART screening. As detailed in the screening analysis
protocol developed by TCEQ and reviewed by us, ``The source's HI [haze
index] is compared to natural conditions to assess the significance of
the source's visibility impact. EPA guidance lists natural conditions
(bnatural) by Class I area in terms of Mm-\1\
(EPA, 2003b) and assumes clean conditions with no anthropogenic or
weather interference. The visibility significance metric for evaluating
BART sources is the change in deciview (del-dv) from the source's and
natural conditions haze indices.'' \174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ Texas Regional Haze SIP, Appendix 9-5, ``Screening
Analysis of Potential BART-Eligible Sources in Texas'' at 2-11,
emphasis added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter that our use of the ``natural
background'' metric is contrary to regulations. As we discuss in a
separate response to comment concerning the legality of the extinction
and percent extinction metrics, the commenter fails to distinguish
between the required metric used to describe overall visibility
conditions at a Class I area at a given point in time and the range of
metrics that can be used to describe the visibility impairment due to
an individual source, group of sources, a state's sources, or some
other portion of the visibility impairment at a Class I area. As
explained above, it is necessary to consider the visibility benefit of
controls on a ``clean'' background basis to assess the full benefit
from potential controls.
The use of natural background is also supported by our previous
action on North Dakota's regional haze SIP and the associated Eighth
Circuit Court decision. The full text of our determination in North
Dakota is: \175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\175\ 76 FR 58627.
In addition to evaluating the four statutory factors, North
Dakota also considered the visibility impacts associated with the
control options for each RP source. However, in modeling visibility
impacts, North Dakota used a hybrid cumulative modeling approach
that is inappropriate for determining the visibility impact for
individual sources. As with the modeling North Dakota conducted for
its NOX BART analysis for MRYS [Milton R. Young Station]
Units 1 and 2 and LOS [Leland Olds Station] Unit 2, the approach
fails to compare single- source impacts to natural background. While
there is no requirement that States, when performing RP analyses,
follow the modeling procedures set out in the BART guidelines, or
that they consider visibility impacts at all, we find that North
Dakota's visibility modeling significantly understates the
visibility improvement that would be realized for the control
options under consideration. Accordingly, we are disregarding the
modeling analysis that North Dakota has used to support its RP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
determinations for individual sources.
The Eighth Circuit Court's decision affirmed our position that the
use of degraded, or dirty background, was not consistent with the CAA.
The relevant section of the 8th Circuit Court's decision on this point
reads: \176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\176\ North Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 766 (8th Cir. 2013).
Although the State was free to employ its own visibility model and
to consider visibility improvement in its RP
[[Page 337]]
determinations, it was not free to do so in a manner that was
inconsistent with the CAA. Because the goal of section 169A is to
attain natural visibility conditions in mandatory Class I Federal
areas, see 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1), and EPA has demonstrated that the
visibility model used by the State would serve instead to maintain
current degraded conditions, we cannot say that EPA acted in a
manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion by
disapproving the State's RP determination based upon its cumulative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
source visibility modeling.
The use of natural background conditions to assess visibility
benefits of individual controls, as we have done here in this action,
is consistent with the goals of the CAA. As to the comment that we
adjusted the modeled results by updating the baseline uncontrolled
emissions for each unit based on SO2 emissions data for
2009-2013, this was a necessary step to assess the visibility benefit
of controls relative to the visibility impairment due to future
anticipated emission levels at these units without the required
controls. Comparison of 2018 CENRAP projected emissions to recent
actual emissions showed that a number of facilities have actual
emissions that are much higher than CENRAP 2018 modeled emissions.\177\
For instance, Big Brown, Sandow, and Martin Lake actual emissions were
all significantly higher than 2018 CENRAP modeled rates, with Martin
Lake having over 90% more SO2 emissions than projected by
CENRAP for 2018. Both Pirkey and Oklaunion had much smaller actual
SO2 emissions than projected. As we discuss in the FIP TSD,
we believe that recent actual emissions are more representative of
anticipated future emissions at the sources evaluated than the CAIR
projections developed in 2006 and adopted by CENRAP. The CENRAP
modeling was based on an IPM (Integrated Planning Model) that estimated
EGU future emissions in 2018 including reductions for CAIR across the
eastern half of the United States. This analysis was conducted in 2006
and projected that Texas would be a purchaser of SO2
credits, and that not much high level control would be placed on Texas
EGU sources. Given the length of time between 2006 when the IPM
analysis was conducted, and 2013 when we were conducting this analysis,
we had some concern that these projections could be off for the EGUs in
Texas. Information available also indicates that SO2 credits
are much cheaper than originally projected, therefore more credits may
have been used in lieu of emission reductions. We also weighed the
technique that Texas has used in estimating emissions from EGUs for
future years (including 2018) in ozone attainment demonstration SIPs in
DFW and HGB. For these photochemical modeling analyses with CAMx, Texas
has relied upon the recent CEM data that is also included in CAMD's
databases in conjunction with information on recently permitted EGUs
for estimating the emissions to model for EGUs in Texas in 2018 as
these overall EGU emission levels are already near levels projected
under CAIR Phase II control such that further emission reductions are
doubtful in the absence of some new requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\177\ See Table A.4-2 of the FIP TSD for a comparison of recent
actual emissions to CENRAP 2018 projected emission levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actual SO2 allowances for Texas under CSAPR are not
much different than the CAIR Cap for Texas, so large additional
reductions over current emission levels were not expected. However,
because we had earlier projected with IPM that controls for MATS may
generate the installation of additional scrubbers in Texas that could
potentially result in further SO2 reductions, we again
investigated this possibility. Texas recently submitted comments to us
on a more recent IPM projection that was at the time intended by EPA to
be part of a new modeling platform for national rule making.\178\ In
these comments and comments from several EGU owners in Texas, the
assertion was that no significant amount of additional SO2
controls are expected due to compliance with MATS. The comments also
pointed out that, as some of our cursory research had also indicated,
no large SO2 control projects were planned at most of the
sources we were evaluating. Therefore, based on Texas' recent comments
and other information, we concluded considerable uncertainty exists as
to whether any further reductions of SO2 will occur beyond
current emission levels as a result of compliance with MATS or CSAPR.
Overall this information supports looking at recent actual emissions to
represent future emission levels in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft modeling platform
dated June 24, 2014. `2018 EMP signed.pdf'.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, this adjustment from CENRAP 2018 to the baseline
calculated from recent actual emissions was not an ``artificial
adjustment'' and was necessary to account for the large difference
between specific unit-level emissions in the 2018 CENRAP emissions and
a baseline more representative of anticipated future emission levels in
2018. We estimated and presented the estimated visibility benefit of
controls based on both the CENRAP 2018 projected emission levels and
emission levels consistent with recent actual emissions data. The
results considering the 2018 CENRAP emissions baseline were also needed
to provide a comparison with the Texas regional haze SIP and an
estimate of the change from the 2018 CENRAP modeled reasonable progress
goal to a new reasonable progress goal including the controls required
in the FIP. The visibility benefit of individual controls calculated
based on the CENRAP 2018 emissions baseline represents the additional
level of visibility benefit from controlling individual units,
consistent with the assumptions/emission projections in the Texas
regional haze SIP.
Comment: EPA's methodology to estimate revised reasonable progress
goals for Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains
is without precedent and is not supported by the record. The commenters
also state that the revised reasonable progress goals are incorrect
because they do not account for reductions in Oklahoma emissions.
Response: We disagree with the comment and believe we took a
reasonable approach to estimate the change in overall visibility
impairment anticipated due to the required controls and provided all
calculations for review. We also disagree with the commenter's
description of how the states estimated the reasonable progress goals.
While our guidance suggests that reasonable progress goals should be
established by modeling all existing and reasonable controls, in
practice all RPOs including CENRAP completed the modeling early in the
process. The 2018 CENRAP modeling was completed before any states had
completed their BART and reasonable progress determinations. In many
cases, the 2018 projection included an assumption of BART level
controls and ``on the book'' controls. Once final BART determinations
and reasonable progress determinations were completed, the RPO did not
go back and remodel to reassess the reasonable progress goals. In our
proposed action in Arkansas,\179\ as well as our actions in Arizona
\180\ and Hawaii,\181\ the modeled reasonable progress goals were
adjusted based on a methodology of scaling of visibility extinction
components in proportion to emission changes. We noted that although we
recognize that this method is not refined, it allows us to translate
[[Page 338]]
the emission reductions achieved through the FIP into quantitative
reasonable progress goals, based on modeling previously performed by
the RPOs. However, in this case, our analysis using CAMx modeling and
source apportionment, provided a somewhat more refined means to
estimate the visibility benefit from specific individual controls on
the 20% worst days in 2018. While there is limited precedent for
adjusting the RPO calculated reasonable progress goals to account for
emission reductions achieved in a FIP or revised SIP, we took a
reasonable approach based on the information available. We adjusted
each reasonable progress goal established by Texas or Oklahoma for 2018
by the amount of visibility benefit anticipated from all scrubber
upgrades estimated by our modeling analysis based on CAMx source
apportionment modeling.\182\ In estimating the deciview visibility
benefit in 2018 compared to the CENRAP modeled 2018 reasonable progress
goals, we considered reductions from 2018 CENRAP emissions levels and
2018 ``dirty'' background conditions. We believe that this is a
reliable estimate of the amount of visibility benefit anticipated from
controls (e.g., 0.14 dv for the Wichita Mountains) beyond the projected
2018 CENRAP reasonable progress goals. We then simply adjusted the
reasonable progress goals established by the state by the amount of
visibility benefit anticipated from the additional controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ 80 FR 18944, 18997.
