Supplemental Proposed Rule of Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation, 10530-10544 [2011-3998]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10530
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the Administrator finds that the
applicable airworthiness regulations
(i.e., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain
adequate or appropriate safety standards
for the Gulfstream Model GVI because of
a novel or unusual design feature,
special conditions are prescribed under
the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially
applicable to the model for which they
are issued. Should the type certificate
for that model be amended later to
include any other model that
incorporates the same novel or unusual
design features, the special conditions
would also apply to the other model
under provisions of § 21.101.
In addition to complying with the
applicable airworthiness regulations
and special conditions, the GVI must
comply with the fuel vent and exhaust
emission requirements of 14 CFR part
34 and the noise certification
requirements of 14 CFR part 36. The
FAA must also issue a finding of
regulatory adequacy pursuant to section
611 of Public Law 92–574, the ‘‘Noise
Control Act of 1972.’’
The FAA issues special conditions, as
defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance
with § 11.38, and they become part of
the type certification basis under
§ 21.17(a)(2).
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Novel or Unusual Design Features
The GVI will incorporate the
following novel or unusual design
features: Digital systems architecture
composed of several connected
networks. The proposed architecture
and network configuration may be used
for, or interfaced with, a diverse set of
functions, including:
1. Flight-safety related control,
communication, and navigation systems
(aircraft control domain),
2. Airline business and administrative
support (airline information domain),
3. Passenger information and
entertainment systems (passenger
entertainment domain), and
4. The capability to allow access to or
by external sources.
Discussion of Proposed Special
Conditions
The proposed Model GVI architecture
and network configuration may allow
increased connectivity to and access by
external airplane sources and airline
operations and maintenance systems to
the aircraft control domain and airline
information domain. The aircraft control
domain and airline information domain
perform functions required for the safe
operation and maintenance of the
airplane. Previously these domains had
very limited connectivity with external
sources.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
The architecture and network
configuration may allow the
exploitation of network security
vulnerabilities resulting in intentional
or unintentional destruction, disruption,
degradation, or exploitation of data,
systems, and networks critical to the
safety and maintenance of the airplane.
The existing regulations and guidance
material did not anticipate these types
of airplane system architectures.
Furthermore, 14 CFR regulations and
current system safety assessment policy
and techniques do not address potential
security vulnerabilities, which could be
exploited by unauthorized access to
airplane systems, data buses, and
servers. Therefore, these special
conditions and a means of compliance
are proposed to ensure that the security
(i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and
availability) of airplane systems is not
compromised by unauthorized wired or
wireless electronic connections.
Applicability
As discussed above, these proposed
special conditions are applicable to the
GVI. Should Gulfstream apply at a later
date for a change to the type certificate
to include another model incorporating
the same novel or unusual design
features, these proposed special
conditions would apply to that model as
well.
Conclusion
This action affects only certain novel
or unusual design features of the GVI. It
is not a rule of general applicability.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these
special conditions is as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701,
44702, 44704.
The Proposed Special Conditions
Accordingly, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of
the type certification basis for the GVI
airplanes.
1. The applicant must ensure
electronic system security protection for
the aircraft control domain and airline
information domain from access by
unauthorized sources external to the
airplane, including those possibly
caused by maintenance activity.
2. The applicant must ensure that
electronic system security threats from
external sources are identified and
assessed, and that effective electronic
system security protection strategies are
implemented to protect the airplane
from all adverse impacts on safety,
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
functionality, and continued
airworthiness.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on February
15, 2011.
KC Yanamura,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–4232 Filed 2–24–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 49
[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0683; FRL–9269–4]
Supplemental Proposed Rule of
Source Specific Federal
Implementation Plan for Implementing
Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo
Nation
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.
AGENCY:
On October 19, 2010, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a proposal to promulgate a
source specific Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) requiring the Four Corners
Power Plant (FCPP), located on the
Navajo Nation, to achieve emissions
reductions required by the Clean Air
Act’s Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) provision. On November 24,
2010, Arizona Public Service (APS)
acting on behalf of FCPP’s owners
submitted a letter to EPA offering an
alternative proposal to reduce visibilityimpairing pollution. In this action, EPA
is supplementing our October 19, 2010
BART proposal with our technical
evaluation of APS’ alternative proposal.
We are proposing to find that a different
alternative emissions control strategy
would achieve more progress than
EPA’s BART proposal towards
achieving visibility improvements in the
surrounding Class I areas.
DATES: Comments on this supplemental
proposed rule must be submitted no
later than May 2, 2011.
Open houses and public hearings will
be held on the following dates:
Shiprock Chapter, Shiprock, New
Mexico—March 29, 2011;
Nenahnezad Chapter, Fruitland, New
Mexico—March 30, 2011;
Farmington, New Mexico—March 30,
2011;
Durango, Colorado—March 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2010–0683, by one of the
following methods:
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
E-mail: r9air_fcppbart@epa.gov.
Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air–3),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105–3901.
Instructions: All comments 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
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Information that
you consider CBI or otherwise protected
should be clearly identified as such and
should not be submitted through
https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
https://www.regulations.gov is an
‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA
will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the public
comment. 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.
Hearings: EPA is holding public
hearings in four locations in the Four
Corners area to accept oral and written
comments on our October 19, 2010
proposed rulemaking and this
supplemental proposed rule. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further
information on the hearings.
The open houses and public hearings
will be held at the following locations:
Shiprock Chapter, Shiprock, New
Mexico—March 29, 2011, Open House
from 3 p.m.–6 p.m. and Public Hearing
from 7 p.m.–9 p.m. local time, Phil L.
Thomas Performing Arts Center,
Highway 64 West, Shiprock, New
Mexico, 87420, (505) 368–2490;
Nenahnezad Chapter, Fruitland, New
Mexico—March 30, 2011, combined
Open House and Public Hearing from 9
a.m.–1 p.m. local time, Nenahnezad
Chapter House, Multi-Purpose Room,
Highway 64 to County Road 6675 to end
of Navajo Route 365, (505) 960–9702;
Farmington, New Mexico—March 30,
2011, Open House from 3 p.m.–5 p.m.
and Public Hearing from 6 p.m.–9 p.m.
local time, San Juan College, Henderson
Fine Arts Building Rooms 9006 and
9008, Farmington, New Mexico, 97402,
(505) 326–3311;
Durango, Colorado—March 31, 2011,
Open House from 3 p.m.–5 p.m. and
Public Hearing from 6 p.m.–9 p.m. local
time, Fort Lewis College, Center of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
Southwest Studies Lyceum Room, 1000
Rim Drive, Durango, Colorado, 81301,
(970) 247–7456.
Docket: The index to the docket for
this action is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard
copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California. While
all documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3958, r9air_fcppbart@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’,
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
EPA is providing 30 days advance
notice of our scheduled hearings and
opening a comment period on this
supplemental proposed rule that
extends from the publication date of this
document until May 2, 2011, which is
30 days after our last scheduled hearing,
resulting in more than 60 days to
comment on this supplemental
proposed rule. On December 8, 2010,
EPA extended the comment period for
our October 19, 2010 BART proposal
until March 18, 2011. EPA is accepting
comment on both proposals
concurrently. Accordingly, in this
action, EPA is also extending the public
comment period on the October 19,
2010 BART proposal until May 2, 2011.
EPA will not respond to comments
during the public hearing. When we
publish our final action, we will provide
written responses to all oral and written
comments received on our October 19,
2010 proposal and on this supplemental
proposed rule. To provide opportunities
for questions and discussion, EPA will
hold open houses prior to, or
concurrently with, the public hearings.
During these open houses, EPA staff
will be available to informally answer
questions on our proposed action and
this supplemental proposed rule. Any
comments made to EPA staff during the
open houses must still be provided
formally in writing or orally during a
public hearing in order to be considered
in the record.
Oral testimony may be limited to 5
minutes for each commenter to address
the proposal or this supplemental
proposed rule. We will not be providing
equipment for commenters to show
overhead slides or make computerized
slide presentations. Any person may
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10531
provide written or oral comments, in
´
English or Dine, and data pertaining to
our proposal at the Public Hearing.
´
English-Dine translation services will be
provided at both the Open Houses and
the Public Hearings in Shiprock,
Fruitland, and Farmington. EnglishDine translation services will not be
provided at the Durango Open House
and Public Hearing unless it is
requested by March 14, 2011. If you
require a reasonable accommodation, by
March 14, 2011, please contact Anita
Lee using one of the methods provided
in the ADDRESSES section of this
supplemental proposed rule. Verbatim
transcripts, in English, of the hearings
and written statements will be included
in the rulemaking docket.
The public hearings for the three
evening events are scheduled to close at
9 p.m., but may close later, if necessary,
depending on the number of speakers
wishing to participate.
If you are unable to attend the public
hearings but wish to submit written
comments on the proposed rule or this
supplemental proposed rule, you may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0683, by
one of the following methods listed in
the ADDRESSES section.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Summary
II. Legal Background for Proposing To
Approve an Alternative Emissions
Control Strategy as Achieving Better
Progress Towards the National Visibility
Goal
III. EPA’s Technical Analysis of Better
Reasonable Progress Towards National
Visibility Goal
A. Estimated NOX Emission Reductions
1. Proposed NOX Emission Limit To Apply
on Units 4 and 5 With Installation of
SCR by July 31, 2018
2. Alternative Emissions Control Strategy
Will Result in Greater Visibility
Improvement than BART
B. Benefits in Addition to NOX Emissions
Reductions
C. Modeling and Demonstrating
Reasonable Progress
D. Alternative Emissions Control Strategy
Has Lower Cost Than EPA’s Proposed
BART Determination
IV. EPA’s Supplemental Proposal
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10532
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Background and Summary
EPA’s proposed BART determination,
which was published on October 19,
2010, provided a thorough discussion of
the legal and factual background
concerning our proposed BART
rulemaking and FCPP. 75 FR 64221.
APS is the sole owner of Units 1–3, a
partial owner of Units 4 and 5, and the
operator of FCPP. APS provided an
initial response to EPA’s BART proposal
during a meeting on November 9, 2010
and by letter dated November 24, 2010.
The initial response indicated that APS
had reached an agreement on November
8, 2010, to purchase the ownership
interest in Units 4 and 5 from Southern
California Edison (SCE). APS further
announced that upon final authorization
of purchasing SCE’s interest in Units 4
and 5, APS would begin a process to
shut down Units 1–3 that would be
completed by the beginning of 2014. In
addition, upon final authorization, APS
would commence work in 2014 to
install SCR on Units 4 and 5 with a
schedule for the SCR to be fully
installed and operational on both units
by 2018. APS proposed a NOX
emissions limit of 0.11 lb/MMMBtu, to
be achieved by the end of 2018. APS
justified requesting its schedule of 2014
to shut down Units 1–3 and 2018 to
install SCR on Units 4 and 5 based on
its need to secure several Federal, State,
and Tribal authorizations to execute this
alternative emissions control strategy.
According to APS’ calculations, under
their alternative strategy, FCPP would,
beginning in 2019, emit 2,650 tons per
year (tpy) less NOX pollution than under
EPA’s October 19, 2010 BART proposal.
APS also provided a summary of the
significant annual and cumulative
(through 2037) reductions of NOX,
sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter
(PM), mercury (Hg), water use, and
carbon dioxide (CO2) that would result
from shutting down Units 1–3 and
operating SCR on Units 4 and 5. EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal did
not require reductions of SO2, Hg, or
CO2 emissions or reductions in water
use.
APS states that revenue associated
with operating FCPP comprises roughly
35% of the Navajo Nation’s general
fund. FCPP and the mine supplying the
coal provide about 1,000 jobs, the
majority of which are filled by Native
American employees. FCPP and the
mine also pay significant taxes and
generate other revenue for the area.
EPA requested APS to submit the
emissions calculations and modeling
files supporting the conclusions APS set
forth in its letter of November 24, 2010.
