Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination, 491-507 [2010-33106]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Consistent with the above statutory
and regulatory framework, the FAA has
adopted policy to establish the
standards for which the FAA identifies
‘‘obstructions’’ and ‘‘hazards’’ in the
navigable airspace in furtherance of its
responsibilities to manage the navigable
airspace safely and efficiently. See 14
CFR part 77, and FAA Order 7400.2,
Procedures for Handling Airspace
Matters. The FAA issues a
determination advising whether the
structure would be a hazard to air
navigation. The FAA may condition its
determination of no hazard with the
structure appropriately being marked
and lighted, as specified in the
determination. FAA criteria for marking
and lighting of tall structures are found
in Advisory Circular No. 70/7460–1,
Obstruction Marking and Lighting.
Unless within the vicinity of an
airport,1 proponents of new structures
or alterations of existing structures must
file notice with the FAA for ‘‘any
construction or alteration of more than
200 feet in height above the ground
level at its site.’’ 14 CFR 77.13(a)(1).
Consequently, as the FAA does not
study these structures there is no FAA
determination that would specify the
marking of these structures.
Background
The emphasis to discover sources of
renewable energy in the United States
has prompted individuals and
companies to explore all means of
energy generation. Wind energy,
converted into electrical energy by wind
turbines, is widely pursued as a viable
alternative. In order to determine if a
site meets requirements to construct a
wind turbine or wind farm, companies
erect METs. These towers are used to
gather wind data necessary for site
evaluation and development of wind
energy projects. The data generally is
gathered over a year to ascertain if the
targeted area represents a potential
location for the installation of wind
turbines.
Requirements to file notice under part
77 generally do not apply to structures
at heights lower than 200 feet AGL
unless close to an airport environment.
Therefore, the FAA does not have a
database of MET locations, nor does it
conduct an aeronautical study to
determine whether the particular
structure would be hazardous to
aviation. These towers are often
installed in remote or rural areas, just
under 200 feet above ground level
(AGL), usually at 198 feet or less. These
structures are portable, erected in a
1 14 CFR 77.13(a), paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5)
are not relevant to this issue.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
matter of hours, installed with guyed
wires and constructed from a galvanized
material often making them difficult to
see in certain atmospheric conditions.
While the METs described above are
not subject to the provisions of part 77
and therefore, the FAA does not
conduct aeronautical studies to
determine whether these structures are
obstructions and adversely impact air
navigation, the FAA does acknowledge
that these towers under certain
conditions may be difficult to see by
low-level agricultural flights operating
under visual flight rules. The color,
portability of these towers, their
placement in rural and remote areas,
and their ability to be erected quickly
are factors that pilots should be aware
of when conducting operations in these
areas.
The FAA has received complaints and
inquiries from agricultural operations in
remote or rural areas regarding the
safety impacts of these towers on lowlevel agricultural operations. In
addition, representatives from the
National Agricultural Aviation
Association (NAAA) met with the FAA
on November 16, 2010 to discuss safety
specific concerns of the aerial
application industry. The NAAA
suggested safety guidelines and marking
and lighting criteria in order to reduce
the risks for aerial applications. A copy
of the material provided by NAAA has
been placed in the docket.
Proposed Guidance
The FAA is considering revising AC
No. 70/7460–1, Obstruction Marking
and Lighting, to include guidance for
the voluntary marking of METs that are
less than 200 feet AGL. The FAA
recognizes the need to enhance the
conspicuity of these METs, particularly
for low-level agricultural operations and
seeks public comment on the guidance
provided below.
The FAA recommends that the towers
be painted in accordance to the marking
criteria contained in Chapter 3,
paragraphs 30–33 of AC No. 70/7460–1.
In particular, we reference paragraph
33(d), which discusses alternate bands
of aviation orange and white paint for
skeletal framework of storage tanks and
similar structures, and towers that have
cables attached. The FAA also
recommends spherical and/or flag
markers be used in addition to aviation
orange and white paint when additional
conspicuity is necessary. Markers
should be installed and displayed
according to the existing standards
contained in Chapter 3, paragraph 34 of
AC No. 70/70460–1.
The FAA is also considering
recommending high visibility sleeves on
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
491
the outer guy wires of these METs.
While the current Obstruction Marking
and Lighting Advisory Circular does not
contain such guidance for high visibility
sleeves, the FAA specifically seeks
comments on this recommendation.
The FAA anticipates that a uniform
and consistent scheme for voluntarily
marking these METs would enhance
safety by making these towers more
readily identifiable for agricultural
operations.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
29, 2010.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace, Regulations and ATC
Procedures Group.
[FR Doc. 2010–33310 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846; FRL–9246–8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Federal Implementation Plan for
Interstate Transport of Pollution
Affecting Visibility and Best Available
Retrofit Technology Determination
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to
disapprove a portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of New Mexico
for the purpose of addressing the ‘‘good
neighbor’’ requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS or standards) and the 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS. The
SIP revision addresses the requirement
that New Mexico’s SIP must have
adequate provisions to prohibit
emissions from adversely affecting
another state’s air quality through
interstate transport. In this action, EPA
is proposing to disapprove the New
Mexico Interstate Transport SIP
provisions that address the requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that
emissions from New Mexico sources do
not interfere with measures required in
the SIP of any other state under part C
of the CAA to protect visibility. In this
action, EPA is also proposing to
promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) to prevent emissions from
New Mexico sources from interfering
with other states’ measures to protect
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
492
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
visibility, and to implement nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emission limits necessary at one source
to prevent such interference. In
addition, EPA is proposing sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) and ammonia (NH3) hourly
emission limits at the same source, to
minimize the contribution of these
compounds to visibility impairment.
EPA is proposing monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements to ensure compliance with
such emission limitations. EPA also
proposes that compliance with the
emission limits be within three (3) years
of the effective date of our final rule.
Furthermore, EPA is proposing the FIP
to address the requirement for best
available retrofit technology (BART) for
NOX for this source. This action is being
taken under section 110 and part C of
the CAA.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be
received on or before March 7, 2011.
Public Hearing. EPA intends to hold
a public hearing in Farmington, New
Mexico to accept oral and written
comments on the proposed rulemaking.
EPA will provide notice and additional
details at least 30 days prior to the
hearing in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2010–0846, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov.
• Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
• EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ Web
site: https://epa.gov/region6/
r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD
(Multimedia)’’ and select ‘‘Air’’ before
submitting comments.
• E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at
donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also
send a copy by e-mail to the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section below.
• Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD–L), at fax
number 214–665–7263.
• Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief,
Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733.
• Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy
Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such
deliveries are accepted only between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays,
and not on legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0846.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA without going through https://
www.regulations.gov your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445
Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas
75202–2733. The file will be made
available by appointment for public
inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review
Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at
214–665–7253 to make an appointment.
If possible, please make the
appointment at least two working days
in advance of your visit. There will be
a 15 cent per page fee for making
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The state submittal is also available
for public inspection during official
business hours, by appointment, at the
New Mexico Environment Department,
Air Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Road,
Building B, Santa Fe, New Mexico
87507.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe
Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, telephone
(214) 665–7186, fax number (214) 665–
7263; e-mail address
kordzi.joe@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean the
EPA.
Outline
I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background
A. SIP and FIP Background
B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Addressing Interstate Transport and
Visibility
1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5
and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
2. Visibility Protection
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
4. The Western Regional Air Partnership
and Evaluation of Regional Haze Impacts
III. Our Evaluation
A. New Mexico’s Interstate Transport
B. Federal Implementation Plan To
Address Interstate Transport and
Visibility and the BART Requirements
for NOX
1. Additional SO2 Emission Limits for the
SJGS
2. Need for Additional NOX Controls
3. NOX BART Evaluation
a. The SJGS Is a BART Eligible Source
b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART
c. The SJGS NOX BART Determination
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview of Proposed Action
We are proposing to disapprove a
portion of the SIP revision submitted by
the State of New Mexico for the purpose
of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provisions of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to visibility
for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
the PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result of the
proposed disapproval, we are also
proposing a FIP to address the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility to ensure that emissions from
New Mexico sources do not interfere
with the visibility programs of other
states. We are proposing to find that
New Mexico sources, other than one, are
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
sufficiently controlled to eliminate
interference with the visibility programs
of other states, and for the one
remaining source we are proposing to
impose specific emissions limits that
will eliminate such interstate
interference. We are simultaneously
evaluating whether the source at issue
meets certain other related requirements
under the Regional Haze (RH) program.
As a result of this evaluation, we are
likewise proposing to find that the
proposed controls for the source at issue
will address the NOX BART
requirements of the RH program. In this
action, we are not addressing whether
the state has met other requirements of
the RH program and will address those
requirements in later actions.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act
requires that states have a SIP, or submit
a SIP revision, containing provisions
‘‘prohibiting any source or other type of
emission activity within the state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts
which will * * * interfere with
measures required to be included in the
applicable implementation plan for any
other State under part C [of the CAA] to
protect visibility.’’
Because of the impacts on visibility
from the interstate transport of
pollutants, we interpret the ‘‘good
neighbor’’ provisions of section 110 of
the Act described above as requiring
states to include in their SIPs measures
to prohibit emissions that would
interfere with the reasonable progress
goals set to protect Class I areas in other
states. New Mexico submitted a SIP to
address these requirements in
September 2007. In this action, we are
proposing to disapprove the New
Mexico SIP submission as not meeting
the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility. The SIP submission made by
the state anticipated the timely
submission of a substantive RH SIP
submission as the means of meeting the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). New Mexico has yet
to submit such a RH SIP. In addition,
the state has not revised its submission
to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility by any alternative means.
By December 17, 2007, each State
with one or more Class I Federal areas
was also required to submit a RH SIP
that included goals that provide for
reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility conditions. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1). We previously found that
New Mexico had failed to submit a
complete RH SIP by December 17, 2007.
74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). This
finding started a two year clock for the
promulgation of a RH FIP by EPA or the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
approval of a complete RH SIP from
New Mexico. CAA § 110(c)(1).
To address the above concerns, we are
also proposing to promulgate a FIP that
ensures that emissions from New
Mexico sources do not interfere with
other states’ measures to protect
visibility in accordance with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and also
to address the requirements under the
RH program for BART by imposing
limits for NOX for the San Juan
Generating Station (SJGS).1 This FIP
will limit the emissions of SO2 and NOX
from the SJGS. Together, the reduction
in NOX from our proposed NOX BART
determination, and the proposed SO2
emission limits to establish federal
enforceability of current SO2 levels will
serve to ensure there are enforceable
mechanisms in place to prohibit New
Mexico NOX and SO2 emissions from
interfering with efforts to protect
visibility in other states pursuant to the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. NOX and
SO2 are significant contributors to
visibility impairment in and around
New Mexico. As the Four Corners Task
Force notes,2 ‘‘[r]eduction of NOX is
particularly important to improve
visibility at Mesa Verde National Park,
which is 43 km away from SJGS. * * *
[V]isibility has degraded at Mesa Verde
over the past decade, and the portion of
degradation due to nitrate has increased
(while there has been no trend in
degradation due to sulfate).’’ For NOX
emissions, we are proposing to require
the SJGS to meet an emission limit of
0.05 pounds per million British Thermal
Units (lb/MMBtu) at Units 1, 2, 3, and
4, representing an approximately 83%
reduction from the SJGS’s baseline NOX
emissions. This NOX limit is achievable
by installing and operating Selective
Catalytic Reduction (SCR). For SO2, we
are proposing to require the SJGS to
meet an emission limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. Both of these emission limits
would be measured on the basis of a
30-day rolling average. We are also
proposing hourly average emission
limits for sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and
ammonia (NH3) for the SJGS, to
minimize the contribution of these
compounds to visibility impairment of
Class I areas.
Furthermore, we propose that
compliance with the emission limits be
1 Unless otherwise specified, when we say the
‘‘San Juan Generating Station,’’ or ‘‘SJGS,’’ we mean
units 1, 2, 3, and 4, inclusive.
2 Power Plants Section, Four Corners Air Quality
Task Force, Report of Mitigation Options,
November 1, 2007, available at: https://
www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/4C/Docs/
4CAQTF_Report_FINAL_PowerPlants.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
493
within three (3) years of the effective
date of our final rule. Additionally, we
are proposing monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure compliance with
emission limitations. Please see Section
IV (Proposed Action) and the proposed
regulation language at the end of this
Federal Register action for more
information.
II. Background
A. SIP and FIP Background
The CAA requires each state to
develop a plan that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. CAA
section 110(a). We establish NAAQS
under section 109 of the CAA.
Currently, the NAAQS address six (6)
criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide,
nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead,
particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.
The plan developed by a state is referred
to as the SIP. The content of the SIP is
specified in section 110 of the CAA,
other provisions of the CAA, and
applicable regulations. A primary
purpose of the SIP is to provide the air
pollution regulations, control strategies,
and other means or techniques
developed by the state to ensure that the
ambient air within that state meets the
NAAQS. However, another important
aspect of the SIP is to ensure that
emissions from within the state do not
have certain prohibited impacts upon
the ambient air in other states through
the interstate transport of pollutants.
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). States are
required to update or revise SIPs under
certain circumstances. See CAA section
110(a)(1). One such circumstance is our
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. Id. Each state must submit
these revisions to us for approval and
incorporation into the federallyenforceable SIP.
If a State fails to make a required SIP
submittal or if we find that the State’s
submittal is incomplete or
unapprovable, then we must promulgate
a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. CAA
section 110(c)(1). As discussed
elsewhere in this notice, we have made
findings related to New Mexico SIP
revisions needed to address interstate
transport and the requirement that
emissions from New Mexico sources do
not interfere with measures required in
the SIP of any other state to protect
visibility, pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. We are
proposing a FIP to address the
deficiencies in the New Mexico
Interstate Transport SIP.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
494
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Addressing Interstate Transport and
Visibility
1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and
PM2.5 and CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
On July 18, 1997, we promulgated
new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for
PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of
the CAA requires states to submit SIPs
to address a new or revised NAAQS
within 3 years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter
period as we may prescribe. Section
110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements
that such new SIPs must address, as
applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the
interstate transport of certain emissions.