\180\ 79 FR 52420, 52468.
\181\ 77 FR 31692, 31708.
\182\ As discussed elsewhere in this document, while the
required scrubber retrofits will provide for additional visibility
improvement at the Class I areas that we consider necessary for
reasonable progress towards natural visibility conditions, we do not
anticipate these controls to be implemented until after 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above, we adjusted the CENRAP modeled reasonable
progress goals to translate the emission reductions required in this
FIP for Texas sources into quantitative reasonable progress goals. We
note that the CENRAP modeling included an assumption for anticipated
BART reductions for Oklahoma sources. We considered the comment
concerning consideration of the reductions required by the BART FIP in
Oklahoma in setting the 2018 reasonable progress goals and we believe
these assumptions are a reasonable approximation of the anticipated
BART reductions in Oklahoma at this time, considering the uncertainty
of the timing of the reductions for some of the sources and the
uncertainty in the final control scenario chosen by the operator to
meet the requirements. The required enforceable emission limits in the
Oklahoma and Texas FIPs remedy the deficiencies in the SIPs and our
finalized reasonable progress goals properly consider the visibility
benefits anticipated by those required emission reductions.
Unlike the emission limits that apply to specific reasonable
progress sources, the reasonable progress goals are not directly
enforceable. Rather, the reasonable progress goals are an analytical
tool used by EPA and the states to estimate future visibility
conditions and track progress towards the goal of natural visibility
conditions.
Comment: EPA's proposal provides no basis for disapproving Texas'
and Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals for the 20% best days and
fails to provides analysis of the part of the reasonable progress goals
addressing the ``best'' days.
Response: We disagree with the comment. Our basis for disapproving
the relevant reasonable progress goals for the 20% best days arises, as
was noted in our proposal, from our determination that the analysis
developed by Texas to evaluate reasonable progress controls was flawed
and additional controls are necessary for the first planning period.
Finalizing requirements for additional controls, as we now accomplish
with our final rule, makes ``visibility on these days better than Texas
projects,'' as we noted in our proposal.183 184 The
submitted reasonable progress goals for the 20% best days did not
consider reductions from the reasonable controls, so they cannot be
approved. We understand the comment to request a quantitative
assessment of the projected visibility conditions for the 20% best
days. These calculations have been completed and add to our position
that visibility will be better than Texas projects. These numbers,
following the same methodology that we employed with the 20% worst
days, are summarized in the table provided in the introduction section
of the document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ 79 FR 74843.
\184\ ``No degradation,'' as distinctly needed for the 20% best
days, is ensured because added controls do not significantly impact
the 20% best days and would serve only to improve visibility on
these days. Even so, what we provide as the 20% best day reasonable
progress goals for 2018 (i.e., the ``least impaired days'') for Big
Bend, Guadalupe Mountains and Wichita Mountains numerically differ
from the numbers that Texas had submitted by very small amounts. By
the design of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1), improvements for the most
impaired days provide a more vital benchmark for progress that may
be made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
P. Interstate Visibility Transport
We received comments opposing our proposed disapproval of the
visibility protection portion of the interstate transport requirements
in Texas infrastructure SIP submittals for the ozone, PM2.5,
NO2, and SO2 NAAQS (CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
Among the adverse comments were the following: The requirements for
infrastructure SIPs in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) only contain
structural, rather than substantive, requirements. Disapproving Texas'
infrastructure SIPs conflicts with the differing deadlines for NAAQS
SIP submittals and regional haze SIP submittals. Texas submitted
separate SIPs to address the visibility prong of interstate transport
for the 1997 ozone, the 2006 PM2.5, the 2008 ozone, the 2010
SO2, and the 2010 NO2 standards and EPA failed to
evaluate these submittals in its proposed disapproval. CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is pollutant specific, and, because EPA finds that
Texas' SIP is inadequate to protect visibility only because it does not
contain certain limitations on SO2 emissions, EPA should not
disapprove for the other NAAQS at issue. The CAA's visibility
protection requirement is narrower than the requirement for reasonable
progress and requires only provisions necessary to prevent interference
with control measures included in another state's plan to achieve a
visibility standard. The CAA limits EPA's authority to require one
state to adopt binding emission limits for the benefit of another
state, citing EME Homer City.
We disagree with the comments for several reasons. Section
110(a)(2) specifies the substantive elements that infrastructure SIP
submissions need to address, as appropriate, for EPA approval.\185\ EPA
has disapproved portions of such SIPs for failure to comply with the
interstate visibility transport requirements section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for various other states. See 78 FR 46142, July 30,
2013 (Arizona); 77 FR 14604, March 12, 2012 (Arkansas); 76 FR 52388,
August 22, 2011 (New Mexico); 76 FR 81728, December 28, 2011
(Oklahoma). By contrast, in many other SIP actions across the country,
we have allowed states to rely on their approved regional haze plan to
meet the substantive requirements of the visibility component of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) because the regional haze plan achieved at
least as much emissions reductions as projected by the RPO modeling.
See 76
[[Page 339]]
FR 34608, June 14, 2011 (California); 79 FR 60985, October 9, 2014 (New
Mexico); 76 FR 36329, June 22, 2011 (Idaho); and 76 FR 38997, July 5,
2011 (Oregon). We gave limited disapproval to the Texas regional haze
SIP based on its reliance on CAIR. CAIR provided limits on emissions of
SO2 and NOX. SO2 is a precursor for
PM2.5. NOX is a precursor for ozone and for
PM2.5. NO2 is a component of NOX. With
CAIR no longer in effect, Texas may not rely on its regional haze SIP
to ensure that emissions from Texas do not interfere with measures to
protect visibility in nearby states. We recognize that CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is pollutant specific; nevertheless, ozone,
PM2.5, NO2, and SO2 or their
precursors could interfere with visibility protection. Because Texas
has not demonstrated that its SIP submittals ensure that Texas
emissions would not interfere with measures required to be included in
the SIP for any other state to protect visibility, we are disapproving
these SIP submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\185\ See September 13, 2013 EPA guidance memo ``Guidance on
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2)'', http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/urbanair/sipstatus/docs/Guidance_on_Infrastructure_SIP_Elements_Multipollutant_FINAL_Sept_2013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed in this action, the D.C. Circuit Court in EME Homer
City recently issued a decision upholding CSAPR but remanding without
vacating a number of the Rule's state emissions budgets, including
those for Texas. The CSAPR remand did not affect our reasons for
proposing 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. However, the remand
did affect our proposal to rely on CSAPR to help address our FIP
obligation for interstate transport of air pollution and visibility
protection. Therefore, today's action does not finalize the portion of
our proposed FIP that would have relied on CSAPR to satisfy Texas'
visibility transport obligations with respect to the aforementioned
NAAQS. We will address the visibility transport requirements for Texas
in a future rulemaking once the issues surrounding the partial remand
are resolved.
Q. Disapproval of the Oklahoma and Texas Reasonable Progress Goals
We received numerous comments on our proposed disapproval of the
reasonable progress goals selected by Texas and Oklahoma for their
respective Class I areas and the recalculated reasonable progress goals
we proposed. Some comments were in support of our proposed disapproval
of the state's reasonable progress goals and our proposed recalculated
reasonable progress goals. However, a majority of the comments raised
objections to our proposed action on the reasonable progress goals.
These commenters raised numerous issues in support of their objections
to our proposal, including that recent monitoring data from IMPROVE
monitors indicates the Class I areas are already meeting the new
reasonable progress goals we proposed without the need for the
additional controls we proposed, that there have been significant
SO2 and NOX emissions reductions in Texas since
the baseline period, that our proposed disapproval of the state's
reasonable progress goals had no technical or legal basis, and that we
inappropriately recalculated the new reasonable progress goals we
proposed.
Below we present a summary of our responses to the more significant
comments we received that relate to our proposed action on the
reasonable progress goals for Texas and Oklahoma Class I areas. See our
RTC document for a more in-depth presentation of the comments we
received and our responses to them.
Comment: Our proposed disapproval of Oklahoma's reasonable progress
goals for the Wichita Mountains is proper and required by the CAA, as
the record is clear that control measures satisfying the four
reasonable progress factors are available for some of the largest
sources of visibility impairment at the Wichita Mountains. Our proposed
finding that Oklahoma and Texas did not adequately consult with each
other regarding the impact of Texas sources on Oklahoma's Class I area
is also proper because in order to engage in meaningful consultation,
an upwind state such as Texas must provide impacted states with
sufficient technical information detailing the visibility impacts of
individual sources and the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of
control measures on those sources. A downwind state such as Oklahoma
should request the adequate information when it is not provided by the
upwind state and must take a hard look at this information and request
that upwind states require the control measures that satisfy the four
factors laid out in the statute for making reasonable progress. We
support the EPA's conclusions as to what constitutes a proper and
meaningful consultation under the regional haze program and support the
EPA's proposed disapproval of Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals and
finding that the consultations between Oklahoma and Texas were
inadequate.