APS submitted those emissions
calculations and modeling files to EPA
on November 29, 2010 and December 3,
2010. The emission calculation
spreadsheet is available in our
electronic docket (EPA–R09–OAR–
2010–0683, document number 0080.1—
identified as an xlsx file), and the
modeling files are available upon
request.
EPA has conducted its own technical
analysis of the alternative proposal APS
put forward on November 24, 2010. Our
analysis, as described in this
supplemental proposed rule, finds that
an alternative emission control strategy
to shut down Units 1–3 by 2014 and
operate SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July
31, 2018 to achieve a more stringent but
still feasible NOX emission limit of
0.098 lb/MMBtu will result in greater
visibility improvement than both EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal and
November 24, 2010 APS’ alternative
proposal.1 Our analysis differs in some
respects from APS regarding the
emissions benefit and visibility
improvement from APS’ proposal.
However, when viewing the combined
short term and long term effect of the
alternative emission control strategy,
EPA is proposing to find that shutting
down Units 1–3 in 2014 and operating
SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018
will result in greater visibility
improvement at the surrounding Class I
areas.
FCPP is comprised of five coal-fired
units of different sizes and ownership.
Ownership of Units 4 and 5, the two
largest units at FCPP at 750 MW each,
is currently shared between six
entities—SCE, APS, Public Service
Company of New Mexico (PNM), Salt
River Project (SRP), El Paso Electric
Company (EPEC), and Tucson Electric
Power (TEP). Table 1 provides a brief
summary of characteristics of the five
units.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF UNITS 1–5
Unit 1
Year Operation Began .........................................................
Capacity (MW) .....................................................................
Heat Input Rate (MMBtu/hr) ................................................
NOX Baseline emission rate (lb/MMBtu) .............................
PM Baseline emission rate (lb/MMBtu) ...............................
1963
170
1,863
0.78
0.025
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Ownership ............................................................................
Table 2 provides a summary of the
annual and cumulative emissions and
water use reductions that will result
from APS’ proposal. Table 2 shows the
Unit 2
Unit 3
1963
170
1,863
0.64
0.029
1964
220
2,400
0.59
0.029
APS—100%
emission reductions as stated by APS in
its submittal, however, for the
cumulative NOX emissions reduced,
EPA believes with the correction of an
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1969
750
7,411
0.49
0.014
Unit 5
1970
750
7,411
0.49
0.010
SCE—48%, APS—15%, PNM—
13%, SRP—10%, EPEC—
7%, TEP—7%.
evident calculation error on the part of
APS this value should be 388,416 tons
(16,184 tons per year × 24 years), not
104,958.
1 EPA’s revisions to APS’ proposal is referred to
throughout this notice as ‘‘the alternative emission
control strategy’’.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Unit 4
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
10533
TABLE 2—EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED BY CLOSING UNITS 1–3, REPRODUCED FROM APS’ NOVEMBER 24, 2010
SUBMITTAL 2
Annual
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX (tons) ...............................................................................................................................................................
SO2 (tons) ................................................................................................................................................................
PM (tons) .................................................................................................................................................................
Hg (pounds) .............................................................................................................................................................
Water use (acre-feet) ...............................................................................................................................................
CO2 (million tons) ....................................................................................................................................................
II. Legal Background for Proposing To
Approve APS’ Alternative Emission
Control Strategy as Achieving Better
Progress Towards the National
Visibility Goal
Section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean Air
Act requires a complete implementation
plan for visibility improvement to
contain such emissions limits,
schedules of compliance, and other
measures that may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. The
implementation plan provisions must
include, as appropriate, BART under
CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) and a long
term strategy under CAA section
169A(b)(2)(B).
In 1991, EPA considered a factual
situation similar to the circumstances at
hand. EPA had published a proposed
rule requiring the owners and operators
of Navajo Generating Station (NGS) to
install emissions controls to reduce SO 2
emissions because those emissions from
NGS were shown to impair visibility in
the Grand Canyon National Park. 55 FR
5173 (Feb. 8, 1991). The proposed
rulemaking included an SO 2 emission
limit, based on analysis of several
different levels of SO 2 reduction, as
BART pursuant to authority in CAA
Section 169A(b)(2)(A). 56 FR 5178.
Before EPA finalized the rule, the owner
and operator of NGS, along with several
environmental groups, submitted an
alternative plan to EPA. The alternative
plan would provide greater emissions
reductions of SO 2 at a lower cost than
EPA’s proposed rule. EPA published a
Supplemental Notice seeking comments
on the alternative plan. 56 FR 38399
(Aug. 13, 1991).
In the NGS Supplemental Notice, EPA
examined its legal authority under
Section 169A(b)(2). Id. Appendix B.
EPA noted that in crafting the visibility
reasonable progress requirements,
Congress did not explicitly address, and
apparently did not even consider, whether
2 Annual emissions are based on APS’ current
emissions reported to EPA. Cumulative emissions
are based on APS’s proposal from 2014 to 2037
prior to end of new lease (24 year period).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
there could be greater visibility improvement
at a lower cost in furtherance of the national
goal through an implementation plan
provision that relied more generally on
subsection (b)(2), rather than on specific
provisions of subparagraph (A) and/or
subparagraph (B). Where Congress has not
directly spoken to the precise question at
issue, EPA may make a reasonable
construction of the statute that is appropriate
in the context of the particular program at
issue. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural
Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S.
837, 842–45 (1984).
Id. at 38403. EPA evaluated the
alternative plan and agreed that it
would provide greater visibility
improvement at lower cost than EPA’s
proposed BART rulemaking. EPA’s
Supplemental Notice stated:
Based on the staff conclusions regarding
the factual circumstances of this case, EPA
could reasonably find that the present
alternative, with its higher expected visibility
improvement and lower expected costs (in
comparison to the February 1991 proposed
rule), best fulfills the overarching statutory
requirement in section 169A(b)(2)(which
incorporates the more specific provisions of
subparagraphs (A) and (B)) that
implementation plan revisions adopted
under subparagraphs 169A make ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ toward the national visibility goal.
Id.
EPA finalized the proposed rule for
NGS in October 1991. 56 FR 50172 (Oct.
3, 1991). In the final rule, EPA adopted
the rationale from the August 1991
Supplemental Notice that EPA had legal
authority under section 169A(b)(2) to
finalize an alternative to BART provided
it made greater reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal. Id.
at 50177.
The Central Arizona Project (CAP)
petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals to review EPA’s final rule. The
Ninth Circuit issued an opinion on
March 25, 1993, upholding EPA’s legal
authority to finalize an alternative to
BART as making reasonable progress
where that alternative resulted in greater
visibility improvement at a lower cost.
Central Arizona Water Conservation
District v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency, 990 F.2d 1531 (9th
Cir. Mar. 25, 1993). The Court noted that
‘‘[u]nder the unique circumstances of
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
16,184
2,852
678
361
6,000
5.2
Cumulative
104,958
68,448
16,272
8,664
144,000
125
this case, however, EPA chose not to
adopt the emission control limits
indicated by BART analysis, but instead
to adopt an emission limitations
standard that would produce greater
visibility improvement at a lower cost.’’
Id. at 1543. The Court then held:
Since the Act itself is ambiguous on the
specific issue, we apply the Supreme Court’s
deferential standard from Chevron and hold
that the agency’s reliance on the ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ provisions is a ‘‘permissible
construction of the statute,’’ 467 U.S. at 843,
104 S.Ct. at 2782, since ‘‘reasonable progress’’
is the overarching requirement that
implementation plan revisions under 42
U.S.C. 7491(b)(2) must address.
Id.
EPA revised its regulations
implementing sections 169A and 169B
of the CAA in several iterations
beginning in 1999. Among other things,
the 1999 Regional Haze Rule codified
the gap-filling approach EPA used in the
1991 NGS rulemaking. 64 FR 35714,
35739 (July 1, 1999). The Regional Haze
Rule requires a State or Tribe to submit
an implementation plan containing
either emission limitations representing
BART, 40 CFR 308(e)(1), or other
alternative measures that will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would
have resulted from BART, 40 CFR
308(e)(2). EPA anticipated at the time
that ‘‘the most likely alternative
measures adopted * * * will be an
emissions trading program,’’ 64 FR at
35743, but did not limit the States or
Tribes to such an approach. The
requirements for alternative programs
designed to achieve better than BART
are established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
The EPA modified the regulations
addressing alternatives to sourcespecific BART requirements in 2005 and
again in 2006. In 2005, EPA established
specific criteria for determining whether
a trading program or other alternative
measures provides for greater reasonable
progress. 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). To
assess whether an alternative meets this
core requirement, States and Tribes
must first consider the distribution of
emissions that would result from BART
as compared to the alternative. The
regulations provide that
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10534
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
[i]f the distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under BART, and
the alternative measure results in greater
emissions reductions, then the alternative
measures may be deemed to achieve greater
reasonable progress.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Where the
alternative would result in a different
distribution of emissions, the
regulations require dispersion modeling
to determine differences in visibility
between BART and the trading program
and establish a test against which to
measure the results of the modeling. Id.
In 2006, EPA again revised the
Regional Haze Rule, focusing on
regulatory issues associated with the use
of an emissions trading program as an
alternative to BART. In this rulemaking,
EPA allowed for a less prescriptive
approach to determining whether an
alternative program provides for greater
reasonable progress based on the clear
weight of evidence. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).71 FR 60612 (Oct. 13,
2006).
To meet the requirement of the
Regional Haze Rule that all necessary
emission reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze, if APS elects to
implement this alternative emission
control strategy, EPA is proposing to
require Units 4 and 5 to comply with
the 0.098 lb/MMBtu NOX emission limit
by July 31, 2018, five months earlier
than APS’ proposed schedule for
complete SCR installation and
operation.
In today’s supplemental proposed
rule, EPA is proposing to find, based on
the weight of evidence, that a final rule
requiring APS to shut down Units 1–3
by 2014 and install and operate SCR on
Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018 will
result in greater reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal
under section 169A(b)(2) than EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal.
Therefore, EPA is proposing to add
regulatory language to the proposed
BART rule for FCPP that allows APS the
option to implement its alternative
emissions control strategy in lieu of
EPA’s BART determination.
III. EPA’s Technical Analysis of Better
Reasonable Progress Towards National
Visibility Goal
Units 1–3 comprise approximately
27% of the electricity-generating
capacity at FCPP; however, Units 1–3
contribute disproportionately to facilitywide emissions of NOX (36%), PM
(43%), and Hg (61%). The alternative
emissions control strategy of shutting
down Units 1–3 will consequently
result in substantial emissions
reductions at FCPP of all pollutants
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
emitted by those units, particularly
NOX, PM, and Hg. See Table 2.
As discussed below, this
supplemental proposed rule proposes to
require Units 4 and 5, by July 31, 2018,
to meet a lower NOX emission limit than
APS’ proposal, five months earlier than
proposed by APS. In this supplemental
proposed rule, EPA is proposing to
approve this EPA revision of APS’
proposal as an alternative to BART
because it demonstrates better
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal. Our evaluation
shows that the alternative emissions
control strategy will provide greater
visibility improvement at all 16 Class I
areas than EPA’s BART proposal. See 40
CFR 51.308(e). We discuss our proposed
NOX emissions limit for Units 4 and 5
first because our subsequent analysis of
the emissions reductions and visibility
improvements rely in part on that limit.
We will also briefly evaluate associated
non-visibility environmental benefits
from the alternative emission control
strategy. Finally, we propose to retain
and revise our October 19, 2010 BART
proposal, with a revision described
below regarding phase-in of new
controls, as a contingent rule if APS
does not implement its alternative
emissions control strategy.
By letter dated January 25, 2011, the
National Parks Conservation
Association, Black Mesa Water
Coalition, Dine Care, Center for
Biological Diversity, Heal Utah, Grand
Canyon Trust, Natural Resources
Defense Council, San Juan Citizens
Alliance, Sevier Citizens for Clean Air &
Water, Sierra Club and WildEarth
Guardians submitted comments on
EPA’s BART proposal and the proposal
APS outlined in its November 24, 2010
letter to EPA. The letter from the
consortium of environmental groups
requested EPA to require lower
emission limits for several pollutants
emitted by FCPP. EPA considers the
January 25, 2011 letter a comment,
which we have posted to our docket and
will provide a response to in our final
rulemaking.