On April 25, 2005, we published a
‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for
Interstate Transport for the 8-hour
Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS.’’ 70 FR
21147. This included a finding that New
Mexico and other states had failed to
submit SIPs for interstate transport of air
pollution affecting visibility, and started
a 2-year clock for the promulgation of a
FIP by us, unless a State made a
submission to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and we approved
the submission. Id.
On August 15, 2006, we issued our
‘‘Guidance for State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards’’ (2006 Guidance). We
developed the 2006 Guidance to make
recommendations to states for making
submissions to meet the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8hour ozone standards and the 1997
PM2.5 standards.
As identified in the 2006 Guidance,
the ‘‘good neighbor’’ provisions in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
require each state to submit a SIP that
prohibits emissions that adversely affect
another state in the ways contemplated
in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
contains four distinct requirements
related to the impacts of interstate
transport. The SIP must prevent sources
in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will: (1) Contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the
NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in
other states; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in other states; or (4) interfere
with efforts to protect visibility in other
states.
The 2006 Guidance stated that states
may make a simple SIP submission
confirming that it was not possible at
that time to assess whether there is any
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
interference with measures in the
applicable SIP for another state
designed to ‘‘protect visibility’’ for the
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until
RH SIPs are submitted and approved.
RH SIPs were required to be submitted
by December 17, 2007. See 74 FR 2392
(January 15, 2009); see also discussion
infra section II.B.2.
On September 17, 2007 we received a
SIP from New Mexico to address the
interstate transport provisions of CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS. In this submission,
the state indicated that it intended to
meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility by submission of a timely RH
SIP. To date, the state has not made a
RH SIP submission. In addition, the
state has not made a submission
demonstrating noninterference with the
visibility programs of other states in
accordance with section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by any other means.
In prior actions, we approved the New
Mexico SIP submittal for (1) the
‘‘significant contribution to
nonattainment’’ prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 33174, June 11,
2010) and (2) the ‘‘interfere with
maintenance’’ and ‘‘interfere with
measures to prevent significant
deterioration’’ prongs of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 72688, November
26, 2010). In this action, we are
proposing to disapprove the New
Mexico Interstate Transport SIP with
respect to the requirement that
emissions from New Mexico sources do
not interfere with measures required in
the SIP of any other state to protect
visibility. See CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We are proposing to
promulgate a FIP in order to cure this
defect in the New Mexico Interstate
Transport SIP.
2. Visibility Protection
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas 3 which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.’’
CAA § 169A(a)(1). The terms
‘‘impairment of visibility’’ and ‘‘visibility
impairment’’ are defined in the Act to
include a reduction in visual range and
atmospheric discoloration. Id. section
169A(g)(6). In 1980, we promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084
(December 2, 1980). These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing
visibility impairment. We deferred
action on RH that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved. Id.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address RH issues, and
we promulgated regulations addressing
RH in 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999),
codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P
(the regional haze rule or RHR). The
RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate provisions
addressing RH impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for RH, found at 40 CFR
51.308 and 51.309, are included in our
visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300–309. States were required to
submit the first SIP addressing RH
visibility impairment no later than
December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
On January 15, 2009, we published a
‘‘Finding of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plans Required by the
1999 regional haze rule.’’ 74 FR 2392.
We found that New Mexico and other
states had failed to submit for our
review and approval complete SIPs for
improving visibility in the nation’s
national parks and wilderness areas by
the required date of December 17, 2007.
We found that New Mexico failed to
submit the plan elements required by 40
CFR 51.309(g), the reasonable progress
requirements for areas other than the 16
Class I areas covered by the Grand
Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission Report. New Mexico also
failed to submit the plan element
required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), which
3 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA
section 162(a). In accordance with section 169A of
the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department
of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44
FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA
section 162(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they
consider to have visibility as an important value,
the requirements of the visibility program set forth
in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory
Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a
‘‘Federal Land Manager’’ (FLM). CAA section 302(i).
When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this action,
we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
requires BART for stationary source
emissions of NOx and PM under either
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2).4
This finding started a 2-year clock for
the promulgation of a FIP by EPA,
unless the State made a RH SIP
submission and we approved it.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain major stationary
sources with the potential to emit
greater than 250 tons or more of any
pollutant, in order to address visibility
impacts from these sources.
Specifically, it requires states to revise
their SIPs to contain such measures as
may be necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology,’’ as determined by the State
or us in the case of a plan promulgated
under section 110(c) of the CAA. CAA
section 169A(b)(2)(A). States are
directed to conduct BART
determinations for such sources that
may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area. The RHR required all
states to submit implementation plans
that, among other measures, contain
either emission limits representing
BART for certain sources constructed
between 1962 and 1977, or alternative
measures that provide for greater
reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR
51.308(e). On July 6, 2005, we published
the Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule (‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. 70 FR 39104.
The process of establishing BART
emission limitations can be logically
broken down into three steps: first,
states identify those sources which meet
the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’
set forth in 40 CFR 51.301 5; second,
states determine whether each source
‘‘emits any air pollutant which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
4 NM has an option to submit a RH SIP under
either section 51.308 or section 51.309. Although
they have indicated their preference is for the latter,
the NOx BART FIP we are proposing would apply
to either.
5 BART-eligible sources are those sources, which
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, that were put in
place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977,
and whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any such area’’ (a source
which fits this description is ‘‘subject to
BART’’); and third, for each source
subject to BART, states then identify the
appropriate type and the level of control
for reducing emissions.
States must consider the following
factors in making BART determinations:
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the
energy and nonair quality
environmental impacts of compliance;
(3) any existing pollution control
technology in use at the source; (4) the
remaining useful life of the source; and
(5) the degree of improvement in
visibility which may reasonably be
anticipated to result from the use of
such technology. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). Section
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B) requires that BART
determinations for fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plants with a total
generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts, must be made according to
the BART Guidelines.6 A state is
encouraged, but not required, to follow
the BART Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. We
have stated that states should use their
best judgment in determining whether
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or
ammonia (NH3) and ammonia
compounds impair visibility in Class I
areas.
The Regional Planning Organizations
(RPOs) provided air quality modeling to
the states to help them in determining
whether potential BART sources can be
reasonably expected to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
Class I area. Under the BART
Guidelines, states may select an
exemption threshold value for their
BART modeling, below which a BARTeligible source would not be expected to
cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in any Class I area. 70 FR
39104. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Id. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. Id. The
BART Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emission sources affecting
6 Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51—Guidelines for
BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
495
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Id. Any exemption threshold
set by the state should not be higher
than 0.5 deciview. Id.
The RHR establishes the deciview
(dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. Id. This visibility
metric expresses uniform changes in
haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is
sometimes expressed in terms of the
visual range which is the greatest
distance, in kilometers or miles, at
which a dark object can just be
distinguished against the sky. The
deciview is a more useful measure for
tracking progress in improving
visibility, because each deciview change
is an equal incremental change in
visibility perceived by the human eye.
Most people can detect a change in
visibility at one deciview.
A RH SIP must include sourcespecific BART emission limits and
compliance schedules for each source
subject to BART. Once a state has made
its BART determination, the BART
controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five (5)
years after the date of our approval of
the RH SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what
is required by the RHR, general SIP
requirements mandate that the SIP must
also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting for the BART controls on
the source. See CAA section 110(a)(2).
4. The Western Regional Air Partnership
and Evaluation of Regional Haze
Impacts
The Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) is a voluntary partnership of
state, tribal, federal, and local air
agencies dealing with regional air
quality issues in the West. Member
states include Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming. The WRAP established
various committees to assist in
managing and developing RH work
products. New Mexico is a WRAP
member. The WRAP evaluates air
quality impacts, including RH impacts,
associated with regionally significant
emission sources. In so doing, the
WRAP has conducted air quality
modeling. The states in the West have
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
496
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
protect visibility in other states, New
Mexico stated that:
• New Mexico sources of emissions
do not interfere with implementation of
reasonably attributable visibility
impairment;
• Its December 2003 RH SIP
demonstrated reasonable progress in
reducing impacts on Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau;8 and
• The 2007 SIP update for RH will
analyze any impacts from New Mexico
that extend beyond the Colorado Plateau
and determine appropriate long-term
strategies for control measures. As
mentioned previously, New Mexico has
yet to provide this SIP revision.
New Mexico’s submission addressed
the requirement that it not interfere with
the visibility programs of other states by
stating that it would submit an
approvable RH SIP by December 2007.
The state did not otherwise establish
that emissions from its sources would
not interfere with the visibility
programs of other states. After
intervening events precluded the
development of an approvable RH SIP,
the state did not make any subsequent
SIP submission to address the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
impacts on the visibility programs of
other states. Consequently, because the
State did not submit a RH SIP or an
alternative means of demonstrating that
emissions from its sources would not
interfere with the visibility programs of
other States, we are proposing
disapproval of the SIP received
September 17, 2007, with respect to
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and visibility
protection. Further, as described in
subsequent sections, we are proposing
that additional controls are necessary to
prevent emissions from New Mexico
from interfering with measures to
protect visibility in other States.
III. Our Evaluation
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
used this modeling to establish their
reasonable progress goals for RH.7
The RH program, as reflected in the
regulations, recognizes the importance
of addressing the long-range transport of
pollutants for visibility and encourage
states to work together to develop plans
to address haze. The regulations
explicitly require each State to address
its ‘‘share’’ of the emission reductions
needed to meet the reasonable progress
goals for surrounding Class I areas.
States working together through a
regional planning process are required
to address an agreed upon share of their
contribution to visibility impairment in
the Class I areas of their neighbors. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). The States in the
West worked together through the
WRAP to determine their contribution
to visibility impairment at the relevant
federal Class I areas in the region and
the emissions reductions from each
State needed to attain the reasonable
progress goals for each area. Regional
planning organizations (RPOs) such as
the WRAP provided much of the
technical work necessary to develop RH
SIPs, including the modeling used to
establish reasonable progress goals. The
WRAP evaluated air quality impacts,
including RH impacts, associated with
regionally significant emission sources.
In so doing, the WRAP conducted air
quality modeling. The modeling done
by the RPOs relied on assumptions
regarding emissions over the relevant
planning period. Embedded in these
assumptions were anticipated emissions
reductions from each of the states in the
RPO, including reductions from BART
and other measures to be adopted as
part of the states long-term strategy for
addressing RH. The states in the West,
in turn, have used this modeling to
establish their reasonable progress goals
for RH. The reasonable progress goals in
the draft and final RH SIPs that have
now been prepared by states in the West
accordingly are based, in part, on the
emissions reductions from nearby states
that were agreed on through the WRAP
process.
As an initial matter, we note that
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does not
explicitly specify how we should
A. New Mexico’s Interstate Transport
SIP
We received a SIP from New Mexico
to address the interstate transport
provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
on September 17, 2007. Concerning the
provision preventing sources in the state
from emitting pollutants in amounts
which will interfere with efforts to
7 More
information on WRAP and their work can
be found on the Internet at https://www.wrapair2.org
and in the TSD for this action.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
B. Federal Implementation Plan To
Address Interstate Transport and
Visibility and the BART Requirements
for NOX
8 In December, 2003, New Mexico submitted its
RH SIP pursuant to the requirements of sections
169A and 169B of the CAA and the regional haze
rule. However, in American Corn Growers Ass’n v.
EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued
a ruling vacating and remanding the BART
provisions of the regional haze rule. In 2006, EPA
issued BART guidelines to address the court’s
ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
On January 13, 2009, New Mexico resubmitted
portions of its RH SIP, but not the requirements
addressing reasonable progress pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(g).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
ascertain whether a state’s SIP contains
adequate provisions to prevent
emissions from sources in that state
from interfering with measures required
in another state to protect visibility.
Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its
face, and we must interpret that
provision.
Our 2006 Guidance recommended
that a state could meet the visibility
prong of the transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by
submission of the RH SIP, due in
December 2007. Our reasoning was that
the development of the RH SIPs was
intended to occur in a collaborative
environment among the states. In fact,
in developing their respective
reasonable progress goals, WRAP states
consulted with each other through the
WRAP’s work groups.9 As a result of
this process, the common understanding
was that each State would take action to
achieve the emissions reductions relied
upon by other states in their reasonable
progress demonstrations under the RHR.
This effort included all states in the
WRAP region contributing information
to a Technical Support System (TSS)
which provides an analysis of the
causes of haze, and the levels of
contribution from all sources within
each state to the visibility degradation of
each Class I area. The WRAP states
consulted in the development of
reasonable progress goals, using the
products of this technical consultation
process to co-develop their reasonable
progress goals for the Western Class I
areas.
We believe that the analysis
conducted by the WRAP provides an
appropriate means for designing a FIP
that will ensure that emissions from
sources in New Mexico are not
interfering with the visibility programs
of other states, as contemplated in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In developing
their visibility projections using
photochemical grid modeling, the
WRAP states assumed a certain level of
emissions from sources within New
Mexico. Although we have not yet
received all RH SIPs, we understand
that the WRAP states used the visibility
projection modeling to establish their
own respective reasonable progress
goals. Thus, we believe that an
implementation plan that provides for
emissions reductions consistent with
the assumptions used in the WRAP
modeling will ensure that emissions
from New Mexico sources do not
9 Consultation provided through the WRAP have
been documented in calls and meetings on the
WRAP Web site, available at https://
www.wrapair.org/cal/calendar.php.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
interfere with the measures designed to
protect visibility in other states.
Accordingly, we have reviewed the
WRAP photochemical modeling
emission projections used in the
demonstration of reasonable progress
towards natural visibility conditions
and compared them to current emission
levels from sources in New Mexico. We
have concluded that all of the sources
in New Mexico are achieving the
emission levels assumed by the WRAP
in its modeling except for the SJGS. The
WRAP modeling assumed the SJGS’s
NOX emissions would be 0.27 lbs/
MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/
MMBtu for units 2 and 4, in 2018. The
WRAP modeling also assumed SO2
emissions would be 0.15 lbs/MMBtu in
2018 for the four SJGS units.