Response: We appreciate the commenter's support of our
interpretation of what constitutes an adequate consultation that
satisfies the Regional Haze Rule requirements. We also appreciate the
commenter's support of our proposed disapproval of Oklahoma's
reasonable progress goals for the Wichita Mountains and our finding
that the consultations between Oklahoma and Texas to address the
impacts of Texas sources on the Wichita Mountains were not adequate and
did not meet the regional haze requirements. We are finalizing as
proposed our disapproval of several of the requirements with regard to
Oklahoma's establishing of reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains, including our finding that the consultations between Texas
and Oklahoma to address Texas' impacts on the Wichita Mountains were
not adequate and did not meet the Regional Haze Rule requirements.
Comment: EPA should withdraw its proposed FIP and instead fully
approve the regional haze SIPs submitted by Texas and Oklahoma because
the SIP submitted by Texas fully complies with the statute and all
regulatory standards and therefore there is no legal or technical basis
for EPA's proposed FIP. On every level, EPA's proposal exceeds the
agency's authority under the CAA and EPA's regional haze regulations.
Response: We disagree with the commenter that there is no legal or
technical basis for our proposed FIP, that the proposed FIP exceeds our
authority under the CAA and the regional haze regulations, and that the
SIP submitted by Texas fully complies with the statute and regulatory
requirements. The CAA and Sec. 51.308(d)(1) provide how to determine
what constitutes reasonable progress for each planning period and
specify the requirements related to establishment of the reasonable
progress goals for each Class I area. In particular, both the CAA and
the Regional Haze Rule require states to consider four factors when
setting reasonable progress goals: The costs of compliance, time
necessary for compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts, and the remaining useful life of potentially affected
sources.\186\ The Regional Haze Rule also requires that in establishing
the reasonable progress goals, states must consider the uniform rate of
progress and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve it for
the period covered by the implementation plan. In addition, because the
reasonable progress goals selected by Texas and Oklahoma provide for a
rate of improvement slower than the
[[Page 340]]
uniform rate of progress, the Regional Haze Rule requires the states to
demonstrate why their reasonable progress goals are reasonable and why
a rate of progress leading to natural visibility conditions by 2064 is
not reasonable.\187\ As discussed in more detail in our proposal and in
the RTC document associated with this final action, Texas did not
satisfy several of the requirements at Sec. 51.308(d)(1) with regard
to setting reasonable progress goals for its own Class I areas, most
notably the requirement to reasonably consider the four statutory
reasonable progress factors and the requirement to adequately consider
the emission reduction measures needed to meet the uniform rate of
progress. Texas also did not satisfy the consultation requirements at
Sec. 51.308(d)(3)(i) to address its impacts on the Wichita Mountains.
Oklahoma also did not satisfy certain requirements under Sec.
51.308(d)(1) with regard to setting reasonable progress goals for the
Wichita Mountains, 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 consider the emission reduction measures needed to meet
the uniform rate of progress. Therefore, we disagree that the Texas and
Oklahoma SIPs fully comply with the statutory and regulatory
requirements and that our FIP exceeds our authority under the CAA. We
are finalizing our proposed disapproval of Texas' and Oklahoma's
reasonable progress goals and the controls we proposed under reasonable
progress for sources in Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\186\ CAA Section 169A(g)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1). 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
\187\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA does not take issue with Oklahoma's four-factor
analysis, but nevertheless proposes to reset Oklahoma's reasonable
progress goals based on its reasonable progress analysis for Texas
sources. EPA also finds it necessary to disapprove Oklahoma's
reasonable progress goals because they did not include the emission
reductions from the Oklahoma SO2 BART FIP and the revised
BART SIP for the AEP units that were subsequently promulgated. However,
EPA's proposed SIP does not correct this error either.
Response: The comment that we disapproved the reasonable progress
goals for the Wichita Mountains because they do not include the
emission reductions from the SO2 BART FIP and the revised
BART SIP for the AEP units that have subsequently been promulgated is
taken out of context and does not fully capture the rationale for our
disapproval. We are disapproving the reasonable progress goals for the
Wichita Mountains because they do not account for emission reductions
from reasonable measures at Texas sources. We stated in the proposal
that the reasonable progress goals selected by Oklahoma for the Wichita
Mountains do not include the level of reductions necessary to meet the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e) for BART. We further explain that
``BART is a component of developing the reasonable progress goals, and
the reasonable progress goals are inadequate because BART controls were
not adequately considered. We note this deficiency is addressed by our
Oklahoma BART FIP and the revised Oklahoma BART SIP.'' \188\ The
visibility modeling developed for CENRAP and used by Oklahoma in
support of its SIP revision submittal assumed SO2 reductions
from the six BART sources that Oklahoma subsequently did not secure
when making its BART determinations for these sources. We believe that
the BART limits in our Oklahoma BART FIP \189\ have adequately
addressed the deficiency. We also provide in our proposal additional
reasons for disapproving the reasonable progress goals, stating
``Oklahoma's consultations with Texas were flawed, which prevented
Oklahoma from adequately developing its reasonable progress goals for
the Wichita Mountains,'' and, because Oklahoma's consultations with
Texas were flawed, Oklahoma did not adequately demonstrate that the
reasonable progress goals it established were reasonable based on the
four statutory factors under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(ii).\190\ Comments
regarding how we calculated the reasonable progress goals for the
Wichita Mountains, Big Bend, or the Guadalupe Mountains, and our
consideration of emission reductions from BART requirements in Oklahoma
are addressed in a separate response to comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\188\ 79 FR 74871, 74872.
\189\ 76 FR 81728.
\190\ 79 FR 74872.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA's proposed disapproval of Texas' reasonable progress
goals and its substitution with new reasonable progress goals in the
proposed FIP is based on EPA's flawed interpretation of what the CAA
requires for ``reasonable progress goals.'' This action is based on the
EPA's conclusion that ``reasonable progress'' must be determined based
on source-specific cost of controls even though such a requirement did
not exist in the statute, the Regional Haze Rule, or the guidance
available in 2009. The Texas 2009 regional haze SIP established
reasonable progress goals for both Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains
that provide for visibility improvement 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. The EPA agrees the SIP meets
these requirements and also agrees that the TCEQ considered the four
statutory factors in establishing the reasonable progress goals for its
Class I areas in accordance with the Regional Haze Rule. Furthermore,
the four statutory factors in and of themselves do not determine the
reasonableness of the goals for the planning period. The Regional Haze
Rule, in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii), requires the EPA to evaluate whether
the state's goal for visibility improvement provides for reasonable
progress based on a demonstration of which the four statutory factors
are only one element. Therefore, EPA's proposed disapproval of Texas'
reasonable progress goals and its proposed new reasonable progress
goals is flawed.
Response: We disagree that our proposed disapproval of Texas'
reasonable progress goals is based on a flawed interpretation of what
the CAA requires for reasonable progress goals. As we discuss in our
responses to other similar comments, we believe that our evaluation of
cost, including visibility benefits, on a source-specific basis was an
appropriate and reasonable interpretation of the analysis required in
this instance, in order to determine what, if any, level of control for
Texas sources constituted reasonable progress for this planning period.
We agree that Sec. 51.308(d)(1) requires more than just the
consideration of the four factors in the establishment of the
reasonable progress goals. Also, although we agree Texas conducted an
evaluation of the four reasonable progress factors, we determined that
that evaluation was flawed. Texas did not fully satisfy the
requirements under Sec. 51.308(d)(1) related to the evaluation of the
four reasonable progress factors and establishment of the reasonable
progress goals for the two Texas Class I areas. We note that Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(iii) provides 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 paragraphs (d)(1)(i)
and (ii). Thus, we are specifically directed to judge the quality of a
state's submission of these key parts
[[Page 341]]
of its reasonable progress goals development, which we found to be
flawed. In particular, as we discussed in detail in our proposal, we
disagree with the set of potential controls identified by Texas and how
it analyzed and weighed the four reasonable progress factors under
Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A) \191\ and we further proposed to disapprove
Texas' reasonable progress goals under Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(ii).\192\ For
the reasons given in the proposal and affirmed in this final action, we
cannot approve Texas' reasonable progress goals. In this action, we are
finalizing our disapproval of Texas' reasonable progress goals for Big
Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and we are establishing new reasonable
progress goals for these Class I areas, as discussed in our proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\191\ 79 FR 74838.
\192\ 79 FR 74843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: EPA fails to take into consideration the TCEQ's 2014 Five-
Year Regional Haze SIP Revision or the effects of early action or
emission reduction accomplished or to be accomplished by other EPA
programs before imposing additional requirements beyond the state
submitted SIPs. Considering that the visibility improvements of these
programs have not yet been quantified, and the gradual progress
anticipated in establishing such a long-term goal, EPA should be
patient and not take such aggressive action in overriding reasonable
state SIPs and imposing additional controls.