A. Estimated NOX Emissions Reductions
1. Proposed NOX Emission Limit To
Apply on Units 4 and 5 With
Installation of SCR by July 31, 2018
EPA’s October 19, 2010 BART
proposal provided for a facility-wide
heat input-weighted emission limit for
FCPP’s Units 1-5 of 0.11 lb/MMBtu on
a 30-day rolling average basis.3 EPA
determined that FCPP could achieve
3 The
BART guidelines at 40 CFR part 51
appendix Y, require averaging times for EGUs be
based on a 30-day rolling average.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
this limit by reducing NOX emissions
from each of its five units by 80%. The
limit we proposed in our October 19,
2010 BART proposal did not include or
rely on combustion controls, i.e., new
Low-NOX burners (LNB). As described
in more detail in our October 19, 2010
proposal (75 FR 64221), and the
technical support document for the
proposal, the original cell boiler design
of Units 4 and 5 is difficult to retrofit
with modern LNB technology, and even
if combustion controls might result in
some improvement in NOX
performance, the potential operational
problems were not worth the small
incremental reduction in NOX
emissions. EPA proposed to provide a
plant-wide limit to allow flexibility to
FCPP to accommodate anticipated SCR
retrofit challenges associated with the
small fireboxes for Units 1–3.
EPA has evaluated the NOX emission
limit we consider achievable under
APS’ alternative emissions control
strategy. In APS’ calculations for its
November 24, 2010 proposal, APS
assumed that under its proposed
strategy, Units 4 and 5 would meet a
limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu with installation
and operation of SCR, not an 80%
reduction from the Unit 4 and 5 baseline
of 0.49 lb/MMBtu. If we apply an 80%
emissions reduction solely to Units 4
and 5, APS should be able to achieve a
NOX limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu for each
unit. Our calculations are based on
average baseline emissions from Units 4
and 5 of 0.49 lb/MMBtu each, reduced
by a conservative estimate of 80%
control of baseline emissions.
In calculating the NOX emission limit
of 0.098 lb/MMBtu, EPA is taking into
account the degradation of the SCR
catalyst over its lifetime resulting in the
need for periodic replacement to
maintain its activity and performance.
Historically, FCPP units are scheduled
for outages only once every three years.
Based on this, EPA anticipates that APS
will change out its catalyst on the
historic outage schedule and the new
catalyst will be installed every three
years. EPA has calculated the 30-day
emission limit (0.098 lb/MMbtu) to
reflect the capability of the catalyst to
reduce NOX at the end of this three year
period.
EPA has also determined that
pursuing higher levels of NOX reduction
efficiency (i.e., greater than 80%) from
SCR on Units 4 and 5 is limited by the
formation of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) from
the SCR catalyst.4 Although more layers
4 The SCR catalyst can oxidize sulfur dioxide
(SO2) to sulfur trioxide (SO3, which, in the presence
of water vapor, forms sulfuric acid) (H2SO4) aerosol,
which causes visibility impairment.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
of catalyst could be used in the SCR unit
to further enhance NOX removal, the
presence of additional catalyst would
result in higher emissions of sulfuric
acid, which is also a visibility-impairing
pollutant. Minimizing the formation of
primary SO3/H2SO4 in the catalyst bed
is most important for visibility
improvement at Mesa Verde National
Park, the closest Class I area to FCPP.
Primary SO3/H2SO4 formed on the SCR
catalyst would be capable of impairing
visibility immediately after release into
the atmosphere, whereas SO2 emissions
need time and distance to convert to
sulfuric acid or particulate ammonium
sulfate before these emissions impact
visibility.
Finally, the achievable NOX emission
limit for FCPP is affected by the high
ash content in the coal burned by FCPP.
The ash content is approximately 25%,
which may adversely affect the
capability of SCR to reach the highest
end of the control efficiency range
achieved at other power plants without
the use of additional layers of catalyst
or more frequent catalyst replacement.
For these reasons, EPA is proposing to
require a NOX emission limit in this
supplemental proposed rule of 0.098 lb/
MMBtu. We are proposing to approve
the alternative emission control strategy
requiring Units 1–3 to shut down by
January 1, 2014 and Units 4 and 5 to
meet an 80% NOX reduction, with a
limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu, by July 31,
2018. This emission limit can be met by
installation of SCR.
EPA is requesting comment on
whether to provide FCPP with
additional flexibility for meeting the
0.098 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
limit by setting the limit as a heat-input
weighted limit for Units 4 and 5,5
similar to our BART proposal on
October 19, 2010 which set a plant-wide
heat-input-weighted limit for Units 1–5.
EPA is also requesting comment on
whether our final rule should also set a
lower NOX emission limit that would be
averaged over a longer averaging time to
reflect the capability of the SCR when
the catalyst is fresher at the beginning
of the three-year outage schedule.
Therefore, EPA is requesting comment
on whether an additional, more
stringent (i.e., lower than 0.098 lb/
MMBtu) heat-input-weighted emission
limit, representing greater than 80%
control, and averaged over one or three
years would be appropriate to assure the
optimized operating efficiency for an
SCR-controlled unit where EPA
5 The
heat-input-weighted limit would be based
on the heat input generated by each individual unit,
rather than the rated capacity, which is identical for
Units 4 and 5.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
10535
anticipates a three-year replacement of
the catalyst.6 A heat-input-weighted
limit averaged over one year could
reflect the capability over the third year
of the catalyst in use in either unit. A
three-year average on an individual unit
would reflect the capability of the
catalyst to reduce NOX over its entire
duration of use. EPA anticipates that the
most stringent numerical limit would be
for a single-unit limit on a 3-year rolling
average. Under either of these
approaches, the emission limit would be
set such that the facility would be
required to inject sufficient ammonia to
maximize the reduction of the NOX no
matter what the age of the catalyst.7
emissions from FCPP, under its
proposed alternative, during 2014–2016
would be lower than would be emitted
in those years under EPA’s October 19,
2010 proposal. However, under the
alternative emission control strategy,
emissions in 2017 and 2018 would be
higher than in EPA’s October 19, 2010
proposal, because APS would not
achieve its final NOX reductions until
the beginning of 2019. Under APS’
proposal, beginning in 2019, Units 4
and 5 would meet an emission limit of
0.11 lb/MMBtu, resulting in total
emissions of 6,498 tpy NOX. Therefore,
APS’ proposal would produce
approximately 30% less NOX emissions
per year than EPA’s BART proposal
2. Alternative Emissions Control
beginning in 2019.
Strategy Will Result in Greater Visibility
In contrast to APS’ proposal to meet
Improvement Than BART
a limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu by the end of
As noted above, EPA’s BART proposal 2018, EPA is proposing as the
was for a facility-wide heat inputalternative emission control strategy to
weighted NOX emission limit on Units
require a lower NOX emission limit of
1–5 of 0.11 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day
0.098 lb/MMBtu beginning July 31,
rolling average basis.8 If EPA were to
2018. EPA is proposing a compliance
finalize its BART proposal, the facilitydate five months earlier than APS’
wide NOX emission limit would apply
proposal in order to meet the
5 years after the effective date of the
requirement of the Regional Haze Rule
final rule. To evaluate the alternative
that all necessary emission reductions
emissions control strategy, EPA is
for an alternative measure take place
assuming that the earliest possible
during the period of the first long-term
effective date for a final BART rule for
strategy for regional haze.9 40 CFR
FCPP would be January 1, 2012. This
51.308(e)(2)(iii). Under this alternative
means that FCPP would be required to
control strategy, total annual emissions
meet the facility-wide 0.11 lb/MMBtu
of NOX from FCPP at 0.098 lb/MMBtu
NOX emission limit beginning in 2017.
would be 5,798 tpy. EPA’s emissions
APS calculated this to mean that in
calculations are included in the docket
2017 the total that could be emitted
for this proposed rulemaking (see ‘‘EPA
from Units 1–5 under EPA’s BART
comparison of BART and alternative
proposal would be 9,184 tpy NOX (See
2–3–11.xlsx’’). If EPA finalizes a rule
item number 0080.1 in the docket for
requiring APS to implement EPA’s
this rulemaking: ‘‘Emissions calculations alternative emissions control strategy
from APS for its Alternative Proposal
with a NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/
11–29–10.xlsx’’).
MMBtu, FCPP would produce
APS is proposing to reduce NOX (and approximately 37% less NOX emissions
other pollutants) by shutting down
per year than under EPA’s BART
Units 1–3 by January 1, 2014, three
proposal.
years earlier than would be achieved by
The alternative emissions control
EPA’s BART proposal. Because of these
strategy would realize the 37% greater
shutdowns, APS projected that NOX
NOX emissions reductions two years
later than would potentially result from
6 This more strigent numerical NO limit with the
X
EPA’s BART proposal, but within the
longer averaging time could reflect the capability of
period of the first long-term strategy for
the catelyst over a more extended period than a
regional haze. Our evaluation,
short term limit that accommodates deterioration of
catalyst activity just before new catalyst is installed. supported by the modeled visibility
7 Although ammonia also contributes to visibility
improvements discussed in Section C, is
impairment, as discussed in the Technical Support
that significantly lower NOX emissions
Document for our October 29, 2010 proposal,
from FCPP occurring within the period
ammonia slip from the SCR is expected to react
of the first long term strategy and
with SO3/H2SO4 in the flue gas to form particulate
ammonium sulfate or bisulfate, which would be
continuing on into the future, but
captured by the downstream air preheaters,
occurring two years later than could
scrubbers, and baghouses.
potentially occur through EPA BART
8 For PM, EPA proposed an emission limit of
proposal, will achieve better reasonable
0.012 lb/MMBtu to Units 1–3 and 0.015 lb/MMbtu
on Units 4 and 5. The limit on Units 1–3 would be
achievable by installing and operating new
particulate controls on those units, such as new
electrostatic precipitators or baghouses, and by
proper operation of the existing baghouses on Units
4 and 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9 The Regional Haze Rule requires revisions to
regional haze implementation plans be submitted to
EPA by July 31, 2018 and every ten years thereafter.
This date marks the end of the first long term
strategy period.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10536
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
progress towards the Clean Air Act’s
national visibility goal.
The amount by which NOX will be
reduced between 2014 and 2019 is
somewhat less certain because of
differing assumptions used in APS’ and
EPA’s evaluations. APS compared NOX
emissions for each year from 2014 until
2019 under its proposal against EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal as
reproduced in Table 3.
TABLE 3—APS’ COMPARISON OF NOX EMISSIONS (TONS) BASED ON EPA BART PROPOSAL AND APS ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSAL, REPRODUCED FROM NOVEMBER 24, 2010 SUBMITTAL FROM APS
EPA proposal
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
APS proposal
45,132
45,132
45,132
9,184
9,184
9,184
28,948
28,948
28,948
28,948
28,948
6,498
.........................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................................................
The values APS used in Table 3,
however, assume that EPA’s BART
determination would not have required
installation of any NOX emissions
controls until 2017 and that SCR would
become fully operational on all 5 units
simultaneously in 2017. Therefore, APS
interpreted EPA’s BART proposal to
allow NOX emissions of 45,132 tpy to
continue until the beginning of 2017.
EPA’s BART proposal on October 19,
2010, however, included interim
emission limits for the 5 units that
would (if finalized) have applied
following a phased-in schedule for SCR
installation. Historically FCPP has
operated on a 3-year outage cycle for its
boilers.10 Therefore, EPA’s BART
proposal assumed that Units 1–3 would
be retrofit simultaneously in one outage,
Unit 4 would be retrofit in a second
annual outage, and Unit 5 would be
retrofit in the third annual outage.
