[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 129 (Thursday, July 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31332-31334]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-14387]
[[Page 31332]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015; FRL-9980-13--Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Colorado
on May 26, 2017, addressing regional haze. The revisions include
source-specific revisions to the nitrogen oxides (NOX) best
available retrofit technology (BART) determination for Craig Station
Unit 1 and to the NOX reasonable progress determination for
the Nucla Station. Both Craig Station Unit 1 and Nucla Station are
owned in part and operated by Tri-State Generation & Transmission
Association, Inc. (Tri-State). The EPA is taking this action pursuant
to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on August 6, 2018.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0015. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6252,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In our notice of proposed rulemaking published on April 26, 2018
(83 FR 18243), the EPA proposed to approve revisions to Colorado Code
of Regulations, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, submitted by
the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017. In this rulemaking, we are
taking final action to approve Colorado's modification of the
NOX BART determination for Craig Unit 1 and the
NOX reasonable progress determination for Nucla.
Specifically, the EPA is approving the revised Craig Unit 1
NOX BART determination, which requires Craig Unit 1 to meet
an annual NOX emission limit of 4,065 tons per year (tpy) by
December 31, 2019. The SIP revision also requires the unit to either
(1) convert to natural gas by August 31, 2023, and if converting to
natural gas, comply with a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) beginning August 31, 2021, or (2) shut
down by December 31, 2025. The EPA is also approving the State's
revised Nucla NOX reasonable progress determination, which
requires the source to meet an annual NOX emission limit of
952 tpy by January 1, 2020, and shut down on or before December 31,
2022. The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission adopted the revisions
on December 15, 2016 (effective February 14, 2017). The reasons for our
approval are provided in detail in the proposed rule.
II. Response to Comments
We received five comments during the public comment period. After
reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that four of the
comments are outside the scope of our proposed action or fail to
identify any material issue necessitating a response. The remaining
comment, submitted by Tri-State, raised concerns with the proposed rule
regarding the amortization period and remaining useful life of Craig
Unit 1.
Comment: First, Tri-State asserts that it is important that
accurately representative periods of time be used in calculating the
cost effectiveness of emission controls. Specifically, Tri-State
asserts that amortization period calculations of eight years are
incorrect. Instead, an amortization period of four years for SNCR and
two years for SCR should be used, as these represent the periods of
time following possible EPA approval of the Colorado SIP and complete
installation of the respective technology until the closure date on or
before December 31, 2025. The commenter also appreciates Colorado's
acknowledgement of differing methodologies to calculate the
amortization period and recognizes that a shorter amortization period
would not alter Colorado's conclusion, and the EPA's concurrence, that
neither SCR or SNCR is cost-effective.
Response: We agree with Tri-State that it is important to
accurately represent the amortization period used to calculate the cost
effectiveness of emission control technologies. In past actions we have
measured the amortization period as the time period from the projected
compliance date to the date of retirement. In this case, there are
multiple dates that could potentially be used, given the EPA's 2012
approval of Colorado's initial BART determination for Craig Unit 1, the
revised BART determination associated with the 2014 settlement, and the
updated analysis contained in the 2017 SIP submission. We agree with
Colorado that it is appropriate to use a compliance date of August 31,
2021, as the start of the amortization period, as this is the date by
which, as the State was conducting the BART analysis, SCR would have
had to be installed and operational. Furthermore, August 31, 2021, is
the date on which, under the natural gas conversion scenario, Craig
Unit 1 must comply with an emission limit of 0.07 MMBtu, which mirrors
the BART determination and compliance date in the 2014 settlement. We
also agree with Colorado's decision to include a second scenario that
conservatively estimates the amortization period based on the
compliance dates associated with the State's original BART
determinations. However, we disagree with the commenter that it is
appropriate to reset the compliance dates based on the 2017 SIP
submission, as this ignores the State's existing BART determinations
and requirements that were in place at the time of the analysis.
Finally, we appreciate the commenter's bringing to our attention
Colorado's acknowledgement of Tri-State's alternative amortization
period calculation, and we generally agree there may be differing
methodologies for calculating the amortization period. However, and as
Tri-State recognizes, a shorter amortization period would not alter
Colorado's determination that neither SNCR or SCR is cost effective for
Craig Unit 1.
Comment: Second, Tri-State notes that the natural gas conversion
scenario would not shorten the remaining useful life of Craig Unit 1.
Specifically, Tri-State argues that determining BART while taking into
consideration the remaining useful life of the source does not include
incorporating the type of fuel a source uses. Thus, the EPA lacks a
basis to determine that the natural gas conversion scenario would
shorten the
[[Page 31333]]
``remaining useful life of the existing coal-fired boiler.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 81 FR 18247 (April 26, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: We thank the commenter for bringing this distinction to
our attention and agree with the commenter's perspective that
converting Craig Unit 1 to natural gas does not in itself shorten the
remaining useful life of the source. Our intent was to agree with
Colorado's assertion that it is appropriate to reassess the
NOX BART limit under the remaining period that Craig Unit 1
will be burning coal.
III. Final Action
For the reasons expressed in the proposed rule, the EPA is
approving revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part F, Section VI, shown
in Table 1 submitted by the State of Colorado on May 26, 2017,
addressing the NOX BART and reasonable progress requirements
for Craig Unit 1 and Nucla, respectively.
Table 1--List of Colorado Amendments That the EPA Is Approving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended sections in May 26, 2017 submittal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table); VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2
(table); VI.B.3; VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
Colorado Code of Regulations described in the amendments set forth to
40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by the
EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110
and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of
the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and the EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 4, 2018. 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 nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse
gases, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: June 28, 2018.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 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 G--Colorado
0
2. Section 52.320 paragraph (c) is amended by revising table entry for
VI. under the centered heading ``5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3,
Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
and Reasonable Progress (RP).''
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
[[Page 31334]]
(c) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA effective
Title effective date date Final rule citation/date Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 CCR 1001-05, Regulation Number 3, Part F, Regional Haze Limits--Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) and Reasonable Progress (RP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Regional Haze Determinations.... 2/14/2017 8/6/2018 [Insert Federal Register citation], 7/5/ ........................................
2018.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-14387 Filed 7-3-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P