Response: We stated in our proposal that the TCEQ submitted the
first five-year report in March 2014, but we are not including our
analysis of that SIP revision within this action.\193\ The five-year
progress report is a requirement that is separate from the regional
haze SIP required for the first planning period, and it has separate
content and criteria for us to review. We therefore believe we are not
obligated to consider or take action on the five-year progress report
at the same time we take action on the regional haze SIP for the first
planning period. Even so, we acknowledge that recent monitoring data
from IMPROVE monitors indicate that the more recent five-year average
measurements of visibility extinction at Texas and Oklahoma Class I
areas on the 20% worst days contained in the progress report are lower
(i.e., indicate better visibility conditions) than the numerical
reasonable progress goals we are establishing for these Class I areas.
This issue is addressed in detail elsewhere in this final action and in
the RTC document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\193\ 79 FR 74864.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We disagree with the commenter's contention that we should not
impose additional controls on Texas sources and instead approve the
Texas regional haze SIP and the remaining portion of the Oklahoma
regional haze SIP because there may be potential visibility
improvements that have not yet been quantified, resulting from early
actions and emission reductions accomplished or expected to be
accomplished through other EPA programs. If it is determined based on
the demonstrations developed pursuant to Sec. 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (ii)
that there are reasonable and cost-effective controls available that
would provide for reasonable progress, the statute and regional haze
regulations do not allow for a delay in requiring these controls to
allow time for the quantification and consideration of possible future
visibility improvements. Therefore, we are finalizing our proposed
disapproval of Texas' and Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals and are
finalizing the control requirements we proposed for Texas sources under
the reasonable progress and long-term strategy reasonable progress
requirements.
Comment: The regional haze program tasks states with determining
what is reasonable progress toward elimination of man-made visibility
impairment, along with specific progress milestones (10-year planning
and SIP revisions, with program reviews in the middle of the 10-year
planning periods). The regional haze program contemplates gradual
visibility improvements along a ``glide path'' that considers the 2064
goal, and does not require immediate reductions that exceed
``reasonable progress'' as determined by the state based on the four
statutory factors. Thus, it neither requires nor authorizes the
frontloading of extensive control requirements.
Response: The commenter's contention concerning reasonable progress
is premised on the assumption that the emissions reductions that are
part of the state's long-term strategy and upon which its reasonable
progress goals are based do in fact constitute reasonable progress. The
determination of what constitutes reasonable progress must be made
pursuant to Sec. 51.308(d)(1). Based on its analyses under Sec.
51.308(d)(1), a state (or EPA in the context of a FIP) may determine
that a greater or lesser amount of visibility improvement than what is
needed to get on the glide path is what constitutes reasonable
progress.\194\ As discussed in our proposal and within this action, we
disagree with the set of potential controls identified by the TCEQ as
having the greatest impact on visibility on the three Class I areas and
how it analyzed and weighed the four reasonable progress factors in a
number of key areas.\195\ Therefore, we proposed to disapprove Texas'
reasonable progress goals for its Class I areas and conducted our own
analysis of the four reasonable progress factors to fill in the
regulatory gap that would be created by our disapproval action. We are
replacing Texas' flawed reasonable progress analysis with our own and
are finalizing the cost-effective reasonable progress controls we
proposed on the small number of Texas point sources that have the
greatest visibility impacts on the Class I areas of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\194\ 64 FR 35732.
\195\ 79 FR 74838.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Texas' four-factor analysis and its reasonable progress
goals were reasonable and within the state's broad discretion, and are
supported by recent monitoring data showing the reasonable progress
goals will be met for Oklahoma and Texas Class I areas without the
additional controls EPA proposed for Texas sources. The most recent
five-year (2009-2013) averages of visibility monitoring data from
IMPROVE monitors indicates that visibility impairment at the Guadalupe
Mountains, Big Bend, and the Wichita Mountains, are lower than both the
2018 reasonable progress goals proposed by the states and the more
stringent 2018 reasonable progress goals proposed by EPA. The Texas
five-year regional haze progress report issued in 2014 includes a
projection of further reductions of haze-forming SO2 and
NOX emissions from point sources through 2018. Therefore,
the commenter concludes that it is expected that visibility
improvements observed through 2013 for Big Bend, the Guadalupe
Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains will continue and that the 2018
reasonable progress goals that EPA proposes will be met without the
further emission controls EPA proposes. These current data also show
that Wichita Mountains is projected to meet the EPA approved uniform
rate of progress for Oklahoma, and the Guadalupe Mountains is projected
to meet the EPA-proposed uniform rate of progress by 2018, without the
emission controls that EPA is proposing. Yet EPA ignores these actual
conditions in developing its reasonable progress goals and in
concluding that its reasonable progress goals are more reasonable. EPA
has no authority to require further controls from Texas sources and
should
[[Page 342]]
withdraw its FIP and approve the Texas SIP.
Response: These comments are predicated on two false tests: (1) If
a Class I area meets its uniform rate of progress, or (2) if subsequent
monitoring shows a Class I area meets its reasonable progress goals, it
is automatically relieved of any obligation to address the reasonable
progress and long-term strategy requirements in Sec. 51.308(d)(1) and
(3).
We discuss elsewhere in this final action that, while we agree that
the Regional Haze Rule requires states to consider the uniform rate of
improvement in visibility when formulating reasonable progress goals,
we disagree that a state's consideration of the uniform rate of
progress and establishment of reasonable progress goals that provide
for a slightly greater rate of improvement in visibility than would be
needed to attain the uniform rate of progress is all that is needed to
satisfy the reasonable progress goal requirements in the Regional Haze
Rule. We also disagree that the Regional Haze Rule requires additional
analysis only when a state establishes reasonable progress goals that
provide for a slower rate of improvement than the uniform rate of
progress. Even when recent data from IMPROVE monitors indicate that
visibility conditions in the Class I area are better than the
established reasonable progress goals and/or that the area may be
projected to meet the uniform rate of progress by 2018, the state must
still address the requirements under Sec. 51.308(d)(1) and (d)(3)(i)
in evaluating controls for additional sources and in establishing
reasonable progress goals for its Class I areas.
With regard to the assertion that Texas' five-year regional haze
progress report projects SO2 and NOX emissions
from point sources to continue to decline through 2018 (with
corresponding visibility improvement trends at the three Class I
areas), Texas' five-year regional haze progress report is pending
evaluation as a SIP revision, and we intend to take action on it in a
future rulemaking. We note that the portion of the Texas' five-year
regional haze progress report referred to by the commenters \196\
compares actual annual emissions from 2002 through 2011 against a
linear change between 2002 actual emissions and the 2018 CENRAP modeled
emissions and concludes that emissions from 2002 to 2011 have trended
downward better than or as predicted in the CENRAP modeling
projections. However, we noted in our proposal that the CENRAP
projected visibility impacts in 2018 from Texas point sources, and EGUs
in particular, are significant. As noted in our proposed rulemaking,
based on information provided by the TCEQ in materials other than the
progress report, we do not expect large additional emission reductions
of SO2 in Texas between 2013 and 2018 under Federal programs
and the SIP as submitted.\197\ We have not seen evidence in support of
something different. Furthermore, emissions from some of the Texas EGUs
that we are requiring controls for and that impact visibility at the
three Class I areas the most, are still above the emission level
projected in the 2018 CENRAP modeling. We are not aware of any upcoming
controls or changes in operation to suggest that future actual
emissions at these specific sources will decrease to those predicted
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\196\ 2014 Texas Five-Year Reasonable Progress Report, p 4-10,
figure 4-2.
\197\ TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft modeling platform
dated June 24, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also remind the commenters that even with the controls we are
requiring for Texas EGUs under our FIP, additional reductions would be
needed for visibility conditions to meet or exceed every uniform rate
of progress goal in 2018 as calculated by us in our proposal. For
example, current conditions at the Wichita Mountains (based on 2009-
2013) is 21.2 dv. Additional reductions would be needed for the area to
meet the uniform rate of progress goal of 20.01 dv in 2018.
Comment: The SO2 emissions from Luminant's units, for
which EPA proposed controls, have steadily trended downward over the
first planning period, further underscoring the effectiveness of the
measures relied on in Texas' SIP and the unreasonableness of EPA's
proposed FIP. From 2009 to 2014, SO2 emissions from
Luminant's Big Brown, Martin Lake, Monticello, and Sandow Unit 4 were
reduced by 27%. The SO2 emissions for the first quarter of
2015 are sharply lower--approximately 57% lower than the first quarter
of 2009 and about 44% lower than the first quarter of 2014. The data
unequivocally show that SO2 emissions at Luminant's units
are trending down, and thus there is no basis for EPA's proposal.