Table 4 compares our calculations of
the short-term (2014–2019) NOX
emissions and Table 5 compares our
calculations for short-term (2014–2019)
PM emissions, between EPA’s BART
proposal, assuming EPA could finalize
the interim emissions limits to be
effective January 1, 2012,11 and the
alternative emissions control strategy
with a final compliance date for
installation and operation of SCR on
Units 4 and 5 of July 31, 2018.12 (See
‘‘EPA Comparison of BART and
Alternative 2–3–11.xlsx’’ in the docket
for this rulemaking).
TABLE 4—EPA’S COMPARISON OF NOX EMISSIONS (TONS) BASED ON EPA BART PROPOSAL AND THE ALTERNATIVE
EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY
EPA BART
proposal
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
and beyond ..............................................................................................................
Alternative
emission control strategy
45,132
45,132
45,132
33,908
22,074
9,026
9,026
9,026
45,132
45,132
28,947
28,947
28,947
28,947
19,302
5,798
Proposal with lower
emissions
Same.
Same.
Alternative.
Alternative.
EPA BART.
EPA BART.
EPA BART.
Alternative.
TABLE 5—EPA’S COMPARISON OF PM EMISSIONS (TONS) BASED ON EPA BART PROPOSAL AND THE ALTERNATIVE
EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA BART
proposal
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
and beyond ..............................................................................................................
10 FCPP is a baseload power plant that operates
its boilers year-round at full capacity except during
outages. Power plants typically schedule periodic
major and minor outages to allow for routine
maintenance of its boiler units. To accomodate its
five boiler units, EPA understands that the boilers
at FCPP are on a three-year major outage cycle, with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
Units 4, 5, and 1–3 alternating major outages every
3 years.
11 The interim limits that EPA included in the
proposed BART rule included a larger margin of
compliance with the interim limits to provide APS
the flexibility to develop strategies for meeting the
plant-wide limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu by 2017 in ways
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Alternative
emission control strategy
1,564
1,564
1,564
1,564
1,179
1,179
1,179
1,179
1,564
1,564
886
886
886
886
886
886
Proposal with lower
emissions
Same.
Same.
Alternative.
Alternative.
Alternative.
Alternative.
Alternative.
Alternative.
other than achieving 80% reduction equally on all
units.
12 The annual emissions in both Tables 2 and 4
are likely overestimated because they do not
account for zero emissions from an individual unit
(or set of units) when it is not operating during its
scheduled outage.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10537
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Therefore, if finalized as proposed
and effective on January 1, 2012, we
estimate that EPA’s BART proposal
would result in lower NOX emissions
from 2016–2018, an additional year
(2016) compared to APS’ calculations
that do not account for interim limits. In
2014 and 2015, and beginning in 2019
into the future, the alternative emissions
control strategy would result in lower
NOX emissions than EPA’s BART
proposal. For PM, starting in 2014, the
alternative emission control strategy
would always result in lower emissions
of PM compared to EPA’s BART
proposal because of the closure of Units
1–3 in 2014.
In today’s supplemental proposed
rule, EPA acknowledges that the interim
emission limits proposed on October 19,
2010, were based on APS’ historic
outage schedule and were required to
ensure that the installation of new
controls occurred as expeditiously as
practicable. APS may have challenged
those proposed interim emission limits
and requested EPA to finalize a BART
rule that allowed installation of SCR on
all units simultaneously 5 years after the
effective date of the final rule (i.e., in
2017). Thus, if EPA’s re-evaluation of
the interim limits resulted in a
determination that the interim limits
were not practicable, the interim
emission reductions we estimated over
2015–2016, might not have been
realized if the final rule was issued
without interim limits. In our October
19, 2010 proposal, EPA also failed to
include proposed regulatory language
regarding the phased-in SCR
installation, a gap which we address in
Section D of this supplemental
proposed rule.
B. Benefits in Addition to NOX
Emissions Reductions
On November 29, 2010, APS provided
to EPA the spreadsheet on which its
emission estimates were based. This
spreadsheet is included in the docket
for the proposed rulemaking (See the
spreadsheet posted to the docket for this
rulemaking: EPA–R09–OAR–2010–
0683.0080.1, ‘‘Emissions calculations
from APS for its Alternative Proposal
11–29–10.xlsx’’). Baseline emissions
reported by APS (labeled ‘‘status quo’’ in
the spreadsheet) of NOX, SO2, PM, Hg,
and CO2, are included in Table 6.
Emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM are
reported in tons per year (tpy); Hg
emissions are reported in pounds per
year (lb/yr); and CO2 emissions are
reported in million tons per year.
TABLE 6—BASELINE EMISSIONS OF NOX (TPY), PM (TPY), SO2 (TPY), HG (LB/YEAR), AND CO2 (MILLION TPY) REPORTED
BY APS
NOX
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
2
3
4
5
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
The alternative emission control
strategy to shut down Units 1–3 by 2014
not only results in 100% control of
NOX, but also 100% control of all other
pollutants emitted by those units,
including SO2, PM, Hg and other
hazardous air pollutants, and CO2,
whereas EPA’s proposal to install SCR
on Units 1–5 and new PM controls on
Units 1–3 would only result in 80% and
57% 13 control of NOX and PM,
respectively.
C. Modeling and Demonstrating
Reasonable Progress
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
The Regional Haze Rule requires that
implementation plans that rely on an
alternative measure to BART
demonstrate that the alternative
achieves greater reasonable progress
than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART. 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2). The rule further states
13 The percent reduction in PM emissions was
calculated for Units 1–3 and assumed that imposing
an emission limit on Units 4 and 5 would not
change the measured emission rates from those
units because Units 4 and 5 would continue to be
controlled by the existing baghouses. Thus, the PM
emission reduction is calculated as a MW-weighted
average reduction from Units 1–3, using baseline
emissions that range from 0.025 lb/MMBtu (Unit 1)
to 0.029 lb/MMBtu (Units 2 and 3), and the
proposed post-control BART limit of 0.012 lb/
MMBtu on Units 1–3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
5,790
4,751
5,643
14,474
14,474
that ‘‘[i]f the distribution of emissions is
not substantially different than under
BART, and the alternative measure
results in greater emissions reductions,
than the alternative measures may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress’’. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Because
the emissions reductions under EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal and
the alternative emission control strategy
proposed in this supplemental proposed
rule occur from the same facility, the
distribution of emissions under BART
and the alternative are not substantially
different. Therefore, because the
alternative emission control strategy
results in greater emissions reductions
that our BART proposal, EPA may deem
the alternative emission control strategy
to achieve greater reasonable progress.
Although an explicit modeling
demonstration is not required based on
the provisions of 40 CFR 31.08(e)(3),
APS provided a modeling analysis
demonstrating that its proposed
alternative would result in greater
visibility improvement than EPA’s
October 2010 BART proposal. EPA
evaluated the modeling submitted by
APS and modeled our alternative
emission control strategy in comparison
to our October 2010 proposal. EPA
compared our BART proposal to the
alternative emissions control strategy
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM
SO2
186
215
277
443
443
748
731
1,373
4,298
4,611
Hg
113
109
139
117
116
CO2
1.6
1.5
2.1
6.0
6.0
based on emissions after full SCR
installation is complete. For EPA’s
BART proposal, SCR would have been
completed on all units in 2017 if the
final BART rule becomes effective in
2012. For the alternative emissions
control strategy, EPA is proposing
emissions reductions from full SCR
installation and operation on Units 4
and 5 be completed by July 31, 2018.
APS provided EPA with the modeling
files generated by AECOM.14 EPA has
evaluated those modeling files for this
supplemental proposed rule. APS’
modeling differs in some minor ways
from the modeling used to support
EPA’s October 19, 2010 BART proposal.
In the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for our October 19, 2010 BART
proposal, EPA provided the emission
rates of various pollutants from each of
the five units used in the CALPUFF
modeling analysis. These modeling
inputs for the SCR control case, in
pounds per hour (lb/hr) are included in
Table 7 and represent the 24-hour
average actual emission rate from the
highest emitting day of the
meteorological period modeled (2001–
2003), consistent with the guidelines
14 Modeling files from APS and EPA modeling
analyses are available from EPA upon request.
Please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this supplemental proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10538
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
provided in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
Y (BART Guidelines). The CALPUFF
inputs require values for SO2, sulfate
(SO4), NOX, secondary organic aerosol
(SOA), fine PM, coarse PM, and
elemental carbon (EC).
The modeling inputs used by APS in
its analysis of its proposal are included
in Table 8. APS’ emission inputs for
NOX and PM rely on EPA’s proposed
30-day rolling average emission limits
the Baseline Impact, but used the lower
30-day rolling average emission limits
shown in Table 8 to model visibility
benefits from controls rather than the
highest emitting day average shown in
Table 7. Thus, the baseline and SCR
control scenarios from APS’ modeling
are not directly comparable because of
the different averaging times of the
inputs (24-hour versus 30-day average).
(as shown in Table 40 of our Technical
Support Document). These inputs
represent 80% control of baseline NOX
emissions: limit for Unit 1 = 0.16 lb/
MMBtu, Unit 2 = 0.13 lb/MMBtu, Unit
3 = 0.12 lb/MMBtu, and Units 4 and 5
= 0.10 lb/MMBtu each; and PM
emission rates of 0.012 lb/MMBtu from
Units 1–3 and 0.015 lb/MMBtu from
Units 4 and 5. APS used the peak 24hour average emissions when modeling
TABLE 7—EPA’S CALPUFF MODELING INPUTS USED FOR OUR OCTOBER 19, 2010 BART PROPOSAL WITH SCR ON
UNITS 1–5 AND PM CONTROLS ON UNITS 1–3 15
Unit 1
SO2 ..............................................................................................................................
SO4 ..............................................................................................................................
NOX ..............................................................................................................................
SOA ..............................................................................................................................
PM fine .........................................................................................................................
PM coarse ....................................................................................................................
EC ................................................................................................................................
Unit 2
522.54
8.57
404.03
9.40
17.26
13.19
0.66
Unit 3
Unit 5
1042.09
11.06
394.16
12.13
23.60
18.03
0.91
615.12
8.58
319.89
9.41
20.39
15.58
0.78
Unit 4
2026.10
2.24
1003.20
32.00
100.93
77.12
3.88
2131.85
2.25
901.71
32.20
48.02
36.69
1.85
TABLE 8—APS’ CALPUFF MODELING INPUTS REPRESENTING EPA’S BART PROPOSAL (UNITS 1–5), COMBINING NOX
AND PM CONTROLS, PROVIDED BY APS TO SUPPORT ITS ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL (UNITS 4 AND 5 ONLY)
Units 1 and 2
SO2 ..............................................................................................................................................
SO4 ..............................................................................................................................................
NOX ..............................................................................................................................................
SOA .............................................................................................................................................
PM fine .........................................................................................................................................
PM coarse ....................................................................................................................................
EC ................................................................................................................................................
With respect to other modeling
assumptions, APS used the same
assumptions that supported EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal. APS
directly used EPA’s modeling inputs for
the 1 ppb (IWAQM default) background
ammonia scenario from our proposed
BART determination and modeled
additional scenarios: EPA’s BART
proposal using emission inputs for
Units 1–5 in Table 7, and APS’s
Unit 3
1137.66
17.15
681.62
18.81
27.71
11.29
1.06
Units 4 and 5
1042.09
11.06
363.84
12.13
17.87
7.28
0.69
4157.95
4.49
1605.10
64.20
122.89
93.90
4.72
proposal, and PM emissions as modeled
by AECOM were 18–60% lower than
our proposal. APS estimated that EPA’s
BART proposal (using the inputs from
Table 7) would reduce the impact of
FCPP on the 16 Class I areas by an
average of 59%. APS modeling showed
that its alternative emissions control
strategy would reduce the impact of
FCPP on the 16 Class I areas by an
average of 74% (See Table 8).
proposed alternative using emission
inputs from Table 7 for only Units 4 and
5 (with no modeling of Units 1–3 to
account for shut down of those units).