The SJGS consists of four (4) coalfired generating units and associated
support facilities. Each coal-fired unit
burns pulverized coal and No. 2 diesel
oil (for startup) in a boiler, and produces
high-pressure steam which powers a
steam turbine coupled with an electric
generator. Electric power produced by
the units is supplied to the electric
power grid for sale. Coal for the units is
supplied by the adjacent San Juan Mine
and is delivered to the facility by
conveyor. Units 1 and 2 have a unit
capacity of 350 and 360 MW,
respectively. Units 3 and 4 each have a
unit capacity of 544 MW.
In 2005, the operator of the SJGS,
Public Service Company of New Mexico
(PNM), entered into a consent decree
with the Grand Canyon Trust, Sierra
Club, and the New Mexico Environment
Department (NMED) to reduce
emissions of NOX, SO2, particulate
matter and mercury.10 The consent
decree imposed emissions restrictions,
including the following:
• NOX: 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day
rolling average.
• SO2: 90% annual average control,
not to exceed 0.250 lb/mmBtu for a
seven-day block average.
In a permit modification to the
construction permit for SJGS, NMED
issued a revised construction permit
(NSR Air Quality Permit No. 0063–M6)
on April 22, 2008 to incorporate some
of the conditions from the consent
decree. The construction permit was
issued by the Air Quality Bureau of the
NMED to SJGS pursuant to the New
Mexico Air Quality Control Act and
regulations and is considered a federally
10 Consent Decree in The Grand Canyon Trust
and Sierra Club, Plaintiffs, The State of New
Mexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Public Service
Company of New Mexico, Defendant, (CV 02–552
BB/ACT (ACE)), lodged in the United States District
Court, District of New Mexico, on March 10, 2005,
at 15–16.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
enforceable permit. We were not a party
to the consent decree, but the inclusion
of limits from the consent decree that
have been included in the construction
permit for the facility were issued
pursuant to the federally approved
construction permitting program of the
New Mexico SIP. Specifically, the
construction permit includes the NOX
and SO2 limits from the consent decree
that are identified above.11 Therefore,
these NOX and SO2 emissions
restrictions are federally enforceable.
This permit has since been superseded
by a further construction permit
modification that also includes the
consent decree limits on NOX and SO2
emissions and is federally enforceable.12
Although the SJGS is subject to a
federally enforceable permit, the
permit’s 30-day rolling average NOX
emission limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu for all
units is less restrictive than the
emission rates modeled by the WRAP of
0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and
0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in
assessing the daily visibility impacts.
We also note the WRAP photochemical
modeling utilized an SO2 emission rate
of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu on a continuous
basis for all four units. In previous
communications to New Mexico and the
WRAP, PNM indicated that the 90%
annual average control specified in the
permit would be expected to yield
roughly an annual average emission rate
of 0.195 lb/mmBtu of SO2,13 which is
much higher than the 0.15 lb/mmBtu
emission rate utilized in the WRAP’s
photochemical modeling for assessing
daily level impacts. Also, the 90% SO2
control restriction specified in the
permit is an annual average, which
allows for short term fluctuations. It also
is not directly translatable to an
emission limit (e.g., lbs/MMBtu), and
requires knowledge of the sulfur content
of the coal being burned. Therefore, this
limit can further fluctuate depending
upon the annual average sulfur content
of the coal. This presents an
unnecessary enforcement complication.
The permit also specifies a 0.250 lb/
mmBtu on a 7-day block average for
each unit, which is much less restrictive
11 NO limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling
X
average for each of the four units; SO2 limit of 90%
annual average control for each unit, with a shortterm limit not to exceed 0.250 lb/mmBtu for a
seven-day block average.
12 New Mexico Environment Department Air
Quality Bureau NSR Air Quality Permit No. 0063–
M6R1 was issued on September 12, 2008 and
superseded Permit No. 0063–M6.
13 Comments Received to-Date on the Draft 2018
Base Case Projections, Version: December 21, 2005,
available at https://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/
documents/eictts/Projections/
Summary%20of%20Comments_122105_final.pdf,
pdf pagination 20.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
497
than the 0.15 lb/mmBtu emission rate
that was used within the WRAP’s
photochemical modeling.
Therefore, the permit does not
provide the necessary emission limits
and enforceable mechanisms to ensure
the NOX and SO2 emissions used in the
WRAP photochemical modeling for the
SJGS units will be met. In the absence
of an approvable RH SIP, we do not
have an enforceable mechanism for
ensuring that sources in New Mexico do
not impact visibility in other states.
Other WRAP states are relying on levels
modeled for the SJGS units, developed
in consultation, in their demonstration
of reasonable progress towards natural
visibility conditions. Therefore, any
discrepancies between what was
included in the WRAP photochemical
modeling and what is presently
enforceable, is a concern. We have
evaluated these discrepancies and
determined they are significant due to
the changes in visibility projections in
the modeling. We have concluded that
it is appropriate to establish federally
enforceable limits for pollutants that
impact visibility projections within the
WRAP photochemical modeling.
As discussed in II.A, we are proposing
to disapprove New Mexico Interstate
Transport SIP provisions that address
the requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from
New Mexico sources do not interfere
with measures required in the SIP of
any other state under part C of the CAA
to protect visibility. In addition, since
New Mexico has not submitted a
complete RH SIP that should have,
among other things, included a review
of BART for NOX at the SJGS, and for
both of these requirements we have
made a finding of failure to submit,14
giving us the authority and
responsibility to issue a FIP to address
the deficiencies in the State’s plan, we
are also proposing to find that New
Mexico sources, except the SJGS, are
sufficiently controlled to eliminate
interference with the visibility programs
of other states. For the SJGS we are
proposing to impose specific emissions
limits that will eliminate such interstate
interference based on current emissions
that satisfies the assumptions in the
WRAP modeling.
The following sections outline our
proposal for addressing the BART
requirements for NOX at SJGS and for
ensuring that the SJGS has the controls
necessary to prevent emissions from
14 See Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for
Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS. 70 FR 21147 (April 25, 2005); see also
Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation
Plans Required by the 1999 Regional Haze Rule. 74
FR 2392 (January 15, 2009).
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
498
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
New Mexico from interfering with the
reasonable progress goals in other states.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Additional SO2 Emission Limits for
the SJGS
As we discuss above, there are no
federally enforceable limits that restrict
the SJGS’s SO2 emissions at 0.15 lbs/
MMBtu, the rate assumed by the WRAP
in its modeling. Therefore, as part of
this action, we are proposing to impose
an SO2 emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu
on a 30 day rolling average for units 1,
2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS. By imposing this
limit through this action, we will insure
that SO2 emissions from this source are
not interfering with the visibility
programs of other states. We note an
examination of the SJGS’s actual
emission rates based on emissions
reported by our Clean Air Markets
Division 15 indicates units 1, 2, 3, and 4
of the SJGS are already meeting these
SO2 emission limits.
We are not making a finding that this
SO2 emission limit satisfies BART for
SO2. NMED has indicated they will
submit a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.309,
thus SO2 BART for the SJGS will be
addressed through New Mexico’s
participation in an SO2 trading program,
under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Should
NMED instead submit a RH SIP under
40 CFR 51.308, the SJGS would be
subject to an SO2 BART analysis under
40 CFR 51.308(e).
2. Need for Additional NOX Controls
As we discuss above, the WRAP
assumed in its modeling that the SJGS
would achieve NOX emission rates of
0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and
0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in its
evaluation of daily impacts in
photochemical modeling. Based on our
approach of relying on the assumptions
in the WRAP modeling, additional
control would, therefore, be necessary to
ensure that emissions from New Mexico
sources do not interfere with efforts to
protect visibility in other states
pursuant to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.
Unlike the case for SO2, the SJGS will
have to install controls and therefore
make capital investments to achieve
these additional NOX reductions. As we
note above, on January 15, 2009, we
published a ‘‘Finding of Failure to
Submit State Implementation Plans
Required by the 1999 regional haze
rule.’’ 74 FR 2392. This finding included
the plan element required by 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4), which requires BART for
stationary source emissions of NOX and
PM under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or
15 https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/
index.cfm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
51.308(e)(2). Therefore, rather than
making an initial determination to
require the controls needed to prevent
interference with the visibility programs
of other states based on the assumptions
in the WRAP photochemical modeling
to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
requirements, followed soon thereafter
by a separate NOX BART evaluation, we
find it is appropriate to perform that
BART evaluation at this time.
Addressing both outstanding obligations
at this time will be more efficient and
will provide greater certainty to the
source as to the appropriate NOX
controls needed to meet these two
separate but related requirements. Our
evaluation of BART for NOX follows.
3. NOX BART Evaluation
In June, 2007, PNM submitted its
BART evaluation to NMED. That
evaluation was revised multiple times to
incorporate additional visibility
modeling analyses, control technology
considerations, and cost analyses.
Although not officially submitted to us,
NMED completed a NOX and PM BART
determination for the SJGS (referred to
herein as the ‘‘NMED BART
evaluation’’), which we have found to be
thorough and comprehensive.16 In
making our NOX BART determination
for the SJGS, we drew heavily upon the
NOX BART portion of that document,
and used it to help inform our NOX
BART determination for the SJGS. We
have incorporated it into our Technical
Support Document (TSD) found in the
electronic docket for this action. The
electronic docket can be found at the
Web site https://www.regulations.gov
(docket number EPA–R06–OAR–2010–
0846).
We have determined, as outlined
below, that the SJGS is subject to BART
and are proposing to require that units
1, 2, 3, and 4 meet an emission limit for
NOX of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu. This limit is
based on the installation of SCR on each
of the units. The following steps outline
how we came to this determination. For
more detail, please see the TSD. Any
BART determinations for other
pollutants that may be warranted under
the RHR will be addressed in future
rulemakings.
a. The SJGS Is a BART-Eligible Source
The first step of a BART evaluation is
to determine whether a source meets the
definition of a ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ in
16 New Mexico Environment Department, Air
Quality Bureau, BART Determination, Public
Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan
Generating Station, Units 1–4, June 21, 2010,
available at https://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/
reghaz/documents/AppxA_NM_SJGS_NOxBART
Determination_06212010.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 CFR 51.301. BART-eligible sources
are those sources which have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were
put in place between August 7, 1962
and August 7, 1977, and whose
operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories. We
find, based on emissions reported by
our Clean Air Markets Division,17 that
units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS each
have historically emitted much more
than 250 tons of NOX. Also, according
to the NMED SJGS Title V Statement of
Basis, units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS
meet the requirement of being ‘‘in
existence’’ on August 7, 1977 but not ‘‘in
operation’’ before August 7, 1962. Lastly,
we find that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the
SJGS fall under category 1 of the 26
listed BART categories, which is fossilfuel fired steam electric plants of more
than 250 million British thermal units
(BTU) per hour heat input. Therefore,
we propose to find that units 1, 2, 3, and
4 of the SJGS are BART-eligible.
b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART
Section III of the BART Guidelines
outlines several approaches for
identifying sources that are subject to
BART. This entails making a
determination of whether the units of
the SJGS cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in nearby Class I areas.
Among the options we recommended
was the use of dispersion modeling for
assessing the impacts of a single source.
As we note in the BART Guidelines, one
of the first steps in this approach to
determining whether a source causes or
contributes to visibility impairment is to
establish a threshold (measured in
deciviews). A single source that is
responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or
more should be considered to ‘‘cause’’
visibility impairment; a source that
causes less than a 1.0 deciview change
may still contribute to visibility
impairment and thus be subject to
BART. We note in the BART Guidelines
that states (and by extension EPA when
promulgating a FIP) have flexibility in
determining an appropriate threshold
for determining whether a source
‘‘contributes to any visibility
impairment’’ for the purposes of BART.
However, this threshold should not be
higher than 0.5 deciviews.18 In the case
of the SJGS, this establishment of a
precise threshold for contribution is
moot, since visibility modeling
indicates that even using the upper
bound contribution threshold of 0.5
deciviews, the SJGS contributes to
17 https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/
index.cfm.
18 40 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
visibility impairment at a number of
Class I areas.
The WRAP performed the initial
BART screening modeling for the state
of New Mexico. The procedures used
are outlined in the WRAP Regional
Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling
Protocol.19 The WRAP screening
modeling evaluated sources that were
identified as BART-eligible and
determined the only sources that did
not screen out were the SJGS units. The
results of this analysis indicated that
SJGS, on a facility-wide basis, causes
visibility impairment at all 16 Class I
areas within 300 km of the facility.
However, this modeling was based on
the installed control technology at the
time and does not reflect emission
reductions due to the installation of
consent decree controls. Revised
modeling performed by NMED and by
us, including controls required by the
consent decree and currently installed,
further confirmed that SJGS still
‘‘causes’’ visibility impairment at more
than half of the Class I areas in the
vicinity of the facility and contributes
(above 0.5 deciviews) to visibility
impairment at the remaining areas on a
facility-wide basis. On an individual
unit basis, all units ‘‘cause’’ visibility
impairment at Mesa Verde National
Park, and cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at a number of
other Class I areas. Our modeling
indicates that the visibility impairment
is primarily dominated by nitrate
particulates. Therefore, as the WRAP
screening modeling has previously
concluded and further New Mexico and
our modeling confirms that even with
post-consent decree control levels on
SJGS units, the SJGS units 1, 2, 3, and
4 still have a significant impact at
surrounding Class I areas. Consequently,
we propose to find that units 1, 2, 3, and
4 of the SJGS are subject to BART. More
details on this determination can be
found in the TSD.
c. The SJGS NOX BART Determination
Having established that units 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of the SJGS are subject to BART,
the next requirement is to perform the
BART Analysis. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii);
see also BART Guidelines, Section IV.