Response: The annual and quarterly SO2 emissions data
for Luminant's facilities for 2009-2015 demonstrate that, although
there has been an overall downward trend in annual SO2
emissions during this time period, there has not been a downward trend
in SO2 emissions during Quarter 3 for the six-year period
for which full data are available. Except for the years 2011 and 2012,
when total SO2 emissions for Quarter 3 were either sizably
higher or lower compared to the other years during the 2009-2014 time
period, emissions for Quarter 3 remained relatively unchanged during
this six year period. This is significant because Quarter 3 corresponds
to the summer months and many of the 20% worst days, which is what the
reasonable progress goals are based on, typically occur during the
summer months. Emissions reductions during the fall and/or winter
months reduce annual emissions, but will not lead to improved
visibility during the 20% worst days. The majority of the decline in
total annual SO2 emissions from the Luminant sources is
driven by seasonal operation of Monticello units 1 and 2.\198\
Furthermore, as we discuss in more detail elsewhere, we do not
anticipate any significant reductions at these sources in the near
future, and information provided by Texas indicates it agrees.\199\ We
also note, as discussed above, NOX emissions for many of
these units were updated in our modeling to better reflect the recent
actual emissions. Therefore, we disagree that the observed trend in
SO2 emissions at Luminant's units in recent years
demonstrates that there is no basis for EPA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\198\ See Luminant CAMD emissions.xlsx in the docket for this
action.
\199\ See TCEQ comment letter to EPA on draft modeling platform
dated June 24, 2014 available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: To the extent Texas and industry are arguing that the
current visibility conditions meet the reasonable progress goals EPA is
proposing, that is largely a result of the fact that EPA has not
updated the majority of the 2018 projections that CENRAP and Texas
relied on. Goals based on the controls EPA has proposed and also on
more updated projections would likely be lower than the reasonable
progress goals EPA is proposing. The recent improvement is due to a
variety of factors, which EPA discusses in the proposed rule, 79 FR
74843, most of which are not enforceable limitations or are beyond the
state's control and, therefore, may be temporary. The argument made by
Texas and industry does not show that the proposed controls themselves
are unnecessary or unreasonable. Further, the argument by Texas and
industry reflects a misunderstanding of how reasonable progress goals
are set. Reasonable progress goals are set to reflect controls that are
reasonable; controls are not required in order to meet pre-set
reasonable progress goals. Congress
[[Page 343]]
defined reasonable progress as the amount of progress that could be
made after consideration of four factors. 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1). After
the four-factor analysis defines reasonable progress, each haze SIP
must include the enforceable measures necessary to make reasonable
progress. Id. section 7491(b)(2). The reasonable progress goal for 2018
is calculated as the baseline visibility condition minus the amount of
reasonable progress (which is established based on consideration of the
four statutory factors).
Response: We generally agree with the commenter and agree that
these comments provide support of our FIP.
Comment: EPA fails to even consider the four statutory factors with
respect to non-BART sources in Oklahoma that are impacting visibility
at the Wichita Mountains and to determine whether all existing and
reasonable controls on Oklahoma sources, including BART, are sufficient
to attain a reasonable rate of progress for the Wichita Mountains for
the first planning period. EPA does not explain why it failed to
conduct the modeling and perform the statutory analysis that it would
expect a state to conduct in determining a reasonable progress goal.
EPA failed to consider the visibility benefit from imposing the
same levels of control on these sources as it is proposing to impose on
the targeted Texas sources. EPA is applying a different standard to
Texas sources than it is to sources in other states. EPA's ``reset''
reasonable progress goal is unlawful; and EPA has no basis for
disapproving Oklahoma's reasonable progress goal, no basis for issuing
a FIP with a substitute reasonable progress goal for the Wichita
Mountains, no basis for disapproving Texas' long-term strategy, and no
basis for imposing additional SO2 limits on Texas sources.
Response: We disapproved Texas' long-term strategy because it was
technically flawed and we were under a statutory obligation to evaluate
Texas sources and propose a FIP for those facilities where we
determined that reasonable emission controls could be installed for
improved visibility benefit.
Oklahoma's lack of adequate information from Texas prevented it
from properly developing its reasonable progress goals for the Wichita
Mountains, and we disagree that we are applying a different standard to
Texas sources than we are sources in other states. We note that we were
not required to do a four-factor analysis for Oklahoma's non-BART
sources because, as discussed in our proposal \200\ and OK TSD, we
reviewed Oklahoma's four-factor analysis for Oklahoma's non-BART
sources, and agree with Oklahoma that it has demonstrated that it is
not reasonable to require additional emission reductions for those
sources for this planning period. We agree with Oklahoma's reasonable
progress analysis for sources within Oklahoma and its assessment that
the Wichita Mountains would not meet the uniform rate of progress
without significant reductions from Texas sources. Because the
reasonable progress goals Oklahoma established for the Wichita
Mountains does not include appropriate consideration of reductions at
Texas sources, we were required by the Regional Haze Rule to disapprove
Oklahoma's reasonable progress goals. We recalculate new reasonable
progress goals for 2018 for the Wichita Mountains based on the results
of our technical analysis that additional controls at Texas sources
were reasonable to meet the reasonable progress/long-term strategy
requirement for reasonable progress and accounting for the visibility
benefit of the required controls anticipated to be in place by 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\200\ 79 FR 74871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R. International Emissions
Comment: EPA acknowledged it failed to account for international
sources of emissions, which Texas cannot control. This renders its
proposal ineffective in improving visibility to meet the uniform rate
of progress and 2064 goal. EPA's action would require over-control of
Texas sources to compensate for international emissions. If the TCEQ
cannot meet the glide path without ``large emission reductions from
international sources,'' it is unreasonable for EPA to require
additional controls from Texas without making any effort to seek
emissions reductions from international sources.
Response: We agree with the commenters that international emissions
significantly impact visibility conditions at Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains. However, as we discussed in the preamble to the
Regional Haze Rule, ``the States should not consider the presence of
emissions from foreign sources as a reason not to strive to ensure
reasonable progress in reducing any visibility impairment caused by
sources located within their jurisdiction.'' While the goal of the
regional haze program is to restore natural visibility conditions at
Class I areas by 2064, the rule requires only that reasonable progress
be made towards the goal during each planning period, and in cases
where it is not reasonable to meet the rate of progress needed to
attain the goal in 2064, that the state demonstrate that it is not
reasonable and that the selected rate of progress is reasonable for
that planning period. We recognize that it may not be possible to
attain the goal by 2064, or at all, because of impacts from new or
persistent international emissions sources or impacts from sources
where reasonable controls are not available. However, states are still
required to demonstrate that they are establishing a reasonable rate of
progress that includes implementation of reasonable measures within the
state to address visibility impairment in an effort to make progress
towards the natural visibility goal during each planning period.
Nothing in the Regional Haze Rule or our FIP is calculated to hold
Texas accountable for emissions from Mexico. We agree those
international emissions should be addressed to achieve natural
visibility, but our agreement on this point does not in any way relieve
Texas of the obligation to make reasonable progress, including through
controls on its own sources, and particularly through the emissions
addressed with controls through our FIP.
Comment: EPA is not doing enough to seek emission reductions from
international sources. Commenters noted that we committed to address
international emissions in our 1999 Regional Haze Rule when we stated,
``EPA will work with the governments of Canada and Mexico to seek
cooperative solutions on transboundary pollution problems (64 FR 35714,
35736),'' but have thus far done little.
Response: We acknowledge that Texas requested in its SIP that we
initiate and pursue Federal efforts to reduce impacts from
international transport. There are efforts underway to address public
health problems related to air emissions along the United States-Mexico
border. Given that emissions contributing to health effects and those
contributing to visibility impairment are generally the same, the
border studies and continuing emissions inventory development will aid
in identifying solutions that we would expect to also address
visibility impairment. The Border 2020 program aims to, among other
things, reduce air pollution to help meet the NAAQS and reduce emission
through the use of energy efficiency and/or alternative/renewable
energy projects. We expect that recent commitments from Mexico to
reduce its carbon dioxide and black carbon emissions will have
ancillary benefits to improve visibility at Class I areas in the
future.
Comment: It is not possible for Texas to achieve the uniform rate
of progress because of the contribution from
[[Page 344]]
Mexico. An analysis shows that if every point source in Texas were shut
down, it would have only a marginal impact on visibility in the
Guadalupe Mountains. Further, the exclusion of all of Texas and other
United States elevated point sources resulted in a modeled haze index
value of 14.88 dv, meaning that Mexican sources and natural
contributions are projected to account for 92%, or all but 1.48
deciviews, of visibility impairment in the Guadalupe Mountains.