EPA reviewed APS’ emission inputs
and modeling files and determined that
when APS modeled EPA’s October 19,
2010 BART proposal, APS relied on
lower NOX and PM emissions than EPA
used in our proposal. NOX emissions
modeled by AECOM were 6–16% lower
than EPA’s modeling values from our
TABLE 8—MODELING RESULTS—98TH PERCENTILE DELTA DV IMPROVEMENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN DELTA DECIVIEW
(DV) 16 IMPACT FROM EPA’S BART PROPOSAL AND APS’ ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO BASELINE IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003 USING 1 PPB AMMONIA BACKGROUND SCENARIO AS MODELED BY AECOM
Distance to
FCPP
Baseline
impact
Kilometers
(km)
Improvement from EPA’s
proposal
Delta
dv
Improvement from APS’
proposal
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Class I area
Arches National Park .......................................................
Bandelier Wilderness Area ..............................................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison WA .................................
Canyonlands NP ..............................................................
Capitol Reef NP ...............................................................
15 In our October 2010 BART proposal, we
conducted our modeling analyses for NOX and PM
controls separately. In Table 6, the emission inputs
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
245
216
217
214
283
Delta
dv
4.11
2.90
2.36
5.24
3.23
for NOX and SO4, from the SCR control case, are
combined with inputs for SOA, PM fine, PM coarse,
and EC, from the PM control case, for better
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Delta
dv
%
2.5
1.71
1.47
2.97
1.94
58
58
62
54
54
%
3.08
2.12
1.84
3.86
2.46
comparison with APS’s representation of EPA’s
BART proposal. Emission inputs for SO2 were
identical for the SCR and PM control scenarios.
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
75
74
76
72
72
10539
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—MODELING RESULTS—98TH PERCENTILE DELTA DV IMPROVEMENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN DELTA DECIVIEW
(DV) 16 IMPACT FROM EPA’S BART PROPOSAL AND APS’ ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO BASELINE IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003 USING 1 PPB AMMONIA BACKGROUND SCENARIO AS MODELED BY AECOM—Continued
Distance to
FCPP
Baseline
impact
Kilometers
(km)
Improvement from EPA’s
proposal
Delta
dv
Improvement from APS’
proposal
Class I area
Delta
dv
Delta
dv
%
%
Grand Canyon NP ...........................................................
Great Sand Dunes NM ....................................................
La Garita WA ...................................................................
Maroon Bells Snowmass WA ..........................................
Mesa Verde NP ...............................................................
Pecos WA ........................................................................
Petrified Forest NP ..........................................................
San Pedro Parks WA .......................................................
West Elk WA ....................................................................
Weminuche WA ...............................................................
Wheeler Peak WA ...........................................................
345
279
202
294
62
258
224
160
137
245
265
1.63
1.16
1.72
1.04
5.95
2.16
1.40
3.88
1.87
2.76
1.53
0.91
0.69
1.08
0.65
2.67
1.19
0.69
2.15
1.24
1.76
0.88
58
63
63
64
48
59
58
55
64
61
60
1.14
0.84
1.3
0.79
3.57
1.55
0.93
2.77
1.45
2.08
1.12
75
76
77
78
66
74
74
72
77
75
75
Total Delta dv or Average % Change in Delta dv ....
....................
42.93
24.5
59%
30.9
74%
EPA re-modeled the visibility impact
of combined SCR and PM controls as
outlined in our October 2010 BART
proposal (but were modeled separately
in our proposal) and the visibility
impact of the alternative emissions
control strategy. EPA’s emission inputs
continued to rely on the peak 24-hour
average value over the meteorological
period for NOX, rather than the 30-day
rolling average emission limits used by
APS. For PM, emission inputs are based
on our proposed BART emission limits.
Our emission inputs are shown in Table
9 and the results of our modeling is
shown in Table 10.
Table 9 differs from EPA’s values in
Table 7 because the combination of PM
and NOX controls into a single modeling
scenario results in lower sulfate
emissions because new PM controls on
Units 1–3 would provide additional
control of the sulfuric acid produced by
the SCR system. In estimating the
reduction of sulfuric acid by the new
PM controls, EPA chose to use the
capture efficiency of a wet ESP (28%) in
lieu of a baghouse (90%) 17 because a
wet ESP is expected to result in a lower
capture rate for sulfuric acid than a
baghouse, thus providing a more
conservative estimate of the visibility
benefits of combined PM and NOX
controls from EPA’s BART proposal.
TABLE 9—EPA’S CALPUFF MODELING INPUTS (LB/HR) 18 REPRESENTING OUR BART PROPOSAL (NOX AND PM
CONTROLS COMBINED UNITS 1–5) AND APS’ ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL (UNITS 4 AND 5 ONLY WITH NOX CONTROLS)
Units 1 and 2
SO2 ..............................................................................................................................................
SO4 ..............................................................................................................................................
NOX ..............................................................................................................................................
SOA .............................................................................................................................................
PM fine .........................................................................................................................................
PM coarse ....................................................................................................................................
EC ................................................................................................................................................
1137.66
12.51
723.92
18.81
27.70
11.29
1.06
Unit 3
1042.09
8.07
394.16
12.13
17.87
7.28
0.69
Units 4 and 5
4157.95
4.49
1904.91
64.20
122.89
93.90
4.72
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA’smodeling analysis shows that
our BART proposal, which combines
new NOX controls to achieve 80%
reduction on Units 1–5 and new PM
controls on Units 1–3, would reduce
FCPP’s visibility impact on the 16 Class
I areas by an average of 57%.19 The
alternative emissions control strategy, to
shut down Units 1–3 and install SCR on
Units 4 and 5, would reduce FCPP’s
visibility impact on the 16 Class I areas
by an average of 72%. Our modeling
analysis of the alternative emissions
control strategy shows about 2% lower
visibility improvement compared to
APS’ analysis because we used slightly
different emission inputs than APS.20
16 The Baseline Delta dv values represent the
visibility impact of FCPP on the given Class I area.
Higher Delta dv Improvement values represent a
smaller anticipated visibility impact of FCPP on the
Class I area after controls are applied, and thus
greater percent improvement.
17 We proposed as BART a PM emission limit of
0.012 lb/MMBtu that could be met by either a wet
ESP or a baghouse. We did not specify which
control technology must be used to meet the
proposed BART limit.
18 The emission input calculations for this
Supplemental Notice are provided in the docket as
a spreadsheet titled ‘‘FCPP_Supplemental
Emission_Inputs 01–04–11.xlsx’’.
19 In our October 2010 proposal, our separate
modeling analyses of the NOX and PM controls
showed that individually, SCR on Units 1–5 would
reduce the visibility impact of FCPP by an average
of 57% and PM controls on Units 1–3 by less than
1%.
20 EPA’s inputs for NO are consistent with the
X
BART guidelines for modeling anticipated visibility
improvement. Additionally, in modeling the
combined effects of SCR and PM controls on Units
1–3 for the EPA BART scenario, EPA included a
factor of 0.72 in the sulfuric acid calculation (as
SO4) to account for the additional 28% sulfuric acid
control provided by the wet ESP as reported in EPRI
2010. AECOM did not include additional control of
sulfuric acid from the new wet ESP on Units 1–3.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10540
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—MODELING RESULTS—98TH PERCENTILE DELTA DV IMPROVEMENT AND PERCENT CHANGE IN DELTA DECIVIEW
(DV) 21 IMPACT FROM EPA’S BART PROPOSAL AND ALTERNATIVE EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGY COMPARED TO
BASELINE IMPACTS FROM 2001–2003 USING 1 PPB AMMONIA BACKGROUND SCENARIO AS MODELED BY EPA
Distance to
FCPP
Baseline
impact
Kilometers
(km)
Improvement from EPA’s
proposal
Delta
dv
Class I area
Delta
dv
%
Improvement from alternative emission control
strategy
Delta
dv
%
Arches National Park .......................................................
Bandelier Wilderness Area ..............................................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison WA .................................
Canyonlands NP ..............................................................
Capitol Reef NP ...............................................................
Grand Canyon NP ...........................................................
Great Sand Dunes NM ....................................................
La Garita WA ...................................................................
Maroon Bells Snowmass WA ..........................................
Mesa Verde NP ...............................................................
Pecos WA ........................................................................
Petrified Forest NP ..........................................................
San Pedro Parks WA .......................................................
Weminuche WA ...............................................................
West Elk WA ....................................................................
Wheeler Peak WA ...........................................................
245
216
217
214
283
345
279
202
294
62
258
224
160
137
245
265
4.11
2.90
2.36
5.24
3.23
1.63
1.16
1.72
1.04
5.95
2.16
1.40
3.88
1.87
2.76
1.53
2.41
1.65
1.43
2.85
1.88
0.88
0.68
1.06
0.65
2.49
1.18
0.66
2.04
1.2
1.74
0.85
55
56
60
52
52
56
61
61
63
46
57
56
53
62
59
58
2.99
2.06
1.8
3.76
2.4
1.12
0.83
1.28
0.78
3.42
1.52
0.92
2.75
1.42
2.04
1.1
72
72
75
70
70
73
74
75
77
64
72
72
70
76
73
73
Total Delta dv or Average % Change in Delta dv ....
....................
42.94
23.65
57%
30.19
72%
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Alternative Emission Control Strategy
Has Lower Cost Than EPA’s Proposed
BART Determination
APS did not provide any information
to EPA on the cost of its proposed
alternative. In our October 19, 2010
BART proposal and TSD, we presented
cost and cost effectiveness information
for SCR on Units 1–5. The cost
effectiveness of SCR ranged from
$2,515–$2,678 per ton of NOX reduced.
The total capital investment and total
annual cost of SCR on Units 1–3
represented approximately 39% of total
facility-wide cost. Therefore, this
alternative emissions control strategy,
which calls for closing Units 1–3 and
installing SCR on Units 4 and 5, should
be approximately 39% less costly than
EPA’s proposed BART determination
requiring SCR retrofits on all five units.
IV. EPA’s Supplemental Proposal
In this proposal, EPA is proposing
that the closure of Units 1–3 by 2014
and installation and operation of SCR
on Units 4 and 5 to meet a NOX
emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu each
by July 31, 2018, represents reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal under CAA Section 169A(b)(2)
because it would result in better
visibility improvement at a lower cost
than our October 19, 2010 BART
21 The Delta dv values represent the visibility
impact of FCPP on the given Class I area. Higher
Delta dv Improvement values represent a smaller
anticipated visibility impact of FCPP on the Class
I area after controls are applied, and thus greater
percent improvement.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
proposal. EPA is proposing to require
FCPP to meet a NOX emission limit for
Units 4 and 5 of 0.098 lb/MMBtu each
on the 30-day rolling average by July 31,
2018.
EPA is supplementing our October 19,
2010 BART proposal with regulatory
language that would allow APS to
comply with this alternative emission
control strategy in lieu of complying
with our October 19, 2010 BART
proposal. EPA is continuing to propose
to require APS to meet PM and 10%
opacity limits on Units 4 and 5, as well
as the 20% opacity limits for controlling
dust from coal and ash handling and
storage facilities, included in our
October 19, 2010 proposal. The October
2010 proposal required FCPP to meet
the PM emission limits on Units 4 and
5 180 days after the re-start of the units
following the installation of SCR on
those units. EPA is requesting comment
on whether the PM emission limits and
opacity limits on Units 4 and 5 should
become effective prior to SCR
installation, for both the proposed
BART determination and the alternative
emission control strategy.
In this supplemental proposed rule,
EPA is also including a proposed
schedule for installation of add-on postcombustion NOX controls for our
October 19, 2010 proposed BART
determination, which was not included
in the 2010 proposal, deleting the
requirement under paragraph (i) to
submit a plan and schedule for
compliance to the Regional
Administrator within 180 days of the
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
effective date of the rule because it is
redundant and less specific than the
new requirement added as subparagraph
(6) of paragraph (i) that a final plan be
submitted by January 1, 2013, adding a
test substitution allowance for PM
testing on Units 4 and 5 that was
included for Unit 1–3 but inadvertently
excluded for Units 4 and 5 in the
October 2010 proposal, and also
replacing references to ‘‘SCR’’ in the
regulatory language with ‘‘add-on postcombustion NOX controls’’.