Protocol for BART
Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in
the Western United States’’, Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang;
Ralph Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15,
2006, available at https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/
bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
19 ‘‘CALMET/CALPUFF
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
The BART analysis identifies the best
system of continuous emission
reduction and, as laid out in the BART
Guidelines, consists of the following
five basic steps:
• Step 1: Identify All Available
Retrofit Control Technologies;
• Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options;
• Step 3: Evaluate Control
Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies;
• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and
Document the Results; and
• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
As we stated above, for our BART
analysis we have heavily drawn upon
the NMED BART Evaluation. Except for
the following points, we agree with
NMED’s conclusions regarding Steps
1–5:
• PNM’s cost estimate. NMED
questioned PNM’s cost estimate for the
installation of SCR but accepted it as
being cost effective. We too questioned
PNM’s cost estimate for SCR, and hired
a consultant to undertake an accurate
assessment of the cost of SCR and the
emission limits that SCR is capable of
attaining. (For more information, please
see the TSD).
• BART for NOX. NMED evaluated
the visibility benefits of SCR at the SJGS
based on an emission limit of 0.07 lbs/
MMBtu, but noted the potential for
greater control at rates as low as 0.03
lbs/MMBtu. As discussed further below,
we have concluded that a NOX emission
limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu is BART for the
SJGS, and performed our visibility
modeling on that basis. (Additional
information is provided in the TSD).
• SO2 to SO3 Conversion. NMED
concluded BART for the SJGS was SCR
plus sorbent injection to remove sulfur
trioxide (SO3) in the flue gas by reaction
with an alkaline material. As discussed
further below, we have concluded that
sorbent injection is not necessary, as the
SJGS burns a low sulfur coal, and
catalysts are available with a low SO2 to
SO3 conversion rate. (Please see the TSD
for further information).
The following is a summary of our
BART analysis. In general, our analysis
is the same as NMED’s analysis of Steps
1–5, as modified to incorporate the areas
discussed above in which we differ with
NMED.
i. Identification of All Available Retrofit
Emission Control Technologies
To address step 1, NMED reviewed a
number of potential retrofittable NOX
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
499
control technologies, including:
Selective Non Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR), SCR, SNCR/SCR Hybrid,
Natural Gas Reburn, Nalco Mobotec
ROFA and Rotamix, NOxStar,
ECOTUBE, PowerSpan ECO, Phenix
Clean Combustion, and e-SCRUB. We
drew upon PNM’s June, 2007 BART
submission to NMED and its subsequent
revisions in our evaluation, and agree
that the potential technologies for NOX
controls that have been identified.
ii. Elimination of Technically Infeasible
Options
For step 2, again drawing upon the
NMED analysis, we have determined the
following potentially retrofittable NOX
control technologies are not technically
feasible, or have not been thoroughly
demonstrated on similar size and type
units: Natural Gas Reburn, NOxStar,
ECOTUBE, PowerSpan ECO, Phenix
Clean Combustion, and e-SCRUB. In
determining BART, we have considered
the remaining technologies, SCR, SNCR,
SNCR/SCR Hybrid, and the Nalco
Mobotec ROFA and Rotamix to be
technically feasible.
iii. Evaluation of Control Effectiveness
of Remaining Control Technologies
Step 3 involves evaluating the control
effectiveness of all the technically
feasible control alternatives identified in
Step 2. Two key issues in this process
include: (1) Ensuring the degree of
control is expressed using a metric that
ensures a level comparison of emissions
performance levels among options; and
(2) giving appropriate treatment and
consideration of control techniques that
can operate over a wide range of
emission performance levels. With the
exception of SCR, Table 1 represents the
control efficiencies and control
emission rates PNM reported as part of
its BART analyses 20 to NMED for the
NOX controls that were found to be
technically feasible. In our own SCR
cost analysis, which we present later in
this section, we have revised the control
efficiency for SCR from 0.07 lbs/MMBtu
to 0.05 lbs/MMBtu.
20 Public Service Company of New Mexico, San
Juan Generating Station, Best Available Retrofit
Technology Analysis, June 6, 2007.
PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART
Analysis of SNCR, May 30, 2008.
PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART
Analysis of Nalco Mobotec NOX Control
Technologies, August 29, 2008.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
500
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PROJECTED NOX CONTROL EFFECTIVENESS FOR UNITS 1–4
ROFA ...........................................................................................................................................................
Rotamix (SNCR) ..........................................................................................................................................
ROFA/Rotamix .............................................................................................................................................
SCR/SNCR Hybrid .......................................................................................................................................
SCR .............................................................................................................................................................
iv. Evaluation of Impacts and
Documentation of Results
Under step 4 of the BART
determination process, we conducted
the following analysis of the possible
impacts due to the installation of the
technically feasible NOX control
options:
• Costs of Compliance.
• Energy Impacts.
• Non-Air Quality Environmental
Impacts.
• Remaining Useful Life.
When performing BART analyses on
each of the technically feasible NOX
control options, PNM considered the
energy impacts, non-air quality
Controlled
emission rate
(lb/MMbtu)
Control efficiency
(%)
Control technology
environmental impacts, and the
remaining useful life. PNM accounted
for the additional cost of certain energy
impacts in the cost impacts analysis. It
did not note any other energy impacts
as being significant. With regard to nonair quality environmental impacts, PNM
did not identify any significant or
unusual environmental impacts
associated with the control alternatives
that had the potential to affect the
selection or elimination of that control
alternative. For SCR and SCR/SNCR
Hybrid technologies, the non-air quality
environmental impacts included the
consideration of water usage and waste
13–15
23–25
33–35
40–41
77
0.26
0.23
0.20
0.18
0.07
generated from each control technology.
Lastly, the remaining useful life was
defined by PNM as 20 years. Therefore,
no additional cost adjustments for a
short remaining useful boiler life were
claimed by PNM.
PNM calculated the costs of each of
the technically feasible NOX control
options 21. This information was
assessed by NMED in its BART analysis.
We checked that information and
present it below in Tables 2–5 (with a
few minor corrections). It summarizes
our evaluation of the impacts of the
BART analyses, including updated cost
data for the SCR option:
TABLE 2—IMPACT ANALYSIS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 1
SCR + sorbent ........
SNCR/SCR Hybrid ..
ROFA/Rotamix ........
Rotamix (SNCR) .....
ROFA ......................
Consent Decree ......
Emission limit
NOX
emissions
NOX
reduction
Total capital
investment
Total
annualized
cost
(TAC)
Cost
effectiveness
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
Energy
impacts
Non-air
impacts
(lbs/MMBtu)
Control technology
(tpy)
(tpy)
(TCI)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
($/ton)
($/ton)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
0.07
0.18
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.30
966
2,484
2,760
3,174
3,588
4,140
3,174
1,656
1,380
966
552
1,254
164,732
104,436
29
11,306
18,293
14,580
21,998
16,207
6,762
3,547
3,455
1,422
6,931
9,787
4,900
3,672
6,259
1,134
3,815
34,221
7,766
222
¥2,896
NA
1,569
706
1,413
51
1,363
1 NA
1 NA
1,762
3
4
1 NA
1 NA
TABLE 3—IMPACT ANALYSIS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 2
SCR + sorbent ........
SNCR/SCR Hybrid ..
ROFA/Rotamix ........
Rotamix (SNCR) .....
ROFA ......................
Consent Decree ......
Emission limit
NOX
emissions
NOX
reduction
Total capital
investment
(TCI)
Total
annualized
cost
(TAC)
Cost
effectivness
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
Energy
impacts
Non-air
impacts
(lbs/MMBtu)
Control technology
(tpy)
(tpy)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
($/ton)
($/ton)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
0.07
0.18
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.30
961
2,471
2,746
3,158
3,570
4,119
3,158
1,648
1,373
961
549
2,060
177,178
108,628
29,350
11,306
18,293
14,126
23,364
16,670
6,762
3,547
3,455
1,378
7,399
10,118
4,925
3,691
6,291
669
4,432
36,082
7,805
223
¥1,375
NA
1,565
346
1,413
51
1,363
1 NA
1 NA
1,762
3
4
1 NA
1 NA
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 4—IMPACT ANALYSIS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 3
SCR + sorbent ........
Emission limit
NOX
emissions
NO3
reduction
Total capital
investment
(TCI)
Total
annualized
cost
(TAC)
Cost
effectiveness
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
Energy
impacts
Non-air
impacts
(lbs/MMBtu)
Control technology
(tpy)
(tpy)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
($/ton)
($/ton)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
0.07
1,501
21 Tables 2–5 were constructed to incorporate
costs due to sorbent injection, as a means of SO3
control in conjunction with SCR. This was done by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
4,930
227,774
30,527
PNM in response to a request by NMED. As NMED
notes in its BART analysis, it understands there are
SCR catalysts now on the market that are capable
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6,192
2,087
2,267
1 NA
of a much smaller SO2 to SO3 conversion. In our
own analysis, we have concurred with this finding
and hence do not consider sorbent injection.
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
501
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—IMPACT ANALYSIS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 3—Continued
SNCR/SCR Hybrid ..
ROFA/Rotamix ........
Rotamix (SNCR) .....
ROFA ......................
Consent Decree ......
Emission limit
NOX
emissions
NO3
reduction
Total capital
investment
(TCI)
Total
annualized
cost
(TAC)
Cost
effectiveness
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
Energy
impacts
Non-air
impacts
(lbs/MMBtu)
Control technology
(tpy)
(tpy)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
($/ton)
($/ton)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
0.18
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.30
3,859
4,287
4,930
5,574
6,431
2,572
2,144
1,501
857
2,573
168,507
34,070
13,316
20,983
12,715
25,606
9,648
4,929
5,124
1,240
9,954
4,501
3,285
5,976
482
37,221
7,338
¥303
¥2,264
NA
507
2,810
84
2,725
1 NA
2,658
5
5
1 NA
1 NA
TABLE 5—IMPACT ANALYSIS AND COST EFFECTIVENESS OF NOX CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 4
SCR + sorbent ........
SNCR/SCR Hybrid ..
ROFA/Rotamix ........
Rotamix (SNCR) .....
ROFA ......................
Consent Decree ......
1 PNM
Emission limit
NOX
emissions
NOX
reduction
Total capital
investment
(TCI)
Total
annualized
cost
(TAC)
Cost
effectiveness
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
Energy
impacts
Non-air
impacts
(lbs/MMBtu)
Control technology
(tpy)
(tpy)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
($/ton)
($/ton)
(1,000$)
(1,000$)
0.07
0.18
0.20
0.23
0.26
0.30
1,472
3,785
4,206
4,837
5,468
6,309
211,764
161,572
34,070
13,316
20,983
12,870
28,760
24,849
9,648
4,929
5,124
1,256
5,946
9,847
4,588
3,348
6,091
498
1,691
36,141
7,480
¥309
¥2,299
NA
2,288
507
2,810
84
2,275
1 NA
1 NA
2,658
5
5
1 NA
1 NA
performed an impact analysis for these technologies and incorporated any monetized energy or non-air environmental impacts into the cost analysis
v. Evaluation of Visibility Impacts and
Cost Analysis
Under step 5 of the BART Guidelines,
we evaluate the visibility improvement
for each feasible control technology.
NMED modeled 22 the visibility benefits
of each of the NOX control technologies
listed in Tables 2–5, above, on 16 Class
I areas. NMED used the CALPUFF
modeling system, which consists of a
meteorological data pre-processor
(CALMET), an air dispersion model
(CALPUFF), and post-processor
programs (POSTUTIL, CALSUM,
CALPOST). The CALPUFF modeling
system is the recommended model for
conducting BART visibility analysis.
First, the model was run using the preBART, consent decree conditions to
establish a baseline. The model was
then run for each of the control
technologies identified for each unit
during the BART engineering analysis.
These visibility impacts were then
compared to the baseline to evaluate the
visibility benefit of each control. NMED
modeled the visibility impacts of each
of the control scenarios individually for
each of the SJGS units, as well as
calculated visibility impacts on a
facility-wide basis. The NMED modeling
used the original IMPROVE equation
within CALPOST to estimate visibility
impairment from the modeled pollutant
concentrations. Table 6, below,
summarizes the results of the latter
exercise, for the maximum impacts of
the 98th percentile delta-dv impacts
from 2001–2003.
All of the WRAP and NMED refined
modeling was conducted with the
version of the CALPUFF system
recommended by the WRAP BART
modeling protocol 23 and followed the
WRAP protocol for source-specific
applications. As we note in the TSD,
NMED and the WRAP utilized CALMET
version 6.211 to create the necessary
meteorological database for input into
the CALPUFF model. Some technical
concerns have been identified with this
non-regulatory version of the model.
The concerns are discussed in the
technical support document. Our
regulatory version of the model is
CALMET 5.8, which we used in our
modeling. Two pollutants must be given
special consideration when estimating
the impact of various control
technologies on visibility improvement:
Background ammonia (NH3) and
sulfuric acid (H2SO4) emissions. NMED
utilized a variable monthly background
NH3 concentration rather than using the
default recommended value. As
discussed later, we utilized both
approaches for background NH3 in our
modeling so as to be able to compare the
results. For estimating H2SO4 emissions,
NMED estimated the fraction of
particulate matter (PM) emissions that
are classified as inorganic condensable
PM and assumed that 100% of this
fraction is H2SO4. Additional H2SO4 due
to SCR operation was calculated
assuming 1% conversion of SO2 to SO3.
As noted in the TSD and briefly
described below, our approach to these
two factors differed from the NMED
approach. The results provided by
NMED, and included in Table 6 below,
demonstrate that SCR is by far the most
advantageous approach to NOX control.
The differences in our and New
Mexico’s approaches should not change
the relative advantage that SCR has over
other control methods in improving
visibility since these concerns are
present in all the NMED modeling and
would have similar impacts on the
modeling results.
22 NMED performed some modeling as well as
reviewed modeling protocols and results supplied
by PNM and prepared by the contractor Black &
Veatch found in: Public Service Company of New
Mexico BART Technology Analysis for the San Juan
Generating Station (June 6, 2007 and submittal
updates). When we say ‘‘NMED modeling’’ or
‘‘NMED modeled’’ we are referring to the modeling
performed or reviewed by NMED.