Response: The commenter erroneously overstates the size of the
visibility impacts from Mexico relative to Texas. As we stated in our
proposal, efforts to meet the goal of natural visibility by 2064
``would require further emissions reductions not only within Texas, but
also large emission reductions from international sources'' (emphasis
added).\201\ The commenter's analysis fails to account for impacts from
mobile and area sources within Texas and other states, and fails to
differentiate Mexican sources from other international sources. The
analysis also fails to consider that deciviews are a logarithmic
function of extinction, resulting in the underestimation of the percent
contribution from Texas and U.S. point sources. Overall impacts from
all sources in Texas are larger than all sources in Mexico and the
boundary conditions (which represent external sources) combined. As we
discuss in our proposal and elsewhere in our response to comments,
Texas and we agreed that it was reasonable to focus on impacts from
point sources for this planning period. The visibility impairment from
Texas point sources is significant, and as our analysis shows, a
significant portion of this impairment can be addressed by controlling
a small number of sources. Controls on just four units at Tolk and Big
Brown are estimated to reduce visibility impairment due to all Texas
point sources at the Guadalupe Mountains by approximately 13%. All
required controls combined are estimated to reduce visibility
impairment at the Guadalupe Mountains from all Texas point sources by
approximately 22%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\201\ 79 FR 74843.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: CCP (through its contractor, AECOM) stated that back
trajectories for 2011-2013 indicate that approximately 77% of the 20%
worst day trajectories at the Guadalupe Mountains passed through
Mexico. For Big Bend, this percentage increases to about 96%. Mexican
point sources, particularly Carbon I and Carbon II, are only about 230
km away from Big Bend, while the nearest Texas facility with a proposed
new emission limit is about 500 km away. Emissions from these large
power plants are noteworthy--Carbon II emitted 162,329 tons of
SO2 in 2008, according to the draft EPA 2011 modeling
platform, which is an increase from 1997 (129,341 tons at Carbon II).
In addition to international point sources, smoke plumes from
agricultural fires in Central America travel northward into the U.S.
and contribute to haze. Modeling shows that the sources that cause haze
in Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains are rarely in the area where
most of the emission sources targeted by EPA are located. The effect of
controlling emissions at a plant like Big Brown would be dwarfed by the
massive impact of the international emissions. CCP reasons that since
the emissions from its facility, Coleto Creek, are even lower than Big
Brown's emissions, it would have a smaller impact. This component of
haze must be accounted for in regional haze SIPs in the development of
reasonable progress goals and/or natural conditions because these
emissions from agricultural burns, power plants, or wildfires from
international sources are beyond the jurisdiction of state agencies.
Response: We have reviewed the back trajectories provided and have
noted several flaws in the analysis and conclusions. In general, back
trajectories are tools that may be used for analyzing potential upwind
contribution areas to a monitored value of concern. In this case we
generally agree that many back trajectories do pass through upwind
areas in Mexico for the 20% worst monitored days at Big Bend and the
Guadalupe Mountains. What the commenter fails to point out or conclude
is that a very large percentage of the trajectories that the commenter
attributes to Mexico also cross over or near areas of Texas, thus
indicating that Texas is also a potential contributor to the high
monitored values at Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains. We do agree
that impacts from Mexico are significant and must be addressed to
achieve natural visibility, but our agreement on this point does not in
any way relieve Texas of the obligation to make reasonable progress,
including through controls on its own sources, and particularly through
the emissions addressed with controls through our FIP. Past analyses
have indicated that impacts from Texas on Big Bend and the Guadalupe
Mountains are as large as impacts from Mexico and that reducing impacts
from sources in Texas is also necessary to achieve natural
visibility.\202\ We disagree that impacts from Coleto Creek would be
smaller than impacts from Big Brown because it has fewer emissions. The
comment failed to consider the location of the source and the
meteorology/transport conditions. Coleto Creek is closer to Big Bend
and our source apportionment modeling shows that the one unit at Coleto
Creek has a larger impact on the 20% worst days at Big Bend than the
impact from the two units at Big Brown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\202\ See FIP TSD pages A-30-32 and A-65-66 and Conclusions of
BRAVO study source apportionment techniques (TX166.017
BravoFactSheet20040915.pdf and BRAVOFinalReportCIRA.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The comment presents a comparison between the visibility impact
from one facility to the visibility impact from all sources around the
world that lie outside of the modeling domain, including long range
transport from fires, windblown dust, and significant anthropogenic
emissions. The commenter states that annual average visibility
impairment from Big Brown is approximately 10% of the annual average
contribution from those sources captured by the boundary conditions.
This is a significant fraction of the total visibility impairment that
can be addressed through the installation of controls on merely two
emission units. We also note that visibility impairment on the 20%
worst days at each Class I area from Big Brown is larger; and as can be
seen by the data submitted by the commenter, on some days, the
visibility impairment due to Big Brown's emissions approaches or
exceeds that from all emissions sources captured by the boundary
conditions. For the Wichita Mountains, controls on just Big Brown
address almost 12% of the total visibility impairment due to Texas
point sources and 1.63% of the total visibility impairment from all
sources. In summary, the visibility impairment from the individual
sources analyzed is significant, and controls on these sources provide
for meaningful progress towards the goal of natural visibility
conditions at one or more Class I areas. This is not inconsistent with
the understanding that significant impacts from international emissions
and other sources exist and should also be addressed.
Lastly, we agree with CCP that the sources it cites, Carbon I and
Carbon II, are responsible for significant levels of pollution. Carbon
I is a 1,200 MW power plant and Carbon II is a 1,400 MW coal-fired
power plant. These two power plants, less than 1.5 miles apart, are
less than 20 miles from the U.S.-Mexico border. Together, these power
plants comprise one of the largest
[[Page 345]]
uncontrolled sources of SO2 and NOX in North
America.\203\ It has been demonstrated for some time that they are
significant contributors to visibility impairment at Big Bend.\204\
However, addressing international emissions can be complex. For
instance, Texas has recently issued water discharge and mining permits
to a coal mine in Maverick County, near the Texas border town of Eagle
Pass, to allow the Mexican company Dos Republicas to begin mining coal
that will reportedly be sent to these facilities.\205\ Prior to our
delegation of the National Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permitting authority to Texas, we issued a NPDES permit for the
operation of this mine, and in the process issued an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS).\206\ In our EIS, we stated that ``. . . EPA
does not have the authority to prohibit export of U.S. resources which
will cause the country environmental harm . . . EPA believes that the
U.S. policy should be to take actions which will generate the
investment capital needed to directly solve the Carbon I/II problem''
\207\ Subsequent to that, we attempted to work with the government of
Mexico specifically on the problem of installing controls on these
sources through a technical work group composed of EPA and SEMARNAP
(now SEMARNAT, the Mexican Environment and Natural Resources
Secretariat) staff. Unfortunately, these discussions did not result in
any control of Carbon I and II. However, EPA is committed to explore
opportunities for further discussions with Mexico concerning this
subject.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\203\ Commission for Environmental Cooperation of North America,
``North American Power Plant Air Emissions,'' http://www.cec.org/storage/56/4876_powerplant_airemission_en.pdf. TCEQ may keep this in
consideration in future studies on the impacts of sources from
Mexico on Class I areas or otherwise.
\204\ Big Bend Regional Aerosol and Visibility Observational
Study (BRAVO), Final Report, September 2004.
\205\ http://www.epbusinessjournal.com/2015/11/dos-republicas-coal-partnership-coal-mine-expanded-water-discharge-permit-application-to-be-heard-november-16th/.
\206\ Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System. Permit No. TX0109011.
\207\ Final Environmental Impact Statement on Dos Republicas
Resource Company, Inc.'s Proposed Eagle Pass Mine in Maverick
County, Texas, December 30, 1994. Page C-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
S. Grid Reliability
Comment: The TCEQ recommended that we withdraw the proposed FIP;
however, if we do finalize the FIP, it believed we should include an
electric reliability safety valve provision in the final rule. The TCEQ
stated that we have not evaluated any potential impacts of our proposed
FIP to reliability and prices of electricity in Texas. It included a
2014 ERCOT study of the impacts that environmental regulations have in
the ERCOT Region. While the ERCOT report included a number of other
environmental regulations, such as the MATS rule, Clean Power Plan, and
CSAPR, ERCOT also included our proposed regional haze FIP for Texas in
its analysis. The TCEQ incorporated the ERCOT report into its comments
and encouraged us to consider its findings.
Response: First, we note that controls achieving the level of
control that we are requiring are highly cost-effective, are in wide
use in the industry, and thus should not require a source to shut down
to comply. In response to the TCEQ's comments, however, we contracted
with Synapse Energy Economics, Inc., a nationally recognized firm with
particular expertise in the subject area. (Synapse).\208\ Synapse
assessed the information in the ERCOT report and we reproduce its
findings below:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\208\ Synapse's report,
``ERCOT_Report_Review_Memo_20150908.pdf'' is in our docket to this
rulemaking action.
1. ERCOT's perspective of market operations is
short[hyphen]sighted. ERCOT raises concerns that reliability could
be impacted if numerous coal units choose to retire simultaneously
with little notice to either ERCOT or other market participants.
Unlike other competitive market regions, ERCOT's rules do not
require meaningful notice. ERCOT's charge as a reliability
coordinator may obligate it to implement rules requiring reasonable
notice for economic retirements.
2. ERCOT's assumptions about new gas turbine capacity are not
realistic. While the FIP, along with other environmental regulations
ERCOT included in its study, will strain the economic viability of
coal plants and likely lead to less coal capacity, ERCOT has not
considered new resources that will be available to help address
potential reliability challenges. Specifically, ERCOT does not
include approximately 4,500 MW of additional gas[hyphen]fired
capacity coming online in Texas in the upcoming years. This
represents 7.5 percent of current gas capacity, and would double the
modeled baseline gas capacity additions through 2029.