EPA is proposing to require FCPP to
install and operate add-on postcombustion NOX controls on at least 560
MW of net generation within 3 years of
the effective date of the final rule, and
on at least 1310 MW of net generation
within 4 years of the effective date of
the final rule. EPA’s proposed
installation schedule requires add-on
post-combustion NOX controls be
installed on a given MW capacity rather
than on specific units, in order to
provide FCPP with the flexibility to
determine the order of retrofits. As
proposed, FCPP would have the option
to begin retrofits on Units 1–3, or on
Unit 4 or 5.
EPA is requesting comment by May 2,
2011 on both our October 19, 2010
BART proposal and this supplemental
proposed rule proposing to allow APS
to implement this alternative emissions
control strategy. We are additionally
requesting comment on adding a NOX
emission limit requiring greater than
80% control over longer averaging times
weighted for heat-input, and the
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
appropriate effective date of the PM
limits on Units 4 and 5.
EPA understands that APS must
receive approvals from several Federal
and State agencies (e.g., the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, the
Arizona Corporation Commission, and
the California Public Utilities
Commission), and lease renewals from
the Navajo Nation, which are expected
to occur by the end of 2012, in order to
implement this alternative emission
control strategy. If this Supplemental
rulemaking is finalized as proposed,
APS will be required either to comply
with this alternative emissions control
strategy or the requirements of EPA’s
October 19, 2010 BART proposal as
modified by this supplemental proposed
rule regarding phase-in of controls.
FCPP will be required to provide
notification to EPA of its intended
strategy for reducing NOX by June 1,
2012 and its final decision by January 1,
2013.
V. Administrative Requirements
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) because it is
supplementing a proposed rule that
applies to only one facility and is not a
rule of general applicability. This
supplemental proposed rule, therefore,
is not subject to review under EO 12866.
This action proposes a source-specific
FIP for the Four Corners Power Plant on
the Navajo Nation.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
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, Four Corners Power
Plant, the Paperwork 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 supplemental proposed rule
on small entities, small entity is defined
as: (1) A small business as defined by
the Small Business Administration’s
(SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county,
town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this supplemental proposed
rule to our proposed action on small
entities, I certify that this supplemental
proposed rule to our proposed action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The FIP for Four Corners Power
Plant being addressed today would not
impose any new requirements on small
entities. See Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327
(DC Cir. 1985)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This supplemental proposed rule, if
finalized, will impose an enforceable
duty on the private sector owners of
FCPP. However, this proposed rule does
not contain a Federal mandate that may
result in expenditures of $100 million
(in 1996 dollars) or more for State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10541
or the private sector in any one year.
EPA’s estimate for the total annual cost
to install and operate SCR on all five
units at FCPP and the cost to install and
operate new PM controls on Units 1–3
does not exceed $100 million (in 1996
dollars) in any one year and the
alternative emissions control strategy to
shut down Units 1–3 and install SCR on
Units 4 and 5 is expected to be less
costly than EPA’s proposed BART
determination. Thus, this supplemental
proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA. This proposed action is also not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. This supplemental
proposed rule will not impose direct
compliance costs on the Navajo Nation,
and will not preempt Navajo law. This
supplemental proposed rule will, if
finalized, reduce the emissions of two
pollutants from a single source, the Four
Corners Power Plant.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Under section 6(b) of Executive Order
13132, EPA may not issue an action that
has federalism implications, that
imposes substantial direct compliance
costs on State or local governments, and
that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the
funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and
local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
action. In addition, under section 6(c) of
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue an action that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law, unless the Agency consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
action.
EPA has concluded that this
supplemental proposed rule, if
finalized, may have federalism
implications because it makes calls for
emissions reductions of two pollutants
from a specific source on the Navajo
Nation. However, the supplemental
proposed rule, if finalized, will not
impose substantial direct compliance
costs on the Tribal government, and will
not preempt Tribal law. Thus, the
requirements of sections 6(b) and 6(c) of
the Executive Order do not apply to this
action.
Consistent with EPA policy, EPA
nonetheless consulted with
representatives of Tribal governments
early in the process of developing the
proposed action to permit them to have
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
10542
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
meaningful and timely input into its
development.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, Nov. 9, 2000), requires EPA to
develop ‘‘an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
Tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ Under Executive Order
13175, to the extent practicable and
permitted by law, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has Tribal implications,
that imposes substantial direct
compliance costs on Indian Tribal
governments, and that is not required by
statute, unless the Federal government
provides the funds necessary to pay
direct compliance costs incurred by
Tribal governments, or EPA consults
with Tribal officials early in the process
of developing the proposed regulation
and develops a Tribal summary impact
statement. In addition, to the extent
practicable and permitted by law, EPA
may not issue a regulation that has
Tribal implications and pre-empts
Tribal law unless EPA consults with
Tribal officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation and
prepares a tribal summary impact
statement.
EPA has concluded that this
supplemental proposed rule, if
finalized, may have Tribal implications
because it will require emissions
reductions of two pollutants by a major
stationary source located and operating
on the Navajo reservation. However, this
supplemental proposed rule, if
finalized, will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on
Tribal governments nor pre-empt Tribal
law because the proposed FIP imposes
obligations only on the owners or
operator of the Four Corners Power
Plant.
EPA has consulted with officials of
the Navajo Nation in the process of
developing our October 19, 2010
proposed FIP. Additionally, EPA
discussed our plans for supplementing
our proposal with our analysis of APS’
alternative emissions control strategy
with Navajo Nation Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA had an inperson meeting with Tribal
representatives prior to the October 19,
2010 proposal and will continue to
consult with Tribal officials during the
public comment period on the proposed
FIP. In addition, EPA provided Navajo
Nation and other Tribal governments
additional time to submit formal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
comments on our Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Several Tribes,
including the Navajo, submitted
comments which EPA considered in
developing this NPR. Therefore, EPA
has allowed the Navajo Nation to
provide meaningful and timely input
into the development of this proposed
rule and will continue to consult with
the Navajo Nation and other affected
Tribes prior to finalizing our BART
determination.
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 supplemental proposed rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it requires emissions reductions
of two pollutants from a single
stationary source. Because this
supplemental proposed rule only
applies to a single source and is not a
proposed rule of general applicability, it
is not economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866,
and does not have a disproportionate
effect on children. However, to the
extent that the final rule will reduce
emissions of PM and NOX, which
contribute to ozone and PM formation,
the rule will have a beneficial effect on
children’s health be reducing air
pollution that causes or exacerbates
childhood asthma and other respiratory
issues.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104–
113, 12 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that
are developed or adopted by the VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through annual
reports to OMB, with explanations
when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable VCS.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the
Agency conducted a search to identify
potentially applicable VCS. For the
measurements listed below, there are a
number of VCS that appear to have
possible use in lieu of the EPA test
methods and performance specifications
(40 CFR part 60, appendices A and B)
noted next to the measurement
requirements. It would not be practical
to specify these standards in the current
proposed rulemaking due to a lack of
sufficient data on equivalency and
validation and because some are still
under development. However, EPA’s
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards is in the process of reviewing
all available VCS for incorporation by
reference into the test methods and
performance specifications of 40 CFR
Part 60, Appendices A and B. Any VCS
so incorporated in a specified test
method or performance specification
would then be available for use in
determining the emissions from this
facility. This will be an ongoing process
designed to incorporate suitable VCS as
they become available. EPA is
requesting comment on other
appropriate VCS for measuring opacity
or emissions of PM and NOX.
Particulate Matter Emissions—EPA
Methods 1 Through 5
Opacity—EPA Method 9 and
Performance Specification Test 1 for
Opacity Monitoring
NOX Emissions—Continuous Emissions
Monitors
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,
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
supplemental 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 requires emissions
reductions of two pollutants from a
single stationary source, Four Corners
Power Plant.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Title 40, chapter I of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 49—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 49
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Section 49.23 is amended by
adding paragraphs (i) and (j) to read as
follows:
§ 49.23 Federal Implementation Plan
Provisions for Four Corners Power Plant,
Navajo Nation.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
*
*
(i) Regional Haze Best Available
Retrofit Technology limits for this plant
are in addition to the requirements of
paragraphs (a) through (h) of this
section. All definitions and testing and
monitoring methods of this section
apply to the limits in paragraph (i) of
this section except as indicated in
paragraphs (i)(1) through (4) of this
section. The interim NOX emission
limits for each unit shall be effective
180 days after re-start of the unit after
installation of add-on post-combustion
NOX controls for that unit and until the
plant-wide limit goes into effect. The
plant-wide NOX limit shall be effective
no later than 5 years after the effective
date of this paragraph. The owner or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
operator may elect to meet the plantwide limit early to remove the
individual unit limits. Particulate limits
for Units 1, 2, and 3 shall be effective
180 days after re-start of the units after
installation of the PM controls but no
later than 5 years after the effective date
of this paragraph (i). Particulate limits
for Units 4 and 5 shall be effective 180
days after re-start of the units after
installation of the add-on postcombustion NOX controls.
(1) Particulate Matter for units 1, 2,
and 3 shall be limited to 0.012 lb/
MMBtu for each unit as measured by the
average of three test runs with each run
collecting a minimum of 60 dscf of
sample gas and with aduration of at
least 120 minutes. Sampling shall be
performed according to 40 CFR Part 60
Appendices A–1 through A–3, Methods
1 through 4, and Method 5 or Method
5e. The averaging time for any other
demonstration of the particulate matter
compliance or exceedence shall be
based on a six hour average. Particulate
testing shall be performed annually as
required by paragraph (e)(3) of this
section. This test with 120 minute test
runs may be substituted and used to
demonstrate compliance with the
particulate limits in paragraph (d)(2) of
this section.
(2) Particulate Matter from units 4 and
5 shall be limited to 0.015 lb/MMbtu for
each unit as measured by the average of
three test runs with each run collecting
a minimum of 60 dscf of sample gas and
with a duration of at least 120 minutes.
Sampling shall be performed according
to 40 CFR Part 60 Appendices A–1
through A–3, Methods 1 through 4 and
Method 5 or Method 5e. The averaging
time for any other demonstration of the
particulate matter compliance or
exceedence shall be based on a six hour
average. Particulate testing shall be
performed annually as required by
paragraph (e)(3) of this section. This test
with 120 minute test runs may be
substituted and used to demonstrate
compliance with the particulate limits
in paragraph (d)(2) of this section.
(3) No owner or operator shall
discharge or cause the discharge of
emissions from the stacks of Units 1, 2,
3, 4 or 5 into the atmosphere exhibiting
greater than 10% opacity, excluding
uncombined water droplets, averaged
over any six (6) minute period.
(4) Plant-wide nitrogen oxide
emission limits.
(i) The plant-wide nitrogen oxide
limit, expressed as nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), shall be 0.11 lb/MMBtu as
averaged over a rolling 30 calendar day
period. NOX emissions for each calendar
day shall be determined by summing
the hourly emissions measured as
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
10543
pounds of NO2 for all operating units.
Heat input for each calendar day shall
be determined by adding together all
hourly heat inputs, in millions of BTU,
for all operating units. Each day the 30
day rolling average shall be determined
by adding together that day’s and the
preceding 29 days’ pounds of NO2 and
dividing that total pounds of NO2 by the
sum of the heat input during the same
30 day period. The results shall be the
30 day rolling pound per million BTU
emissions of NOX.
(ii) The interim NOX limit for each
individual boiler with add-on postcombustion NOX control shall be as
follows:
(A) Unit 1 shall meet a rolling 30
calendar day NOX limit of 0.21 lb/
MMBtu,
(B) Unit 2 shall meet a rolling 30
calendar day limit of 0.17 lb/MMBtu,
(C) Unit 3 shall meet a rolling 30
calendar day limit of 0.16 lb/MMBtu,
(D) Units 4 and 5 shall meet a rolling
30 calendar day limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu,
each.