23 ‘‘CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART
Exemption Screening Analysis for Class I Areas in
the Western United States’’, Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang;
Ralph Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15,
2006. available at https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/
bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
We find that the energy impacts, nonair quality environmental impacts, and
the remaining useful life do not present
sufficient reason to disqualify any of the
technically feasible NOX control
technologies.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
4,837
2,524
2,103
1,472
841
2,524
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
502
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—NMED MODELED MAXIMUM IMPACTS OF THE 98TH PERCENTILE DELTA-dv IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003
Distance
to SJGS
(km)
Class I area
Consent
decree
baseline
SCR/
SNCR
Hybrid
SCR +
Sorbent
ROFA/
Rotamix
Rotamix
ROFA
Arches ......................................................
Bandelier Wilderness ...............................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness ......................................................
Canyonlands ............................................
Capitol Reef .............................................
Grand Canyon ..........................................
Great Sand Dunes National Monument ..
La Garita Wilderness ...............................
Maroon Bells Snowmass Wilderness ......
Mesa Verde ..............................................
Pecos Wilderness ....................................
Petrified Forest .........................................
San Pedro Parks Wilderness ...................
West Elk Wilderness ................................
Weminuche Wilderness ...........................
Wheeler Peak Wilderness .......................
222
210
1.69
1.56
1.10
0.80
1.58
1.33
1.58
1.28
1.61
1.35
1.63
1.41
203
170
232
285
269
169
271
40
248
213
155
216
98
258
1.15
2.26
1.81
0.97
0.71
0.94
0.56
3.80
1.09
0.82
2.01
0.91
1.48
0.89
0.63
1.59
1.08
0.53
0.40
0.45
0.28
2.46
0.66
0.48
1.13
0.43
0.90
0.50
0.94
2.17
1.64
0.80
0.64
0.78
0.48
4.42
0.90
0.73
1.80
0.73
1.33
0.72
0.93
2.10
1.55
0.79
0.60
0.74
0.47
3.58
0.88
0.73
1.67
0.71
1.24
0.70
0.98
2.13
1.62
0.84
0.61
0.79
0.50
3.58
0.92
0.77
1.77
0.76
1.32
0.75
1.04
2.17
1.68
0.88
0.65
0.83
0.52
3.59
0.97
0.78
1.86
0.80
1.36
0.79
Total ..................................................
....................
22.65
13.42
20.99
19.55
20.30
20.96
We note NMED’s modeling indicated
there was little difference between the
SCR/SNCR hybrid, ROFA/Rotamix, and
ROFA NOX control technologies.
However, as Tables 2–5 indicate, there
is a significant difference in the cost of
those controls, with the SNCR/SCR
hybrid being more than twice as
expensive as the ROFA/Rotamix, and
approximately five times as expensive
as both the Rotamix (SNCR) and the
ROFA options. None of these NOX
control technologies was capable of
significantly improving the visibility at
any of the 16 Class I areas; therefore, we
did not further evaluate them. However,
we note that SCR was capable of
uniformly improving the visibility at all
of the 16 Class I areas, but at a higher
cost.
The costs of the controls in Tables 2–
5, were calculated by PNM. Because we
found the costs projected by PNM to be
high in comparison to other SCR
retrofits we have reviewed, we refined
the cost of retrofitting the SJGS with
SCR (see the TSD for more information),
and the NOX emission level SCR was
capable of achieving when retrofitted to
the SJGS. This analysis indicated that
the cost of SCR at this source would be
considerably lower than calculated by
PNM. We believe that PNM
overestimated the cost of SCR due to
several basic errors that PNM made in
constructing its SCR cost analysis:
• PNM did not follow the EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual, where
possible,24 as directed by the BART
Guidelines.25
• PNM scaled many of the cost items
from another project that has significant
design differences when compared to
the SJGS. We made changes in many of
these items to adjust them from
budgetary to final contract; to exclude
equipment and modifications not
required for the SJGS SCR installations;
to correct errors; and to factor out
installation, freight, and other costs that
were included in the contract awards
and double counted elsewhere in PNM’s
cost estimate. We have concluded that
these adjustments are correct, and
provide a more accurate estimate of the
costs at SJGS.
• PNM performed their SCR cost
estimate on the basis of a NOX control
rate of 0.07 lbs/MMBtu. We concluded
that SCR could reliably achieve NOX
control at a rate of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu on
a 30-day rolling average basis, for each
of the four units of the SJGS. Because
this did not require a change in the
capital cost of the SCR unit, and only
necessitated the purchase of additional
reagent, this had the effect of improving
the cost effectiveness. We have
concluded that the analysis concerning
the achievability of the emissions limit,
and the cost of achieving those limits,
is more accurate.
The results of that analysis are
presented as Table 7:
TABLE 7—EPA DETERMINED COST EFFECTIVENESS OF SCR FOR THE SJGS
Emission
limit
(lbs/MMBtu)
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Unit
1
2
3
4
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
...............................................................
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
24 U.S. EPA, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual, Report EPA/452/B–02–001, 6th Ed.,
January 2002 (‘‘Cost Manual’’), The EPA Air
Pollution Control Cost Manual is the current name
for what was previously known as the OAQPS
Control Cost Manual, the name for the Cost Manual
in previous (pre-2002) editions of the Cost Manual.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
NOX
emissions
(tpy)
NOX
reduction
(tpy)
690
686
1,071
1,051
3,450
3,433
5,360
5,258
Total
capital
investment
$53,230,469
55,664,049
70,464,306
67,223,223
25 In order to maintain and improve consistency,
cost estimates should be based on the OAQPS
Control Cost Manual, where possible. 70 FR 39104,
39166 (2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
Total
annualized
cost
$6,373,573
6,591,720
8,631,234
8,304,143
Cost
effectiveness
($/ton)
1,847
1,920
1,610
1,579
503
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Based on our refined cost and control
effectiveness analysis, we conclude that
SCR is cost effective for all units of the
SJGS.
Although we generally regard the
visibility modeling analyses performed
by NMED to be of high quality, we
noted some minor issues we wished to
rectify in order to address consistency
with modeling guidance we have
provided to the states. We remodeled
the visibility impacts of the SJGS using
revised emission estimates and
meteorology results from the regulatory
version of the CALPUFF and CALMET
models. As detailed in the TSD, we
utilized a different approach based on
the best current information from the
Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) 26 to estimate the sulfuric acid
released from combustion in the boiler
for all scenarios and for operation of the
SCR, assuming a 0.5% SO2 to SO3
conversion efficiency 27 of the SCR
catalyst (compared to a 1% conversion
assumed by NMED). We determined
that the SCR could achieve an emission
rate of 0.05 lb NOX/MMBtu and
included this emission rate in modeling
the SCR control scenario (compared to
0.07 lb NOX/MMBtu assumed by
NMED). We modeled a revised baseline
with the SO2 emissions lowered to the
BART presumptive limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu that was assumed by the WRAP
for regional photochemical visibility
modeling to demonstrate reasonable
progress towards natural visibility
conditions. Finally, modeling was
performed utilizing both the monthly
variable background NH3 concentration
used by NMED and the default
background NH3 concentration of 1.0
ppb to evaluate the sensitivity of the
results to these assumptions. Visibility
impairment from our modeled pollutant
concentrations were calculated using
both the original IMPROVE equation
(Method 6) used by NMED and the
revised IMPROVE equation (Method 8)
to calculate visibility impairment from
the modeled pollutant concentrations.
As Table 8 indicates, in considering
the visibility impacts associated with
the use of SCR, we focused on the 98th
percentile of modeled results to avoid
giving undue weight to any extreme
results.28 The results are presented as
the visibility impacts from SJGS and the
associated changes in visibility at each
Class I area within 300 kilometers of the
facility resulting from the use of SCR.
These results employ our revised
baseline, a 1 ppb background NH3
concentration assumption, our revised
SO2 to SO3 conversion calculation, and
the new IMPROVE equation (Method 8).
The other methods that we utilized in
our sensitivity modeling approaches
using Method 6 and/or the variable NH3
are documented in the TSD.
TABLE 8—EPA MODELED MAXIMUM IMPACTS OF THE 98TH PERCENTILE DELTA-dv IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003
Distance
to SJGS
(km)
Class I area
Baseline
visibility
impact
(Ddv)
Visibility
impact
with
SCR
(Ddv)
Visibility
improvement
with
SCR
(Ddv)
222
210
203
170
232
285
269
169
271
40
248
213
155
216
98
258
3.50
1.39
1.41
4.64
2.38
0.93
1.53
1.93
0.70
5.15
1.27
0.52
2.20
1.59
2.92
1.12
1.12
0.48
0.42
1.53
0.82
0.33
0.49
0.57
0.28
2.27
0.47
0.21
0.74
0.45
0.87
0.44
2.38
0.91
0.99
3.11
1.56
0.60
1.04
1.36
0.42
2.88
0.80
0.31
1.46
1.14
2.05
0.68
Total Delta dv ...........................................................................................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Arches ..............................................................................................................
Bandelier Wilderness .......................................................................................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness .....................................................
Canyonlands ....................................................................................................
Capitol Reef .....................................................................................................
Grand Canyon .................................................................................................
Great Sand Dunes National Monument ..........................................................
La Garita Wilderness .......................................................................................
Maroon Bells Snowmass Wilderness ..............................................................
Mesa Verde .....................................................................................................
Pecos Wilderness ............................................................................................
Petrified Forest ................................................................................................
San Pedro Parks Wilderness ...........................................................................
West Elk Wilderness ........................................................................................
Weminuche Wilderness ...................................................................................
Wheeler Peak Wilderness ...............................................................................
........................
33.18
11.48
21.69
As can be seen from Table 8, our
visibility modeling indicates that SCR
NOX control offers visibility
improvement at every one of the 16
Class I areas and significant visibility
improvement at the overwhelming
majority of areas. Therefore, after having
identified all available retrofittable NOX
control technologies, eliminated those
that were not technically feasible,
evaluated the NOX control effectiveness
of those remaining, evaluated the
impacts and having documented the
results, we propose that NOX BART for
all the units of the SJGS is SCR with a
30 day rolling average of 0.05 lbs/
MMBtu.
In addition, our visibility analysis
relied in part on estimates of H2SO4 mist
emissions. The amount of H2SO4
emissions depends, in part, on proper
design and operation of the SCR unit.
Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to
set emission limits for H2SO4. We
believe that our estimates of these
emissions are appropriate based on the
use of low reactivity catalyst that will
reduce the rate of SO2 to SO3
conversion. To ensure these levels are
met, we are proposing that emissions of
H2SO4 be limited to 1.06 x 10¥4 lb/
MMBtu for each unit. These emission
limits are based on the most current
information from the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), information
on the sulfur content of the coal, and
assuming a maximum of 0.5% SO2 to
SO3 conversion efficiency of the SCR
catalyst. We note that there is some
potential variation in the methodologies
26 Electric Power Research Institute, Estimating
Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary
Power Plants, 1016384 Technical Update, March
2008.
27 Emails between Anita Lee, EPA Region 9 and
Anthony C. Favale P.E., Director—SCR Products,
Hitachi Power Systems America, Ltd. Favale:
‘‘Catalyst development has progressed over the last
few years to the point that an initial SO2 conversion
rate of 0.5% can be guaranteed with 80 to 90% NOX
reduction.’’
28 See 70 FR at 39,121.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
504
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
and the assumptions used method for
calculating H2SO4 emissions. The
assumptions associated with our
calculation are discussed further in the
TSD. We are soliciting comment on
setting the emission limit in the range
between our proposed limit of 1.06 x
10¥4 lb/MMBtu and an upper range of
sulfuric acid mist emissions of 7.87 x
10¥4 lb/MMBtu.29 Comments on our
proposed H2SO4 limit and alternative
limits should include consideration of
the use of a low conversion rate SCR
catalyst and be sufficiently justified.
As there are no continuous emission
monitoring techniques for H2SO4 mist,
we are proposing that compliance be
based on an hourly average, confirmed
by annual stack testing using EPA Test
Method 8A (CTM–013).30 We note that
our proposed limits challenge the
detection limits of the test method. We
solicit comment on this issue, including
suggestions for test methods that will
better measure these low concentrations
and other approaches to determine
continuous compliance.
Similarly, our visibility analysis also
relied in part on estimates of ammonia
(NH3) slip, emissions of NH3 that pass
through the SCR. NH3 contribute to
visibility impairment. Limiting NH3
emissions depends on proper design
and operation of the SCR. Therefore, we
are proposing to set a limit to minimize
the contribution of NH3 to visibility
impairment. We are proposing that
emissions of NH3 be limited to 2.0 parts
per million volume dry (ppmvd),
adjusted to 6 percent oxygen for each of
the four SJGS units.31 We are also
soliciting comment on setting this limit
in the range of 2–6 ppmvd, adjusted to
6 percent oxygen. Comments on our
proposed limit and alternative limits
should consider visibility impairment.
Compliance will be based on an hourly
average confirmed by an initial
performance test using EPA Conditional
Test Method 27 (40 CFR 51, Appendix
M). We are also proposing that a CEM
for NH3 be installed and operated. We
solicit comment on other approaches to
determine continuous compliance.
As we note above in section II.B.3, the
RHR requires that BART controls must
29 Upper range value is based on information from
PNM’s Toxics Release Inventory report and
previous PNM calculations of the amount of
additional H2SO4 from the installation and
operation of SCR. For details on the derivation of
this upper bound value, see the TSD.
30 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ctm/ctm-013.pdf.
31 PNM materials previously indicated that a 2
ppm ammonia slip limit would be appropriate for
SCR at the Public Service Company of New Mexico
Black and Veatch report titled: ‘‘San Juan
Generating Station Best Available Retrofit
Technology Analysis’’ Issue Date and Revision June
6, 2007, Final; Appendix B, page B–3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
be installed and in operation as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than five (5) years after the date of our
approval of the RH SIP. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv). Based on the retrofit of
other SCR installations we have
reviewed, we find that three (3) years
from the date our final determination
becomes effective is a conservative and
adequate estimate of time for the
planning, engineering, installation, and
start-up of these controls.32 Many
installations have been completed in
much shorter times.33 We solicit
comment on alternative timeframes, up
to five (5) years from the date our final
determination becomes effective.
IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing to disapprove a
portion of the SIP revision submitted by
the State of New Mexico for the purpose
of addressing the ‘‘good neighbor’’
provisions of the CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. We are
proposing to disapprove the New
Mexico Interstate Transport SIP
provisions that address the requirement
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that
emissions from New Mexico sources do
not interfere with measures required in
the SIP of any other state under part C
of the CAA to protect visibility. As a
result of the proposed disapproval, we
are also proposing a FIP to address the
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to
visibility. With regard to whether
emissions from New Mexico sources
interfere with the visibility programs of
other states, we are proposing to find
that New Mexico sources, except the
SJGS, are sufficiently controlled to
eliminate interference with the visibility
programs of other states, and for the
SJGS source we are proposing to impose
specific SO2 and NOX emissions limits
that will eliminate such interstate
interference. In addition, EPA is
proposing the FIP to address the
requirement for BART for NOX for the
SJGS.
Based on our evaluation we are
proposing to find that the SJGS is
subject to BART under section 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4), and/or 51.308(e). Our
proposed NOX controls for SJGS will
32 Typical Installation Timelines for NOx
Emissions Control Technologies on Industrial
Sources, Institute of Clean Air Companies,
December 4, 2006, available at https://www.icac.7
com/files/public/ICAC_NOx_Control_Installation_
Timing_120406.pdf; see also Engineering and
Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of
Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies,
EPA–600/R–02/073, October 2002, available at
https://www.epa.gov/clearskies/pdfs/
multi102902.pdf.
33 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
partially address the BART
requirements of the RH program.
Specifically, we are proposing a FIP that
imposes NOX BART limits for the SJGS.
Together, the reduction in NOX from our
proposed NOX BART determination,
and the proposed SO2 emission limits
will serve to ensure there are
enforceable mechanisms in place to
prevent New Mexico NOX and SO2
emissions from interfering with efforts
to protect visibility in other states
pursuant to the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.
For NOX emissions, we are proposing
to require the SJGS to meet an emission
limit of 0.05 pounds per million British
Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) individually
at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. This NOX limit
is achievable by installing and operating
SCR. For SO2, we are proposing to
require the SJGS to meet an emission
limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Both of these
emission limits would be measured on
the basis of a 30 day rolling average. We
are also proposing hourly average
emission limits of 1.06 x 10¥4 lb/
MMBtu for H2SO4 and 2.0 ppmvd, for
NH3, to minimize the contribution of
these compounds to visibility
impairment. Additionally, we are
proposing monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting requirements to ensure
compliance with emission limitations.
We also propose that compliance with
the emission limits be within three (3)
years of the effective date of our final
rule. We solicit comments on alternative
timeframes, up to five (5) years from the
effective date our final rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866,
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is
therefore not subject to review under the
Executive Order. This action proposes a
source-specific FIP for the San Juan
Power Generating Station (SJGS) in New
Mexico.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a
‘‘collection of information’’ is defined as
a requirement for ‘‘answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping
requirements imposed on ten or more
persons * * *.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
Because the proposed FIP applies to a
single facility, (SJGS), the Paperwork
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Reduction Act does not apply. See 5
CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed action on small
entities, I certify that this proposed
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The FIP for
SJGS being proposed today does not
impose any new requirements on small
entities. See Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327
(D.C. Cir. 1985).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and Tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of UMRA,
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules
with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may result
in expenditures to State, local, and
Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
to the private sector, of $100 million or
more (adjusted to inflation) in any 1
year. Before promulgating an EPA rule
for which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of UMRA generally requires
EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 of UMRA do not apply when they
are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows
EPA to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective, or
least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures that exceed the
inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of
$100 million by State, local, or Tribal
governments or the private sector in any
1 year. In addition, this proposed rule
does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described
by section 203 of UMRA nor does it
contain any regulatory requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
505
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, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. This action
merely prescribes EPA’s action to
address the State not fully meeting its
obligation to prohibit emissions from
interfering with other states measures to
protect visibility. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this action. In
the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and
consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State
and local governments, EPA specifically
solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). It will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it limits
emissions of pollutants from an existing
single stationary source. Because this
proposed action only applies to a single
existing source and is not a proposed
rule of general applicability, it is not
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
506
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
economically significant as defined
under Executive Order 12866, and does
not have a disproportionate effect on
children. However, to the extent that the
rule will limit emissions of NOX and
SO2 the rule will have a beneficial effect
on children’s health by reducing air
pollution.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards. This proposed
rule would require all sources 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994), establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule, if finalized, will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it increases the level of
environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
This proposed rule limits emissions of
pollutants from a single stationary
source, SJGS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxide, Visibility, Interstate transport
of pollution, Regional haze, Best
available control technology.
Dated: December 20, 2010.
Samuel J. Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Add § 52.1628 to read as follows:
§ 52.1628 Interstate pollutant transport
and regional haze provisions; What are the
FIP requirements for San Juan Generating
Station emissions affecting visibility?
(a) Applicability. The provisions of
this section shall apply to each owner
or operator of the coal burning
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
equipment designated as Units 1, 2, 3,
or 4 at the San Juan Generating Station
in San Juan County, New Mexico (the
plant).
(b) Compliance dates. Compliance
with the requirements of this section is
required upon the effective date of this
rule unless otherwise indicated by
compliance dates contained in specific
provisions.
(c) Definitions. All terms used in this
part but not defined herein shall have
the meaning given them in the Clean Air
Act and in parts 51 and 60 of this
chapter. 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 baghouses, particulate or
gaseous scrubbers, and any other
apparatus utilized to control emissions
of regulated air contaminants which
would be emitted to the atmosphere.
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 the plant or any of the coal
burning equipment designated as Units
1, 2, 3, or 4 at the plant.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) means all
oxides of nitrogen except nitrous oxide,
as measured by test methods set forth in
40 CFR part 60.
Regional Administrator means the
Regional Administrator of EPA Region 6
or his/her authorized representative.
(d) Emissions limitations and control
measures. (1) Within 180 days of the
effective date of this paragraph (d), the
owner or operator shall submit a plan to
the Regional Administrator that
identifies the air pollution control
equipment and schedule for complying
with paragraph (d) of this section. The
owner or operator shall submit
amendments to the plan to the Regional
Administrator as changes occur. The
NOX and SO2 limits shall be effective no
later than 3 years after the effective date
of this rule. No owner or operator shall
discharge or cause the discharge of NOX
or SO2 into the atmosphere from Units
1, 2, 3 and 4 in excess of the limits for
these pollutants.
(2) NOX emission limit. The NOX limit
for each unit in the plant, expressed as
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), shall be 0.05
pounds per million British thermal
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules
units (lb/MMBtu) as averaged over a
rolling 30 calendar day period. For each
unit, NOX emissions for each calendar
day shall be determined by summing
the hourly emissions measured in
pounds of NOX. For each unit, heat
input for each calendar day shall be
determined by adding together all
hourly heat inputs, in millions of BTU.
Each day the thirty-day rolling average
for a unit shall be determined by adding
together the pounds of NOX from that
day and the preceding 29 days and
dividing the total pounds of NOX by the
sum of the heat input during the same
30-day period. The result shall be the
30-day rolling average in terms of lb/
MMBtu emissions of NOX. If a valid
NOX pounds per hour or heat input is
not available for any hour for a unit, that
heat input and NOX pounds per hour
shall not be used in the calculation of
the 30-day rolling average for NOX.
(3) SO2 emission limit. The sulfur
dioxide emission limit for each unit
shall be 0.15 lb/MMBtu as averaged over
a rolling 30-calendar-day period. For
each unit, SO2 emissions for each
calendar day shall be determined by
summing the hourly emissions
measured in pounds of sulfur dioxide.
For each unit, heat input for each
calendar day shall be determined by
adding together all hourly heat inputs,
in millions of BTU. Each day the thirtyday rolling average shall be determined
by adding together pounds of sulfur
dioxide from that day and the preceding
29 days and dividing the total pounds
of sulfur dioxide by the sum of the heat
input during the same 30-day period.
The results shall be the 30-day rolling
average for 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-day rolling average
for SO2.
(4) H2SO4 emission limit: Emissions
of H2SO4 from each unit shall be limited
to 1.06 x 10¥4 lb/MMBtu on an hourly
basis.
(5) Ammonia emission limit:
Emissions of ammonia (NH3) from each
unit will be limited to 2.0 parts per
million by volume, dry (ppmvd),
adjusted to 6 percent oxygen, on an
hourly average basis.
(e) Testing and monitoring. (1) On and
after the effective date of this regulation,
the owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain and operate
Continuous Emissions Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) for NOX, SO2, and NH3
on Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 in accordance
with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and
(h), and Appendix B of Part 60. The
owner or operator shall comply with the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:45 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
quality assurance procedures for CEMS
found in 40 CFR part 75. Compliance
with the emission limits for NOX, SO2
and NH3 shall be determined by using
data from a CEMS.
(2) 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, NOX, NH3 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, NOX pounds per hour, SO2
pounds per million Btu emission data,
NOX pounds per million Btu emission
data, or NH3 ppmvd 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.
(3) Emissions of H2SO4 shall be
measured within 180 days of start up of
the NOX control device and annually
thereafter using EPA Test Method 8A
(CTM–013).
(4) Emissions of ammonia shall be
measured within 180 days of startup of
the NOX control device using EPA
Conditional Test Method 27.
(5) The facility shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a CEMS to
measure and record the concentrations
of NH3.
(f) 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
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
507
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:
(1) For each emissions limit in this
section, comply with the notification
and recordkeeping requirements for
CEMS compliance monitoring in 40 CFR
60.7(c) and (d).
(2) For each day, provide the total
NOX and 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.
(g) 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
Plant 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 Plant.
(h) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding
any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible
evidence or information relevant as to
whether the Plant 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.
(2) 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.
[FR Doc. 2010–33106 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAP1.SGM
05JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 491-507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33106]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846; FRL-9246-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution
Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology
Determination
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Mexico
for the purpose of addressing the ``good neighbor'' requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
standards) and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS. The SIP revision addresses the requirement that New Mexico's SIP
must have adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from adversely
affecting another state's air quality through interstate transport. In
this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the New Mexico Interstate
Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do not
interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state under
part C of the CAA to protect visibility. In this action, EPA is also
proposing to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to prevent
emissions from New Mexico sources from interfering with other states'
measures to protect
[[Page 492]]
visibility, and to implement nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits necessary at one source
to prevent such interference. In addition, EPA is proposing sulfuric
acid (H2SO4) and ammonia (NH3) hourly
emission limits at the same source, to minimize the contribution of
these compounds to visibility impairment. EPA is proposing monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with such
emission limitations. EPA also proposes that compliance with the
emission limits be within three (3) years of the effective date of our
final rule. Furthermore, EPA is proposing the FIP to address the
requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for
NOX for this source. This action is being taken under
section 110 and part C of the CAA.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2011.
Public Hearing. EPA intends to hold a public hearing in Farmington,
New Mexico to accept oral and written comments on the proposed
rulemaking. EPA will provide notice and additional details at least 30
days prior to the hearing in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0846, by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: https://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD (Multimedia)'' and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-
0846. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through https://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The state submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the New Mexico Environment
Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Road, Building B, Santa Fe,
New Mexico 87507.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7186, fax number
(214) 665-7263; e-mail address kordzi.joe@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Outline
I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background
A. SIP and FIP Background
B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Addressing Interstate
Transport and Visibility
1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
2. Visibility Protection
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
4. The Western Regional Air Partnership and Evaluation of
Regional Haze Impacts
III. Our Evaluation
A. New Mexico's Interstate Transport
B. Federal Implementation Plan To Address Interstate Transport
and Visibility and the BART Requirements for NOX
1. Additional SO2 Emission Limits for the SJGS
2. Need for Additional NOX Controls
3. NOX BART Evaluation
a. The SJGS Is a BART Eligible Source
b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART
c. The SJGS NOX BART Determination
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview of Proposed Action
We are proposing to disapprove a portion of the SIP revision
submitted by the State of New Mexico for the purpose of addressing the
``good neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
respect to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result of the proposed disapproval, we are
also proposing a FIP to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility to ensure that emissions
from New Mexico sources do not interfere with the visibility programs
of other states. We are proposing to find that New Mexico sources,
other than one, are
[[Page 493]]
sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility
programs of other states, and for the one remaining source we are
proposing to impose specific emissions limits that will eliminate such
interstate interference. We are simultaneously evaluating whether the
source at issue meets certain other related requirements under the
Regional Haze (RH) program. As a result of this evaluation, we are
likewise proposing to find that the proposed controls for the source at
issue will address the NOX BART requirements of the RH
program. In this action, we are not addressing whether the state has
met other requirements of the RH program and will address those
requirements in later actions.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that states have a
SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing provisions ``prohibiting any
source or other type of emission activity within the state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will * * * interfere with
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan
for any other State under part C [of the CAA] to protect visibility.''
Because of the impacts on visibility from the interstate transport
of pollutants, we interpret the ``good neighbor'' provisions of section
110 of the Act described above as requiring states to include in their
SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the
reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states.
New Mexico submitted a SIP to address these requirements in September
2007. In this action, we are proposing to disapprove the New Mexico SIP
submission as not meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility. The SIP submission made
by the state anticipated the timely submission of a substantive RH SIP
submission as the means of meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). New Mexico has yet to submit such a RH SIP. In
addition, the state has not revised its submission to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility
by any alternative means.
By December 17, 2007, each State with one or more Class I Federal
areas was also required to submit a RH SIP that included goals that
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility
conditions. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). We previously found that New Mexico
had failed to submit a complete RH SIP by December 17, 2007. 74 FR 2392
(January 15, 2009). This finding started a two year clock for the
promulgation of a RH FIP by EPA or the approval of a complete RH SIP
from New Mexico. CAA Sec. 110(c)(1).