3. The set of regulatory scenarios modeled is both incomplete
and (now) outdated. Despite an overall thorough analysis ERCOT
excluded a critical scenario that would have modeled the impact of
the Regional Haze Program FIP by itself. This limits inferences we
can make about impacts. Additionally, since ERCOT finalized its
study, EPA finalized the Clean Power Plan. The final rule includes
substantive changes that are likely to affect all of the
CO2 limit and price-inclusive scenario modeling results.
4. Electric Generating Unit owners' compliance ``burdens'' with
the regional haze FIP may be over[hyphen]stated. Of the 15
coal[hyphen]fired units subject to regional haze compliance
requirements, eight require upgrades to their existing scrubbers
rather than new scrubbers. ERCOT assumed that all of the scrubbers
would be priced at the cost of a new retrofit, thereby substantially
increasing the cost of the regulation.
We reviewed and accept our contractor's finding and adopt its
conclusion that ERCOT's report contained significant flaws. In sum,
ERCOT's report cannot support a determination that there is likely to
be any significant, adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. During our comment period, we received no non-speculative
information to validate claims that sources would retire rather than
install demonstrably cost-effective controls. Commenters who have
alleged grid reliability concerns in response to our proposed controls
have not provided adequate documentation for their assertions.
T. Determination of Nationwide Scope and Effect
Several commenters disagreed with our proposed determination of
``nationwide scope and effect,'' which would require all petitions for
judicial review to be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit Court. These commenters argued that our
proposed action did not have nationwide scope and effect because it
applied only to two states. They further argued that the control
requirements in the FIP applied only to sources in Texas. The
commenters acknowledged that the proposed action involved our
interpretation of our regulations, but asserted that the same is true
for many SIP actions. The commenters went on to cite several regional
haze SIP actions where we did not make a finding of nationwide scope
and effect as evidence that our proposal to do so in this instance was
unlawful. Ultimately, these commenters concluded that our proposed
action was ``locally or regionally applicable'' and that any future
petitions for review must be filed in the appropriate regional circuit.
Some commenters suggested that judicial review would only be
appropriate in the Fifth Circuit.
We disagree with these comments. The commenters are conflating two
distinct portions of the CAA's judicial review provision. Under CAA
section 307(b)(1), ``[a] petition for review of . . . nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final agency action taken, by
the Administrator . . . may be filed only in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.'' Contrary to the commenter's
assertions, we did not assert at proposal, nor do we
[[Page 346]]
assert now, that our FIP for Texas and Oklahoma is a ``nationally
applicable'' regulation. CAA section 307(b)(1) next provides that ``[a]
petition for review of the Administrator's action in approving or
promulgating any implementation plan under section 7410 . . . or any
other final action of the Administrator . . . which is locally or
regionally applicable may be filed only in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit.'' The commenters cite this
sentence, but ignore the following sentence, which states
``[n]otwithstanding the preceding sentence a petition for review of any
action referred to in such sentence may be filed only in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 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 determination.''
In other words, a final agency action that is locally or regionally
applicable, such as a FIP, is appealable only in the D.C. Circuit Court
if two conditions are met: (1) The action is based on a determination
of nationwide scope or effect, and (2) we find and publish our
determination. Both conditions are met here. First, we proposed to find
and have confirmed our finding in this final rule that our action on
the Texas and Oklahoma regional haze SIPs, which includes the
promulgation of a partial FIP for each state, is based on a
determination of nationwide scope and effect. Second, we have published
that finding in the Federal Register.
While the CAA does not provide any guidance regarding the phrase
``nationwide scope and effect,'' the legislative history indicates that
a determination of nationwide scope and effect is appropriate if a
local or regional action encompasses two or more judicial circuits. The
commenters made no effort to explain why this legislative history
should not be taken into account. Instead, the commenters cited to
other EPA actions on regional haze SIPs where we did not make a
determination of nationwide scope and effect. However, the commenters
failed to mention that all of these actions involved a single state and
thus did not implicate multiple judicial circuits. We have routinely
made determinations of nationwide scope and effect when more than one
circuit is involved. Last year, for instance, we made a determination
of nationwide scope and effect in a SIP approval action that involved
the States of Florida and North Carolina, which reside in separate
judicial circuits.\209\ We have made many other such determinations
over the years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\209\ See 79 FR 29362.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also determined that this action has nationwide scope and effect
because at the core of this rulemaking is our interpretation of the
requirements of sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 169A(b)(2) of the CAA
and multiple complex provisions of the Regional Haze Rule. Many
commenters disagreed with our interpretation of these provisions, with
some providing alternative interpretations that would substantially
eviscerate the Regional Haze Rule. Congress intended for such issues of
national importance to be decided by the D.C. Circuit.
III. Final Action
For the reasons discussed more fully in section II, above and
detailed in our proposal and its accompanying TSDs, in this action, we
are partially approving and partially disapproving 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. We also are disapproving the interstate visibility
transport portions of the Texas SIP that address CAA provisions for
prohibiting air pollutant emissions from interfering with measures
required to protect visibility in any other state. We also are
partially disapproving a revision to the Oklahoma SIP submitted in
February 19, 2010, that addresses regional haze for the first planning
period. We are finalizing a FIP to remedy certain of the deficiencies
and not acting on others. Below is a list of the specific actions we
are finalizing in this rulemaking.
A. Texas Regional Haze
We are approving the portions of the Texas regional haze SIP
submitted on March 31, 2009, except for the following Regional Haze
Rule requirements contained in 40 CFR part 51:
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), regarding Texas' reasonable
progress four-factor analysis for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), regarding Texas' calculation
of the emission reductions needed to achieve the uniform rates of
progress for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(1)(ii), regarding Texas' reasonable
progress goals for the Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend.
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iii), regarding Texas' calculation of
natural visibility conditions.
Section 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), regarding Texas' calculation
of the number of deciviews by which baseline conditions exceed natural
visibility conditions.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(i), regarding Texas' long-term
strategy consultations with Oklahoma.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii), regarding Texas securing its
share of reductions necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals
at Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii), regarding Texas' technical
basis for its long-term strategy for Big Bend, the Guadalupe Mountains
the Wichita Mountains.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(v)(C), regarding Texas' emission
limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable
progress goals for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains and Wichita
Mountains.
We are also approving the Texas' BART Rules, 30 TAC 116.1500-
116.1540, except for the 30 TAC 116.1510(d) which relies on CAIR and is
disapproved.
We are not taking action on 40 CFR 51.308(e) concerning Texas EGU
BART.
B. Oklahoma Regional Haze
We are disapproving the portion of the Oklahoma regional haze SIP
that addresses the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) with respect to
reasonable progress goals, with the exception of Sec.
51.308(d)(1)(vi), which we are approving.
C. Interstate Visibility Transport
We are disapproving 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. Our final FIP does
not cure these defects as that portion of the FIP would have partially
relied on CSAPR. We will address the visibility transport requirements
for Texas in a future rulemaking, once the issues surrounding the CSAPR
partial remand are resolved.
D. Federal Implementation Plan
Our final FIP requires the following SO2 emission limits
for specific emission units in Texas:
[[Page 347]]
Table 7--Final 30-Boiler-Operating-Day SO2 Emission Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance with these emission limits is based on a 30 BOD period.
We are finalizing requirements providing that compliance with these
limits be achieved 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.
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.
One year of the effective date of our final rule for San
Miguel. San Miguel may elect an alternative compliance method by doing
the following:
Install a CEMS at the inlet of the scrubber system. The 30
BOD SO2 average from the existing outlet CEMS must read at
or below 6.0% (94% control) of a 30 BOD SO2 average from the
inlet CEMS. San Miguel must inform us in writing of its decision to
select this option for compliance by no later than their compliance
date.
Based on our technical analysis, we have calculated the following in
Tables 8 and 9 for Texas and Oklahoma:
Table 8--Natural Visibility Conditions, Number of Deciviews by Which Baseline Conditions Exceed Natural Visibility Conditions, and Uniform Rate of
Progress for Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural visibility conditions Number of deciviews by which baseline
------------------------------------------------ conditions exceed natural visibility
Class I area conditions Uniform rates of
20% Worst 20% Best ----------------------------------------------- progress at 2018
20% Worst 20% Best
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains............... 6.65 dv............... 0.99 dv............... 10.54 dv.............. 4.96 dv.............. 14.73 dv.
Big Bend.......................... 7.16 dv............... 1.62 dv............... 10.14 dv.............. 4.16 dv.............. 14.93 dv.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 9--Reasonable Progress Goals for Texas and Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reasonable progress goals
Class I area ----------------------------------------
20% Worst 20% Best
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Mountains............ 16.26 dv........... 5.70 dv.
Big Bend....................... 16.57 dv........... 5.59 dv.
Wichita Mountains.............. 21.33 dv........... 9.22 dv.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Texas regulations as described in the Final Action
section above and the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. We
have made, and will continue to make, these documents generally
available electronically through http://www.regulations.gov and/or in
hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) because it is not a rule of general applicability. This
action finalizes a source-specific FIP for that applies to eight coal-
fired power plants in Texas (Big Brown; Monticello; Coleto Creek; Tolk;
Sandow; Martin Lake; Limestone; and San Miguel).