(iii) Schedule for add-on postcombustion NOX controls installation
(A) Within 3 years of the effective
date of this rule, FCPP shall have
installed add-on post-combustion NOX
controls on at least 560 MW (net) of
generation.
(B) Within 4 years of the effective date
of this rule, FCPP shall have installed
add-on post-combustion NOX controls
on at least 1310 MW (net) of generation.
(iv) Testing and monitoring shall use
the 40 CFR part 75 monitors and meet
the 40 CFR part 75 quality assurance
requirements. In addition to these 40
CFR part 75 requirements, relative
accuracy test audits shall be performed
for both the NOX pounds per hour
measurement and the heat input
measurement. These shall have relative
accuracies of less than 20%. This testing
shall be evaluated each time the 40 CFR
part 75 monitors undergo relative
accuracy testing.
(v) 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 plant wide
rolling average.
(vi) Upon the effective date of the
plant-wide NOX average, the owner or
operator shall have installed CEMS and
COMS software that complies with the
requirements of this section.
(5) In lieu of meeting the NOX
requirements of paragraph (i)(4) of this
section, FCPP may choose to
permanently shut down Units 1, 2, and
3 by January 1, 2014 and meet the
requirements of this paragraph to
control NOX emissions from Units 4 and
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
10544
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 38 / Friday, February 25, 2011 / Proposed Rules
5. By July 31, 2018, Units 4 and 5 shall
be retrofitted with add-on postcombustion NOX controls to reduce
NOX emissions. Units 4 and 5 shall each
meet a 0.098 lb/MMBtu emission limit
for NOX expressed as NO2 over a rolling
30 day average. Emissions from each
unit shall be measured with the 40 CFR
part 75 continuous NOX monitor system
and expressed in the units of lb/MMBtu
and recorded each hour. A valid hour of
NOX data shall be determined per 40
CFR part 75. For each calendar day,
every valid hour of NOX lb/MMBtu
measurement shall be averaged to
determine a daily average. Each daily
average shall be averaged with the
preceding 29 valid daily averages to
determine the 30 day rolling average.
The NOX monitoring system shall meet
the data requirements of 40 CFR
60.49Da(e)(2) (at least 90% valid hours
for all operating hours over any 30
successive boiler operating days).
Emission testing using 40 CFR part 60
appendix A Method 7E may be used to
supplement any missing data due to
continuous monitor problems. The 40
CFR part 75 requirements for bias
adjusting and data substitution do not
apply for adjusting the data for this
emission limit.
(6) By June 1, 2012, the owner or
operator shall submit a letter to the
Regional Administrator updating EPA of
the status of lease negotiations and
regulatory approvals required to comply
with paragraph (i)(5) of this section. By
January 1, 2013, the owner or operator
shall notify the Regional Administrator
by letter whether it will comply with
paragraph (i)(5) of this section or
whether it will comply with paragraph
(i)(4) of this section and shall submit a
plan and time table for compliance with
either paragraph (i)(4) or (i)(5) of this
section. The owner or operator shall
amend and submit this amended plan to
the Regional Administrator as changes
occur.
(7) The owner or operator shall follow
the requirements of 40 CFR part 71 for
submitting an application for permit
revision to update its Part 71 operating
permit after it achieves compliance with
paragraph (i)(4) or (i)(5) of this section.
(j) Dust. Each owner or operator shall
operate and maintain the existing dust
suppression methods for controlling
dust from the coal handling and ash
handling and storage facilities. Within
ninety (90) days after promulgation of
this paragraph, the owner or operator
shall develop a dust control plan and
submit the plan to the Regional
Administrator. The owner or operator
shall comply with the plan once the
plan is submitted to the Regional
Administrator. The owner or operator
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:08 Feb 24, 2011
Jkt 223001
shall amend the plan as requested or
needed. The plan shall include a
description of the dust suppression
methods for controlling dust from the
coal handling and storage facilities, ash
handling, storage, and landfills, and
road sweeping activities. Within 18
months of promulgation of this
paragraph each owner or operator shall
not emit dust with opacity greater than
20 percent from any crusher, grinding
mill, screening operation, belt conveyor,
or truck loading or unloading operation.
[FR Doc. 2011–3998 Filed 2–24–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0924; FRL–9270–6]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans, State of
Louisiana
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
portions of State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revisions for the State of
Louisiana. The rule revisions, which
cover the years 1996–2006, were
submitted by the State of Louisiana, and
include formatting changes, regulatory
wording changes, substantive or content
changes, and incorporation by reference
(IBR) of Federal rules. These cumulative
revisions affect Louisiana
Administrative Code (LAC) 33:III,
Chapters 1, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, 21,
22, 23, 25, 30, 60, 61, and 65. The
overall intended outcome is to make the
approved Louisiana SIP consistent with
current Federal and State requirements.
We are approving the revisions in
accordance with 110 of the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act) and EPA’s regulations.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before March 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R06–
OAR–2007–0924 by one of the following
methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
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
except for legal holidays. Special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007–
0924. 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
the disclosure of which is restricted by
statute. Do not submit information
through https://www.regulations.gov or
e-mail that you consider to be CBI or
otherwise protected from disclosure.
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,
CONTACT
E:\FR\FM\25FEP1.SGM
25FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 38 (Friday, February 25, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10530-10544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3998]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 49
[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683; FRL-9269-4]
Supplemental Proposed Rule of Source Specific Federal
Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology
for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Supplemental proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On October 19, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
published a proposal to promulgate a source specific Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) requiring the Four Corners Power Plant
(FCPP), located on the Navajo Nation, to achieve emissions reductions
required by the Clean Air Act's Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) provision. On November 24, 2010, Arizona Public Service (APS)
acting on behalf of FCPP's owners submitted a letter to EPA offering an
alternative proposal to reduce visibility-impairing pollution. In this
action, EPA is supplementing our October 19, 2010 BART proposal with
our technical evaluation of APS' alternative proposal. We are proposing
to find that a different alternative emissions control strategy would
achieve more progress than EPA's BART proposal towards achieving
visibility improvements in the surrounding Class I areas.
DATES: Comments on this supplemental proposed rule must be submitted no
later than May 2, 2011.
Open houses and public hearings will be held on the following
dates:
Shiprock Chapter, Shiprock, New Mexico--March 29, 2011;
Nenahnezad Chapter, Fruitland, New Mexico--March 30, 2011;
Farmington, New Mexico--March 30, 2011;
Durango, Colorado--March 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0683, by one of the following methods:
[[Page 10531]]
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
on-line instructions.
E-mail: r9air_fcppbart@epa.gov.
Mail or deliver: Anita Lee (Air-3), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Instructions: All comments 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://www.regulations.gov is an
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. 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.
Hearings: EPA is holding public hearings in four locations in the
Four Corners area to accept oral and written comments on our October
19, 2010 proposed rulemaking and this supplemental proposed rule. See
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further information on the hearings.
The open houses and public hearings will be held at the following
locations:
Shiprock Chapter, Shiprock, New Mexico--March 29, 2011, Open House
from 3 p.m.-6 p.m. and Public Hearing from 7 p.m.-9 p.m. local time,
Phil L. Thomas Performing Arts Center, Highway 64 West, Shiprock, New
Mexico, 87420, (505) 368-2490;
Nenahnezad Chapter, Fruitland, New Mexico--March 30, 2011, combined
Open House and Public Hearing from 9 a.m.-1 p.m. local time, Nenahnezad
Chapter House, Multi-Purpose Room, Highway 64 to County Road 6675 to
end of Navajo Route 365, (505) 960-9702;
Farmington, New Mexico--March 30, 2011, Open House from 3 p.m.-5
p.m. and Public Hearing from 6 p.m.-9 p.m. local time, San Juan
College, Henderson Fine Arts Building Rooms 9006 and 9008, Farmington,
New Mexico, 97402, (505) 326-3311;
Durango, Colorado--March 31, 2011, Open House from 3 p.m.-5 p.m.
and Public Hearing from 6 p.m.-9 p.m. local time, Fort Lewis College,
Center of Southwest Studies Lyceum Room, 1000 Rim Drive, Durango,
Colorado, 81301, (970) 247-7456.
Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3958, r9air_fcppbart@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we'', ``us'',
and ``our'' refer to EPA.
EPA is providing 30 days advance notice of our scheduled hearings
and opening a comment period on this supplemental proposed rule that
extends from the publication date of this document until May 2, 2011,
which is 30 days after our last scheduled hearing, resulting in more
than 60 days to comment on this supplemental proposed rule. On December
8, 2010, EPA extended the comment period for our October 19, 2010 BART
proposal until March 18, 2011. EPA is accepting comment on both
proposals concurrently. Accordingly, in this action, EPA is also
extending the public comment period on the October 19, 2010 BART
proposal until May 2, 2011.
EPA will not respond to comments during the public hearing. When we
publish our final action, we will provide written responses to all oral
and written comments received on our October 19, 2010 proposal and on
this supplemental proposed rule. To provide opportunities for questions
and discussion, EPA will hold open houses prior to, or concurrently
with, the public hearings. During these open houses, EPA staff will be
available to informally answer questions on our proposed action and
this supplemental proposed rule. Any comments made to EPA staff during
the open houses must still be provided formally in writing or orally
during a public hearing in order to be considered in the record.
Oral testimony may be limited to 5 minutes for each commenter to
address the proposal or this supplemental proposed rule. We will not be
providing equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make
computerized slide presentations. Any person may provide written or
oral comments, in English or Din[eacute], and data pertaining to our
proposal at the Public Hearing. English-Din[eacute] translation
services will be provided at both the Open Houses and the Public
Hearings in Shiprock, Fruitland, and Farmington. English-Dine
translation services will not be provided at the Durango Open House and
Public Hearing unless it is requested by March 14, 2011. If you require
a reasonable accommodation, by March 14, 2011, please contact Anita Lee
using one of the methods provided in the ADDRESSES section of this
supplemental proposed rule. Verbatim transcripts, in English, of the
hearings and written statements will be included in the rulemaking
docket.
The public hearings for the three evening events are scheduled to
close at 9 p.m., but may close later, if necessary, depending on the
number of speakers wishing to participate.
If you are unable to attend the public hearings but wish to submit
written comments on the proposed rule or this supplemental proposed
rule, you may submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0683, by one of the following methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section.
Table of Contents
I. Background and Summary
II. Legal Background for Proposing To Approve an Alternative
Emissions Control Strategy as Achieving Better Progress Towards the
National Visibility Goal
III. EPA's Technical Analysis of Better Reasonable Progress Towards
National Visibility Goal
A. Estimated NOX Emission Reductions
1. Proposed NOX Emission Limit To Apply on Units 4
and 5 With Installation of SCR by July 31, 2018
2. Alternative Emissions Control Strategy Will Result in Greater
Visibility Improvement than BART
B. Benefits in Addition to NOX Emissions Reductions
C. Modeling and Demonstrating Reasonable Progress
D. Alternative Emissions Control Strategy Has Lower Cost Than
EPA's Proposed BART Determination
IV. EPA's Supplemental Proposal
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
[[Page 10532]]
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. Background and Summary
EPA's proposed BART determination, which was published on October
19, 2010, provided a thorough discussion of the legal and factual
background concerning our proposed BART rulemaking and FCPP. 75 FR
64221. APS is the sole owner of Units 1-3, a partial owner of Units 4
and 5, and the operator of FCPP. APS provided an initial response to
EPA's BART proposal during a meeting on November 9, 2010 and by letter
dated November 24, 2010. The initial response indicated that APS had
reached an agreement on November 8, 2010, to purchase the ownership
interest in Units 4 and 5 from Southern California Edison (SCE). APS
further announced that upon final authorization of purchasing SCE's
interest in Units 4 and 5, APS would begin a process to shut down Units
1-3 that would be completed by the beginning of 2014. In addition, upon
final authorization, APS would commence work in 2014 to install SCR on
Units 4 and 5 with a schedule for the SCR to be fully installed and
operational on both units by 2018. APS proposed a NOX
emissions limit of 0.11 lb/MMMBtu, to be achieved by the end of 2018.