To address the above concerns, we are also proposing to promulgate
a FIP that ensures that emissions from New Mexico sources do not
interfere with other states' measures to protect visibility in
accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and also to address the requirements
under the RH program for BART by imposing limits for NOX for
the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS).\1\ This FIP will limit the
emissions of SO2 and NOX from the SJGS. Together,
the reduction in NOX from our proposed NOX BART
determination, and the proposed SO2 emission limits to
establish federal enforceability of current SO2 levels will
serve to ensure there are enforceable mechanisms in place to prohibit
New Mexico NOX and SO2 emissions from interfering
with efforts to protect visibility in other states pursuant to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. NOX
and SO2 are significant contributors to visibility
impairment in and around New Mexico. As the Four Corners Task Force
notes,\2\ ``[r]eduction of NOX is particularly important to
improve visibility at Mesa Verde National Park, which is 43 km away
from SJGS. * * * [V]isibility has degraded at Mesa Verde over the past
decade, and the portion of degradation due to nitrate has increased
(while there has been no trend in degradation due to sulfate).'' For
NOX emissions, we are proposing to require the SJGS to meet
an emission limit of 0.05 pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/
MMBtu) at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, representing an approximately 83%
reduction from the SJGS's baseline NOX emissions. This
NOX limit is achievable by installing and operating
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). For SO2, we are
proposing to require the SJGS to meet an emission limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. Both of these emission limits would be measured on the basis of
a 30-day rolling average. We are also proposing hourly average emission
limits for sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and ammonia
(NH3) for the SJGS, to minimize the contribution of these
compounds to visibility impairment of Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise specified, when we say the ``San Juan
Generating Station,'' or ``SJGS,'' we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4,
inclusive.
\2\ Power Plants Section, Four Corners Air Quality Task Force,
Report of Mitigation Options, November 1, 2007, available at: https://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/4C/Docs/4CAQTF_Report_FINAL_PowerPlants.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we propose that compliance with the emission limits be
within three (3) years of the effective date of our final rule.
Additionally, we are proposing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure compliance with emission limitations. Please see
Section IV (Proposed Action) and the proposed regulation language at
the end of this Federal Register action for more information.
II. Background
A. SIP and FIP Background
The CAA requires each state to develop a plan that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. CAA section
110(a). We establish NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the
NAAQS address six (6) criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The plan
developed by a state is referred to as the SIP. The content of the SIP
is specified in section 110 of the CAA, other provisions of the CAA,
and applicable regulations. A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide
the air pollution regulations, control strategies, and other means or
techniques developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within
that state meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect of the
SIP is to ensure that emissions from within the state do not have
certain prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through
the interstate transport of pollutants. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain
circumstances. See CAA section 110(a)(1). One such circumstance is our
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Id. Each state must submit
these revisions to us for approval and incorporation into the
federally-enforceable SIP.
If a State fails to make a required SIP submittal or if we find
that the State's submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must
promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. CAA section 110(c)(1). As
discussed elsewhere in this notice, we have made findings related to
New Mexico SIP revisions needed to address interstate transport and the
requirement that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere
with measures required in the SIP of any other state to protect
visibility, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. We are
proposing a FIP to address the deficiencies in the New Mexico
Interstate Transport SIP.
[[Page 494]]
B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Addressing Interstate Transport
and Visibility
1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for
PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years
after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as
we may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements that
such new SIPs must address, as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of certain
emissions.
On April 25, 2005, we published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit
SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.'' 70 FR 21147. This included a finding that New Mexico and other
states had failed to submit SIPs for interstate transport of air
pollution affecting visibility, and started a 2-year clock for the
promulgation of a FIP by us, unless a State made a submission to meet
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and we approved the
submission. Id.
On August 15, 2006, we issued our ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2006
Guidance). We developed the 2006 Guidance to make recommendations to
states for making submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and the 1997
PM2.5 standards.
As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each state to
submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another
state in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of
interstate transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from
emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states; or
(4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.
The 2006 Guidance stated that states may make a simple SIP
submission confirming that it was not possible at that time to assess
whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP
for another state designed to ``protect visibility'' for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until RH SIPs are submitted and
approved. RH SIPs were required to be submitted by December 17, 2007.
See 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009); see also discussion infra section
II.B.2.
On September 17, 2007 we received a SIP from New Mexico to address
the interstate transport provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. In this submission, the state
indicated that it intended to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility by submission of a
timely RH SIP. To date, the state has not made a RH SIP submission. In
addition, the state has not made a submission demonstrating
noninterference with the visibility programs of other states in
accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by any other means.
In prior actions, we approved the New Mexico SIP submittal for (1)
the ``significant contribution to nonattainment'' prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 33174, June 11, 2010) and (2) the ``interfere
with maintenance'' and ``interfere with measures to prevent significant
deterioration'' prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 72688,
November 26, 2010). In this action, we are proposing to disapprove the
New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP with respect to the requirement
that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures
required in the SIP of any other state to protect visibility. See CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We are proposing to promulgate a FIP in
order to cure this defect in the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP.
2. Visibility Protection
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \3\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' CAA Sec. 169A(a)(1).
The terms ``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment''
are defined in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and
atmospheric discoloration. Id. section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. We
deferred action on RH that emanates from a variety of sources until
monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships
between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA section 162(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR
69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area
includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions.
CAA section 162(a). Although states and tribes may designate as
Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as
an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). CAA section
302(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address RH
issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999. 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (the
regional haze rule or RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate provisions addressing RH impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for RH, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309.
States were required to submit the first SIP addressing RH visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
On January 15, 2009, we published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit
State Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 regional haze rule.''
74 FR 2392. We found that New Mexico and other states had failed to
submit for our review and approval complete SIPs for improving
visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas by the
required date of December 17, 2007. We found that New Mexico failed to
submit the plan elements required by 40 CFR 51.309(g), the reasonable
progress requirements for areas other than the 16 Class I areas covered
by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report. New Mexico
also failed to submit the plan element required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4),
which
[[Page 495]]
requires BART for stationary source emissions of NOx and PM
under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2).\4\ This finding
started a 2-year clock for the promulgation of a FIP by EPA, unless the
State made a RH SIP submission and we approved it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NM has an option to submit a RH SIP under either section
51.308 or section 51.309. Although they have indicated their
preference is for the latter, the NOx BART FIP we are
proposing would apply to either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain major stationary sources with the
potential to emit greater than 250 tons or more of any pollutant, in
order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically,
it requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology,'' as determined by
the State or us in the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c)
of the CAA. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A). States are directed to conduct
BART determinations for such sources that may be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The RHR
required all states to submit implementation plans that, among other
measures, contain either emission limits representing BART for certain
sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative measures that
provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e). On
July 6, 2005, we published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under
the Regional Haze Rule (``BART Guidelines'') to assist states in
determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. 70 FR 39104.
The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be
logically broken down into three steps: first, states identify those
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth
in 40 CFR 51.301 \5\; second, states determine whether each source
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a
source which fits this description is ``subject to BART''); and third,
for each source subject to BART, states then identify the appropriate
type and the level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ BART-eligible sources are those sources, which have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, that were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August
7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must consider the following factors in making BART
determinations: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). Section 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B)
requires that BART determinations for fossil fuel-fired electric
generating plants with a total generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts, must be made according to the BART Guidelines.\6\ A state is
encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other types of sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51--Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. We have stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or ammonia
(NH3) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I
areas.
The Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) provided air quality
modeling to the states to help them in determining whether potential
BART sources can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Under the BART Guidelines,
states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling,
below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. 70 FR 39104.
The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and
must state the basis for its selection of that value. Id. Any source
with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to
a BART determination review. Id. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Id. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview. Id.
The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. Id. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility is sometimes expressed in terms of the visual
range which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which
a dark object can just be distinguished against the sky. The deciview
is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility,
because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in
visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change
in visibility at one deciview.
A RH SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and
compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five (5)
years after the date of our approval of the RH SIP. CAA section
169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by
the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also
include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. See
CAA section 110(a)(2).
4. The Western Regional Air Partnership and Evaluation of Regional Haze
Impacts
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is a voluntary
partnership of state, tribal, federal, and local air agencies dealing
with regional air quality issues in the West. Member states include
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The
WRAP established various committees to assist in managing and
developing RH work products. New Mexico is a WRAP member. The WRAP
evaluates air quality impacts, including RH impacts, associated with
regionally significant emission sources. In so doing, the WRAP has
conducted air quality modeling. The states in the West have
[[Page 496]]
used this modeling to establish their reasonable progress goals for
RH.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ More information on WRAP and their work can be found on the
Internet at https://www.wrapair2.org and in the TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RH program, as reflected in the regulations, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourage states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each State to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for surrounding Class I areas. States working together
through a regional planning process are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). The States in the
West worked together through the WRAP to determine their contribution
to visibility impairment at the relevant federal Class I areas in the
region and the emissions reductions from each State needed to attain
the reasonable progress goals for each area. Regional planning
organizations (RPOs) such as the WRAP provided much of the technical
work necessary to develop RH SIPs, including the modeling used to
establish reasonable progress goals. The WRAP evaluated air quality
impacts, including RH impacts, associated with regionally significant
emission sources. In so doing, the WRAP conducted air quality modeling.
The modeling done by the RPOs relied on assumptions regarding emissions
over the relevant planning period. Embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions from each of the states in the RPO,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the states long-term strategy for addressing RH. The states in the
West, in turn, have used this modeling to establish their reasonable
progress goals for RH. The reasonable progress goals in the draft and
final RH SIPs that have now been prepared by states in the West
accordingly are based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby
states that were agreed on through the WRAP process.
III. Our Evaluation
A. New Mexico's Interstate Transport SIP
We received a SIP from New Mexico to address the interstate
transport provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS on September 17, 2007. Concerning the
provision preventing sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will interfere with efforts to protect visibility in
other states, New Mexico stated that:
New Mexico sources of emissions do not interfere with
implementation of reasonably attributable visibility impairment;
Its December 2003 RH SIP demonstrated reasonable progress
in reducing impacts on Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau;\8\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In December, 2003, New Mexico submitted its RH SIP pursuant
to the requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and the
regional haze rule. However, in American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA,
291 F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding
the BART provisions of the regional haze rule. In 2006, EPA issued
BART guidelines to address the court's ruling in that case. See 70
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). On January 13, 2009, New Mexico resubmitted
portions of its RH SIP, but not the requirements addressing
reasonable progress pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 SIP update for RH will analyze any impacts from
New Mexico that extend beyond the Colorado Plateau and determine
appropriate long-term strategies for control measures. As mentioned
previously, New Mexico has yet to provide this SIP revision.
New Mexico's submission addressed the requirement that it not
interfere with the visibility programs of other states by stating that
it would submit an approvable RH SIP by December 2007. The state did
not otherwise establish that emissions from its sources would not
interfere with the visibility programs of other states. After
intervening events precluded the development of an approvable RH SIP,
the state did not make any subsequent SIP submission to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to impacts on
the visibility programs of other states. Consequently, because the
State did not submit a RH SIP or an alternative means of demonstrating
that emissions from its sources would not interfere with the visibility
programs of other States, we are proposing disapproval of the SIP
received September 17, 2007, with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
visibility protection. Further, as described in subsequent sections, we
are proposing that additional controls are necessary to prevent
emissions from New Mexico from interfering with measures to protect
visibility in other States.
B. Federal Implementation Plan To Address Interstate Transport and
Visibility and the BART Requirements for NOX
As an initial matter, we note that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does
not explicitly specify how we should ascertain whether a state's SIP
contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from sources in that
state from interfering with measures required in another state to
protect visibility. Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its face, and we
must interpret that provision.
Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a state could meet the
visibility prong of the transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by submission of the RH SIP, due in
December 2007. Our reasoning was that the development of the RH SIPs
was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states.
In fact, in developing their respective reasonable progress goals, WRAP
states consulted with each other through the WRAP's work groups.\9\ As
a result of this process, the common understanding was that each State
would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by
other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR.
This effort included all states in the WRAP region contributing
information to a Technical Support System (TSS) which provides an
analysis of the causes of haze, and the levels of contribution from all
sources within each state to the visibility degradation of each Class I
area. The WRAP states consulted in the development of reasonable
progress goals, using the products of this technical consultation
process to co-develop their reasonable progress goals for the Western
Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Consultation provided through the WRAP have been documented
in calls and meetings on the WRAP Web site, available at https://www.wrapair.org/cal/calendar.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that the analysis conducted by the WRAP provides an
appropriate means for designing a FIP that will ensure that emissions
from sources in New Mexico are not interfering with the visibility
programs of other states, as contemplated in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In developing their visibility projections using
photochemical grid modeling, the WRAP states assumed a certain level of
emissions from sources within New Mexico. Although we have not yet
received all RH SIPs, we understand that the WRAP states used the
visibility projection modeling to establish their own respective
reasonable progress goals. Thus, we believe that an implementation plan
that provides for emissions reductions consistent with the assumptions
used in the WRAP modeling will ensure that emissions from New Mexico
sources do not
[[Page 497]]
interfere with the measures designed to protect visibility in other
states.
Accordingly, we have reviewed the WRAP photochemical modeling
emission projections used in the demonstration of reasonable progress
towards natural visibility conditions and compared them to current
emission levels from sources in New Mexico. We have concluded that all
of the sources in New Mexico are achieving the emission levels assumed
by the WRAP in its modeling except for the SJGS. The WRAP modeling
assumed the SJGS's NOX emissions would be 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for
units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4, in 2018. The WRAP
modeling also assumed SO2 emissions would be 0.15 lbs/MMBtu
in 2018 for the four SJGS units.
The SJGS consists of four (4) coal-fired generating units and
associated support facilities. Each coal-fired unit burns pulverized
coal and No. 2 diesel oil (for startup) in a boiler, and produces high-
pressure steam which powers a steam turbine coupled with an electric
generator. Electric power produced by the units is supplied to the
electric power grid for sale. Coal for the units is supplied by the
adjacent San Juan Mine and is delivered to the facility by conveyor.