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under the PRA, a
``collection of information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers
to . . . identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on
ten or more persons . . . '' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the FIP
applies to only eight facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply. See 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This FIP
will apply to eight facilities, none of which are small entities. The
final partial approval of the SIP merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, establishes requirements
for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions
on state, local,
[[Page 348]]
and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the
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 the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider
a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 of
UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of the 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 the 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 the UMRA does not apply to this
rule. In 2 U.S.C. 1502(1) all terms in Title II of UMRA have the
meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. 658, which further provides that the
terms ``regulation'' and ``rule'' have the meanings set forth in 5
U.S.C. 601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. 601(2), ``the term `rule' does not
include a rule of particular applicability relating to . . .
facilities.'' Because this 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 the 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. The final
rule does not impose significant economic costs on state or local
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the final
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action applies to eight facilities in Texas
and to Federal Class I areas in Oklahoma and Texas. This action does
not apply on any Indian reservation land, any other area where EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-
reservation areas of Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.
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 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. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks
addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
Moreover, ``regulation'' or ``rule,'' is defined in Executive Order
12866 as ``an agency statement of general applicability and future
effect.'' E.O. 12866 does not define ``statement of general
applicability,'' but this term commonly refers to statements that apply
to groups or classes, as opposed to statements, which apply only to
named entities. The FIP therefore is not a rule of general
applicability because its requirements apply and are tailored to only
eight individually identified facilities. Thus, it is not a ``rule'' or
``regulation'' within the meaning of E.O. 12866. However, as this
action will limit emissions of SO2, it will have a
beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action involves technical standards. Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''),
Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards. This rule would require the
eight affected facilities to meet the applicable monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number
of voluntary consensus standards. Consistent with the Agency's
Performance Based Measurement System (PBMS), part 75 sets forth
performance criteria that allow the use of alternative methods to the
ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is intended to be more
flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also
intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved
data quality. At this time, EPA is not recommending any revisions to
part 75; however, EPA periodically revises the test procedures set
forth in part 75. When EPA revises the test procedures set forth in
part 75 in the future, EPA will address the use of any new voluntary
consensus standards that are equivalent. Currently, even if a test
procedure is not set forth in part 75, EPA is not precluding the use of
any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or
not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified; however,
any alternative methods must be approved through the petition process
under 40 CFR 75.66 before they are used.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all
[[Page 349]]
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 FIP limits
emissions of SO2 from eight facilities in Texas.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective on February 4, 2016.
VI. Judicial Review
The scope and effect of this rulemaking extend to Texas and
Oklahoma, which are located in two judicial circuits. In addition,
EPA's clarified interpretation of its regulations as set forth in this
final action, including the accompanying RTC and TSD documents, is
applicable to regional haze actions in all states, not just the
specific actions we are taking here with regard to the regional haze
obligations for Texas and Oklahoma. Accordingly, the Administrator
determines that this is a rulemaking of nationwide scope or effect and
any petitions for review must be filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit in accordance with CAA section
307(b)(1). Petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed
in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
March 7, 2016.
In addition, pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is
subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d) because it
promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, extend
the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, or
postpone the effectiveness of the rule. Per CAA section 307(b)(2), this
action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements.
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: December 9, 2015.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart LL--Oklahoma
0
2. Section 52.1920(e) is amended by revising the entry for ``Regional
haze SIP'' in the table titled ``EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions
and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1920 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA-Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Oklahoma SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of SIP provision geographic or non- State EPA approval date Explanation
attainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional haze SIP:............... Statewide.......... 2/17/2010 3/7/2014, 79 FR Core requirements
(a) Determination of baseline and 12953. of 40 CFR 51.308.
natural visibility conditions. Initial approval
(b) Coordinating regional haze 12/28/2011, 76 FR
and reasonably attributable 81728. Approval
visibility impairment. for Sec.
(c) Monitoring strategy and other 51.308(d)(1)(vi) 1/
implementation requirements. 5/2016 [Insert
(d) Coordination with States and Federal Register
Federal Land Managers. citation].
(e) BART determinations except
for the following SO2 BART
determinations: Units 4 and 5 of
the Oklahoma Gas and Electric
(OG&E) Muskogee plant; and Units
1 and 2 of the OG&E Sooner plant.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.1928 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) and
adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1928 Visibility protection.
(a) * * *
(3) ``Greater RP Alternative Determination'' (Section VI.E);
(4) Separate executed agreements between ODEQ and OG&E, and ODEQ
and AEP/PSO entitled ``OG&E RH Agreement, Case No. 10-024, and ``PSO RH
Agreement, Case No. 10-025,'' housed within Appendix 6-5 of the RH SIP;
and
[[Page 350]]
(5) The reasonable progress goals for the first planning period and
the reasonable progress consultation with Texas for the Wichita
Mountains Class I area.
* * * * *
Subpart SS--Texas
0
4. Section 52.2270 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (c), adding center heading ``Subchapter M: Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)'' and the sections 116.1500,
116.1510, 116.1520, 116.1530 and 116.1540 under ``Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--
Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or
Modification''; and
0
b. In paragraph (e), adding an entry for ``Texas Regional Haze SIP'' at
the end of the table titled ``EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and
Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2270 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA Approved Regulations in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
approval/
State citation Title/subject submittal EPA approval date Explanation
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 116 (Reg 6)--Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subchapter M: Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 116.1500................ Definitions........ 2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert .......................
Federal Register
citation].
Section 116.1510................ Applicability and 2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert 116.1510(d) is NOT part
Exemption Federal Register of the approved SIP.
Requirements. citation].
Section 116.1520................ Best Available 2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert .......................
Retrofit Federal Register
Technology (BART) citation].
Analysis.
Section 116.1530................ Best Available 2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert .......................
Retrofit Federal Register
Technology (BART) citation].
Control
Implementation.
Section 116.1540................ Exemption from Best 2/25/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert .......................
Available Retrofit Federal Register
Technology (BART) citation].
Control
Implementation.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 351]]
EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the Texas SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Applicable submittal
Name of SIP provision geographic or non- date/ EPA approval date Comments
attainment area effective
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Texas Regional Haze SIP......... Statewide.......... 3/19/2009 1/5/2016 [Insert The following sections
Federal Register are not approved as
citation]. part of the SIP: The
reasonable progress
four-factor analysis,
reasonable progress
goals and the
calculation of the
emission reductions
needed to achieve the
uniform rates of
progress for the
Guadalupe Mountains
and Big Bend;
calculation of natural
visibility conditions;
calculation of the
number of deciviews by
which baseline
conditions exceed
natural visibility
conditions; long-term
strategy consultations
with Oklahoma; Texas
securing its share of
reductions necessary
to achieve the
reasonable progress
goals at Big Bend, the
Guadalupe Mountains,
and the Wichita
Mountains; technical
basis for its long-
term strategy and
emission limitations
and schedules for
compliance to achieve
the RPGs for Big Bend,
the Guadalupe
Mountains and Wichita
Mountains.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
6. Section 52.2302 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 52.2302 Federal implementation plan for regional haze.
(a) 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 by February 4, 2019 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 by
February 4, 2021 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 by February 4, 2017 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 (CAA) and in 40
CFR parts 51 and 60. 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) of this section.
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 table in this paragraph (a)(4) 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 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
[[Page 352]]
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.
(ii) In lieu of paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, and if San
Miguel meets paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this section, it may install a CEMS
at the inlet of the scrubber system. The 30 BOD SO2 average
from the existing outlet CEMS must read at or below 6.0% (94% control)
of a 30 BOD SO2 average from the inlet CEMS.
(5) Testing and monitoring. (i) No later than the compliance date
as set out in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator
shall install, calibrate, maintain and operate Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for SO2 on the units listed in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and
60.13(e), (f), and (h), and appendix B of part 60 of this chapter. No
later than the compliance date as set out in paragraph (a)(2), San
Miguel must submit a letter to the Regional Administrator that informs
the EPA which compliance option it elects, as specified in paragraph
(a)(4) of this section. San Miguel must then adhere to the compliance
method set forth in that letter to the Regional Administrator. All
owners or operators 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 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.
(b) [Reserved]
0
7. Section 52.2304 is amended by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) to read
as follows:
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) The following portions of the Texas regional haze SIP submitted
March 19, 2009 are disapproved: The reasonable progress four-factor
analysis, reasonable progress goals and the calculation of the emission
reductions needed to achieve the uniform rates of progress for the
Guadalupe Mountains and Big Bend; calculation of natural visibility
conditions; calculation of the number of deciviews by which baseline
conditions exceed natural visibility conditions; long-term strategy
consultations with Oklahoma; Texas securing its share of reductions
necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals at Big Bend, the
Guadalupe Mountains, and the Wichita Mountains; technical basis for its
long-term strategy and emission limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goals for Big Bend, the
Guadalupe Mountains and Wichita Mountains.
[FR Doc. 2015-31904 Filed 1-4-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P