Units 1 and 2 have a unit capacity of 350 and 360 MW, respectively.
Units 3 and 4 each have a unit capacity of 544 MW.
In 2005, the operator of the SJGS, Public Service Company of New
Mexico (PNM), entered into a consent decree with the Grand Canyon
Trust, Sierra Club, and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to
reduce emissions of NOX, SO2, particulate matter
and mercury.\10\ The consent decree imposed emissions restrictions,
including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Consent Decree in The Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club,
Plaintiffs, The State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Public
Service Company of New Mexico, Defendant, (CV 02-552 BB/ACT (ACE)),
lodged in the United States District Court, District of New Mexico,
on March 10, 2005, at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX: 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average.
SO2: 90% annual average control, not to exceed
0.250 lb/mmBtu for a seven-day block average.
In a permit modification to the construction permit for SJGS, NMED
issued a revised construction permit (NSR Air Quality Permit No. 0063-
M6) on April 22, 2008 to incorporate some of the conditions from the
consent decree. The construction permit was issued by the Air Quality
Bureau of the NMED to SJGS pursuant to the New Mexico Air Quality
Control Act and regulations and is considered a federally enforceable
permit. We were not a party to the consent decree, but the inclusion of
limits from the consent decree that have been included in the
construction permit for the facility were issued pursuant to the
federally approved construction permitting program of the New Mexico
SIP. Specifically, the construction permit includes the NOX
and SO2 limits from the consent decree that are identified
above.\11\ Therefore, these NOX and SO2 emissions
restrictions are federally enforceable. This permit has since been
superseded by a further construction permit modification that also
includes the consent decree limits on NOX and SO2
emissions and is federally enforceable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NOX limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling
average for each of the four units; SO2 limit of 90%
annual average control for each unit, with a short-term limit not to
exceed 0.250 lb/mmBtu for a seven-day block average.
\12\ New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau NSR
Air Quality Permit No. 0063-M6R1 was issued on September 12, 2008
and superseded Permit No. 0063-M6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the SJGS is subject to a federally enforceable permit, the
permit's 30-day rolling average NOX emission limit of 0.30
lb/mmBtu for all units is less restrictive than the emission rates
modeled by the WRAP of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/
MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in assessing the daily visibility impacts. We
also note the WRAP photochemical modeling utilized an SO2
emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu on a continuous basis for all four
units. In previous communications to New Mexico and the WRAP, PNM
indicated that the 90% annual average control specified in the permit
would be expected to yield roughly an annual average emission rate of
0.195 lb/mmBtu of SO2,\13\ which is much higher than the
0.15 lb/mmBtu emission rate utilized in the WRAP's photochemical
modeling for assessing daily level impacts. Also, the 90%
SO2 control restriction specified in the permit is an annual
average, which allows for short term fluctuations. It also is not
directly translatable to an emission limit (e.g., lbs/MMBtu), and
requires knowledge of the sulfur content of the coal being burned.
Therefore, this limit can further fluctuate depending upon the annual
average sulfur content of the coal. This presents an unnecessary
enforcement complication. The permit also specifies a 0.250 lb/mmBtu on
a 7-day block average for each unit, which is much less restrictive
than the 0.15 lb/mmBtu emission rate that was used within the WRAP's
photochemical modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Comments Received to-Date on the Draft 2018 Base Case
Projections, Version: December 21, 2005, available at https://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/documents/eictts/Projections/Summary%20of%20Comments_122105_final.pdf, pdf pagination 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the permit does not provide the necessary emission
limits and enforceable mechanisms to ensure the NOX and
SO2 emissions used in the WRAP photochemical modeling for
the SJGS units will be met. In the absence of an approvable RH SIP, we
do not have an enforceable mechanism for ensuring that sources in New
Mexico do not impact visibility in other states. Other WRAP states are
relying on levels modeled for the SJGS units, developed in
consultation, in their demonstration of reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions. Therefore, any discrepancies between
what was included in the WRAP photochemical modeling and what is
presently enforceable, is a concern. We have evaluated these
discrepancies and determined they are significant due to the changes in
visibility projections in the modeling. We have concluded that it is
appropriate to establish federally enforceable limits for pollutants
that impact visibility projections within the WRAP photochemical
modeling.
As discussed in II.A, we are proposing to disapprove New Mexico
Interstate Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do
not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state
under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. In addition, since New
Mexico has not submitted a complete RH SIP that should have, among
other things, included a review of BART for NOX at the SJGS,
and for both of these requirements we have made a finding of failure to
submit,\14\ giving us the authority and responsibility to issue a FIP
to address the deficiencies in the State's plan, we are also proposing
to find that New Mexico sources, except the SJGS, are sufficiently
controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility programs of
other states. For the SJGS we are proposing to impose specific
emissions limits that will eliminate such interstate interference based
on current emissions that satisfies the assumptions in the WRAP
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for Interstate
Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR
21147 (April 25, 2005); see also Finding of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 Regional Haze Rule. 74 FR
2392 (January 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections outline our proposal for addressing the BART
requirements for NOX at SJGS and for ensuring that the SJGS
has the controls necessary to prevent emissions from
[[Page 498]]
New Mexico from interfering with the reasonable progress goals in other
states.
1. Additional SO2 Emission Limits for the SJGS
As we discuss above, there are no federally enforceable limits that
restrict the SJGS's SO2 emissions at 0.15 lbs/MMBtu, the
rate assumed by the WRAP in its modeling. Therefore, as part of this
action, we are proposing to impose an SO2 emission rate of
0.15 lbs/MMBtu on a 30 day rolling average for units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
the SJGS. By imposing this limit through this action, we will insure
that SO2 emissions from this source are not interfering with
the visibility programs of other states. We note an examination of the
SJGS's actual emission rates based on emissions reported by our Clean
Air Markets Division \15\ indicates units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS
are already meeting these SO2 emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not making a finding that this SO2 emission limit
satisfies BART for SO2. NMED has indicated they will submit
a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, thus SO2 BART for the SJGS
will be addressed through New Mexico's participation in an
SO2 trading program, under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Should NMED
instead submit a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.308, the SJGS would be subject
to an SO2 BART analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(e).
2. Need for Additional NOX Controls
As we discuss above, the WRAP assumed in its modeling that the SJGS
would achieve NOX emission rates of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units
1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in its evaluation of
daily impacts in photochemical modeling. Based on our approach of
relying on the assumptions in the WRAP modeling, additional control
would, therefore, be necessary to ensure that emissions from New Mexico
sources do not interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other
states pursuant to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of
the CAA.
Unlike the case for SO2, the SJGS will have to install
controls and therefore make capital investments to achieve these
additional NOX reductions. As we note above, on January 15,
2009, we published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 regional haze rule.'' 74 FR
2392. This finding included the plan element required by 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4), which requires BART for stationary source emissions of
NOX and PM under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2).
Therefore, rather than making an initial determination to require the
controls needed to prevent interference with the visibility programs of
other states based on the assumptions in the WRAP photochemical
modeling to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements, followed
soon thereafter by a separate NOX BART evaluation, we find
it is appropriate to perform that BART evaluation at this time.
Addressing both outstanding obligations at this time will be more
efficient and will provide greater certainty to the source as to the
appropriate NOX controls needed to meet these two separate
but related requirements. Our evaluation of BART for NOX
follows.
3. NOX BART Evaluation
In June, 2007, PNM submitted its BART evaluation to NMED. That
evaluation was revised multiple times to incorporate additional
visibility modeling analyses, control technology considerations, and
cost analyses. Although not officially submitted to us, NMED completed
a NOX and PM BART determination for the SJGS (referred to
herein as the ``NMED BART evaluation''), which we have found to be
thorough and comprehensive.\16\ In making our NOX BART
determination for the SJGS, we drew heavily upon the NOX
BART portion of that document, and used it to help inform our
NOX BART determination for the SJGS. We have incorporated it
into our Technical Support Document (TSD) found in the electronic
docket for this action. The electronic docket can be found at the Web
site https://www.regulations.gov (docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, BART
Determination, Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan
Generating Station, Units 1-4, June 21, 2010, available at https://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/documents/AppxA_NM_SJGS_NOxBARTDetermination_06212010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have determined, as outlined below, that the SJGS is subject to
BART and are proposing to require that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 meet an
emission limit for NOX of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu. This limit is
based on the installation of SCR on each of the units. The following
steps outline how we came to this determination. For more detail,
please see the TSD. Any BART determinations for other pollutants that
may be warranted under the RHR will be addressed in future rulemakings.
a. The SJGS Is a BART-Eligible Source
The first step of a BART evaluation is to determine whether a
source meets the definition of a ``BART-eligible source'' in 40 CFR
51.301. BART-eligible sources are those sources which have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977,
and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. We find, based on emissions reported by our Clean
Air Markets Division,\17\ that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS each
have historically emitted much more than 250 tons of NOX.
Also, according to the NMED SJGS Title V Statement of Basis, units 1,
2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS meet the requirement of being ``in existence''
on August 7, 1977 but not ``in operation'' before August 7, 1962.
Lastly, we find that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS fall under
category 1 of the 26 listed BART categories, which is fossil-fuel fired
steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units
(BTU) per hour heat input. Therefore, we propose to find that units 1,
2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are BART-eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART
Section III of the BART Guidelines outlines several approaches for
identifying sources that are subject to BART. This entails making a
determination of whether the units of the SJGS cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. Among the options we
recommended was the use of dispersion modeling for assessing the
impacts of a single source. As we note in the BART Guidelines, one of
the first steps in this approach to determining whether a source causes
or contributes to visibility impairment is to establish a threshold
(measured in deciviews). A single source that is responsible for a 1.0
deciview change or more should be considered to ``cause'' visibility
impairment; a source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview change may
still contribute to visibility impairment and thus be subject to BART.
We note in the BART Guidelines that states (and by extension EPA when
promulgating a FIP) have flexibility in determining an appropriate
threshold for determining whether a source ``contributes to any
visibility impairment'' for the purposes of BART. However, this
threshold should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.\18\ In the case of
the SJGS, this establishment of a precise threshold for contribution is
moot, since visibility modeling indicates that even using the upper
bound contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews, the SJGS contributes to
[[Page 499]]
visibility impairment at a number of Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 40 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WRAP performed the initial BART screening modeling for the
state of New Mexico. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP
Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol.\19\ The WRAP
screening modeling evaluated sources that were identified as BART-
eligible and determined the only sources that did not screen out were
the SJGS units. The results of this analysis indicated that SJGS, on a
facility-wide basis, causes visibility impairment at all 16 Class I
areas within 300 km of the facility. However, this modeling was based
on the installed control technology at the time and does not reflect
emission reductions due to the installation of consent decree controls.
Revised modeling performed by NMED and by us, including controls
required by the consent decree and currently installed, further
confirmed that SJGS still ``causes'' visibility impairment at more than
half of the Class I areas in the vicinity of the facility and
contributes (above 0.5 deciviews) to visibility impairment at the
remaining areas on a facility-wide basis. On an individual unit basis,
all units ``cause'' visibility impairment at Mesa Verde National Park,
and cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a number of other
Class I areas. Our modeling indicates that the visibility impairment is
primarily dominated by nitrate particulates. Therefore, as the WRAP
screening modeling has previously concluded and further New Mexico and
our modeling confirms that even with post-consent decree control levels
on SJGS units, the SJGS units 1, 2, 3, and 4 still have a significant
impact at surrounding Class I areas. Consequently, we propose to find
that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are subject to BART. More details
on this determination can be found in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States'', Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph
Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006, available at
https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The SJGS NOX BART Determination
Having established that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are
subject to BART, the next requirement is to perform the BART Analysis.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii); see also BART Guidelines, Section IV. The BART
analysis identifies the best system of continuous emission reduction
and, as laid out in the BART Guidelines, consists of the following five
basic steps:
Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control
Technologies;
Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options;
Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining
Control Technologies;
Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results; and
Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
As we stated above, for our BART analysis we have heavily drawn
upon the NMED BART Evaluation. Except for the following points, we
agree with NMED's conclusions regarding Steps 1-5:
PNM's cost estimate. NMED questioned PNM's cost estimate
for the installation of SCR but accepted it as being cost effective. We
too questioned PNM's cost estimate for SCR, and hired a consultant to
undertake an accurate assessment of the cost of SCR and the emission
limits that SCR is capable of attaining. (For more information, please
see the TSD).
BART for NOX. NMED evaluated the visibility
benefits of SCR at the SJGS based on an emission limit of 0.07 lbs/
MMBtu, but noted the potential for greater control at rates as low as
0.03 lbs/MMBtu. As discussed further below, we have concluded that a
NOX emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu is BART for the SJGS,
and performed our visibility modeling on that basis. (Additional
information is provided in the TSD).
SO2 to SO3 Conversion. NMED
concluded BART for the SJGS was SCR plus sorbent injection to remove
sulfur trioxide (SO3) in the flue gas by reaction with an
alkaline material. As discussed further below, we have concluded that
sorbent injection is not necessary, as the SJGS burns a low sulfur
coal, and catalysts are available with a low SO2 to
SO3 conversion rate. (Please see the TSD for further
information).
The following is a summary of our BART analysis. In general, our
analysis is the same as NMED's analysis of Steps 1-5, as modified to
incorporate the areas discussed above in which we differ with NMED.
i. Identification of All Available Retrofit Emission Control
Technologies
To address step 1, NMED reviewed a number of potential
retrofittable NOX control technologies, including: Selective
Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), SCR, SNCR/SCR Hybrid, Natural Gas
Reburn, Nalco Mobotec ROFA and Rotamix, NOxStar, ECOTUBE, PowerSpan
ECO, Phenix Clean Combustion, and e-SCRUB. We drew upon PNM's June,
2007 BART submission to NMED and its subsequent revisions in our
evaluation, and agree that the potential technologies for
NOX controls that have been identified.
ii. Elimination of Technically Infeasible Options
For step 2, again drawing upon the NMED analysis, we have
determined the following potentially retrofittable NOX
control technologies are not technically feasible, or have not been
thoroughly demonstrated on sim