APS justified requesting its schedule of 2014 to shut down Units 1-3
and 2018 to install SCR on Units 4 and 5 based on its need to secure
several Federal, State, and Tribal authorizations to execute this
alternative emissions control strategy.
According to APS' calculations, under their alternative strategy,
FCPP would, beginning in 2019, emit 2,650 tons per year (tpy) less
NOX pollution than under EPA's October 19, 2010 BART
proposal. APS also provided a summary of the significant annual and
cumulative (through 2037) reductions of NOX, sulfur dioxide
(SO2), particulate matter (PM), mercury (Hg), water use, and
carbon dioxide (CO2) that would result from shutting down
Units 1-3 and operating SCR on Units 4 and 5. EPA's October 19, 2010
BART proposal did not require reductions of SO2, Hg, or
CO2 emissions or reductions in water use.
APS states that revenue associated with operating FCPP comprises
roughly 35% of the Navajo Nation's general fund. FCPP and the mine
supplying the coal provide about 1,000 jobs, the majority of which are
filled by Native American employees. FCPP and the mine also pay
significant taxes and generate other revenue for the area.
EPA requested APS to submit the emissions calculations and modeling
files supporting the conclusions APS set forth in its letter of
November 24, 2010. APS submitted those emissions calculations and
modeling files to EPA on November 29, 2010 and December 3, 2010. The
emission calculation spreadsheet is available in our electronic docket
(EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683, document number 0080.1--identified as an xlsx
file), and the modeling files are available upon request.
EPA has conducted its own technical analysis of the alternative
proposal APS put forward on November 24, 2010. Our analysis, as
described in this supplemental proposed rule, finds that an alternative
emission control strategy to shut down Units 1-3 by 2014 and operate
SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018 to achieve a more stringent but
still feasible NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu will
result in greater visibility improvement than both EPA's October 19,
2010 BART proposal and November 24, 2010 APS' alternative proposal.\1\
Our analysis differs in some respects from APS regarding the emissions
benefit and visibility improvement from APS' proposal. However, when
viewing the combined short term and long term effect of the alternative
emission control strategy, EPA is proposing to find that shutting down
Units 1-3 in 2014 and operating SCR on Units 4 and 5 by July 31, 2018
will result in greater visibility improvement at the surrounding Class
I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA's revisions to APS' proposal is referred to throughout
this notice as ``the alternative emission control strategy''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCPP is comprised of five coal-fired units of different sizes and
ownership. Ownership of Units 4 and 5, the two largest units at FCPP at
750 MW each, is currently shared between six entities--SCE, APS, Public
Service Company of New Mexico (PNM), Salt River Project (SRP), El Paso
Electric Company (EPEC), and Tucson Electric Power (TEP). Table 1
provides a brief summary of characteristics of the five units.
Table 1--Summary of Units 1-5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Operation Began............ 1963 1963 1964 1969 1970
Capacity (MW)................... 170 170 220 750 750
Heat Input Rate (MMBtu/hr)...... 1,863 1,863 2,400 7,411 7,411
NOX Baseline emission rate (lb/ 0.78 0.64 0.59 0.49 0.49
MMBtu).........................
PM Baseline emission rate (lb/ 0.025 0.029 0.029 0.014 0.010
MMBtu).........................
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership....................... APS--100%
SCE--48%, APS--15%, PNM--13%,
SRP--10%, EPEC--7%, TEP--7%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 provides a summary of the annual and cumulative emissions
and water use reductions that will result from APS' proposal. Table 2
shows the emission reductions as stated by APS in its submittal,
however, for the cumulative NOX emissions reduced, EPA
believes with the correction of an evident calculation error on the
part of APS this value should be 388,416 tons (16,184 tons per year x
24 years), not 104,958.
[[Page 10533]]
Table 2--Emission Reductions Achieved by Closing Units 1-3, Reproduced
From APS' November 24, 2010 Submittal \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Cumulative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (tons).............................. 16,184 104,958
SO2 (tons).............................. 2,852 68,448
PM (tons)............................... 678 16,272
Hg (pounds)............................. 361 8,664
Water use (acre-feet)................... 6,000 144,000
CO2 (million tons)...................... 5.2 125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Annual emissions are based on APS' current emissions
reported to EPA. Cumulative emissions are based on APS's proposal
from 2014 to 2037 prior to end of new lease (24 year period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Legal Background for Proposing To Approve APS' Alternative Emission
Control Strategy as Achieving Better Progress Towards the National
Visibility Goal
Section 169A(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act requires a complete
implementation plan for visibility improvement to contain such
emissions limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures that may
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal. The implementation plan provisions must include, as
appropriate, BART under CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A) and a long term
strategy under CAA section 169A(b)(2)(B).
In 1991, EPA considered a factual situation similar to the
circumstances at hand. EPA had published a proposed rule requiring the
owners and operators of Navajo Generating Station (NGS) to install
emissions controls to reduce SO 2 emissions because those
emissions from NGS were shown to impair visibility in the Grand Canyon
National Park. 55 FR 5173 (Feb. 8, 1991). The proposed rulemaking
included an SO 2 emission limit, based on analysis of
several different levels of SO 2 reduction, as BART pursuant
to authority in CAA Section 169A(b)(2)(A). 56 FR 5178. Before EPA
finalized the rule, the owner and operator of NGS, along with several
environmental groups, submitted an alternative plan to EPA. The
alternative plan would provide greater emissions reductions of SO
2 at a lower cost than EPA's proposed rule. EPA published a
Supplemental Notice seeking comments on the alternative plan. 56 FR
38399 (Aug. 13, 1991).
In the NGS Supplemental Notice, EPA examined its legal authority
under Section 169A(b)(2). Id. Appendix B. EPA noted that in crafting
the visibility reasonable progress requirements,
Congress did not explicitly address, and apparently did not even
consider, whether there could be greater visibility improvement at a
lower cost in furtherance of the national goal through an
implementation plan provision that relied more generally on
subsection (b)(2), rather than on specific provisions of
subparagraph (A) and/or subparagraph (B). Where Congress has not
directly spoken to the precise question at issue, EPA may make a
reasonable construction of the statute that is appropriate in the
context of the particular program at issue. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-45
(1984).
Id. at 38403. EPA evaluated the alternative plan and agreed that it
would provide greater visibility improvement at lower cost than EPA's
proposed BART rulemaking. EPA's Supplemental Notice stated:
Based on the staff conclusions regarding the factual
circumstances of this case, EPA could reasonably find that the
present alternative, with its higher expected visibility improvement
and lower expected costs (in comparison to the February 1991
proposed rule), best fulfills the overarching statutory requirement
in section 169A(b)(2)(which incorporates the more specific
provisions of subparagraphs (A) and (B)) that implementation plan
revisions adopted under subparagraphs 169A make ``reasonable
progress'' toward the national visibility goal.
Id.
EPA finalized the proposed rule for NGS in October 1991. 56 FR
50172 (Oct. 3, 1991). In the final rule, EPA adopted the rationale from
the August 1991 Supplemental Notice that EPA had legal authority under
section 169A(b)(2) to finalize an alternative to BART provided it made
greater reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. Id.
at 50177.
The Central Arizona Project (CAP) petitioned the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals to review EPA's final rule. The Ninth Circuit issued
an opinion on March 25, 1993, upholding EPA's legal authority to
finalize an alternative to BART as making reasonable progress where
that alternative resulted in greater visibility improvement at a lower
cost. Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. United States
Environmental Protection Agency, 990 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. Mar. 25,
1993). The Court noted that ``[u]nder the unique circumstances of this
case, however, EPA chose not to adopt the emission control limits
indicated by BART analysis, but instead to adopt an emission
limitations standard that would produce greater visibility improvement
at a lower cost.'' Id. at 1543. The Court then held:
Since the Act itself is ambiguous on the specific issue, we
apply the Supreme Court's deferential standard from Chevron and hold
that the agency's reliance on the ``reasonable progress'' provisions
is a ``permissible construction of the statute,'' 467 U.S. at 843,
104 S.Ct. at 2782, since ``reasonable progress'' is the overarching
requirement that implementation plan revisions under 42 U.S.C.
7491(b)(2) must address.
Id.
EPA revised its regulations implementing sections 169A and 169B of
the CAA in several iterations beginning in 1999. Among other things,
the 1999 Regional Haze Rule codified the gap-filling approach EPA used
in the 1991 NGS rulemaking. 64 FR 35714, 35739 (July 1, 1999). The
Regional Haze Rule requires a State or Tribe to submit an
implementation plan containing either emission limitations representing
BART, 40 CFR 308(e)(1), or other alternative measures that will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from BART, 40 CFR
308(e)(2). EPA anticipated at the time that ``the most likely
alternative measures adopted * * * will be an emissions trading
program,'' 64 FR at 35743, but did not limit the States or Tribes to
such an approach. The requirements for alternative programs designed to
achieve better than BART are established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
The EPA modified the regulations addressing alternatives to source-
specific BART requirements in 2005 and again in 2006. In 2005, EPA
established specific criteria for determining whether a trading program
or other alternative measures provides for greater reasonable progress.
70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). To assess whether an alternative meets this
core requirement, States and Tribes must first consider the
distribution of emissions that would result from BART as compared to
the alternative. The regulations provide that
[[Page 10534]]
[i]f the distribution of emissions is not substantially
different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in
greater emissions reductions, then the alternative measures may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Where the alternative would result in a
different distribution of emissions, the regulations require dispersion
modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the
trading program and establish a test against which to measure the
results of the modeling. Id.
In 2006, EPA again revised the Regional Haze Rule, focusing on
regulatory issues associated with the use of an emissions trading
program as an alternative to BART. In this rulemaking, EPA allowed for
a less prescriptive approach to determining whether an alternative
program provides for greater reasonable progress based on the clear
weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).71 FR 60612 (Oct. 13,
2006).
To meet the requirement of the Regional Haze Rule that all
necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the first
long-term strategy for regional haze, if APS elects to implement this
alternative emission control strategy, EPA is proposing to require
Units 4 and 5 to comply with the 0.098 lb/MMBtu NOX emission
limit by July 31, 2018, five months earlier than APS' proposed schedule
for complete SCR installation and operation.
In today's supplemental proposed rule, EPA is proposing to find,
based on the weight of evidence, that a final rule requiring APS to
shut down Units 1-3 by 2014 and install and operate SCR on Units 4 and
5 by July 31, 2018 will result in greater reasonable progress towards
the national visibility goal under section 169A(b)(2) than EPA's
October 19, 2010 BART proposal. Therefore, EPA is proposing to add
regulatory language to the proposed BART rule for FCPP that allows APS
the option to implement its alternative emissions control strategy in
lieu of EPA's BART determination.
III. EPA's Technical Analysis of Better Reasonable Progress Towards
National Visibility Goal
Units 1-3 comprise approximately 27% of the electricity-generating
capacity at FCPP; however, Units 1-3 contribute disproportionately to
facility-wide emissions of NOX (36%), PM (43%), and Hg
(61%). The alternative emissions control strategy of shutting down
Units 1-3 will consequently result in substantial emissions reductions
at FCPP of all pollutants emitted by those units, particularly
NOX, PM, and Hg. See Table 2.
As discussed below, this supplemental proposed rule proposes to
require Units 4 and 5, by July 31, 2018, to meet a lower NOX
emission limit than APS' proposal, five months earlier than proposed by
APS. In this supplemental proposed rule, EPA is proposing to approve
this EPA revision of APS' proposal as an alternative to BART because it
demonstrates better reasonable progress towards the national visibility
goal. Our evaluation shows that the alternative emissions control
strategy will provide greater visibility improvement at all 16 Class I
areas than EPA's BART proposal. See 40 CFR 51.308(e). We discuss our
proposed NOX emissions limit for Units 4 and 5 first because
our subsequent analysis of the emissions reductions and visibility
improvements rely in part on that limit. We will also briefly evaluate
associated non-visibility environmental benefits from the alternative
emission control strategy. Finally, we propose to retain and revise our
October 19, 2010 BART proposal, with a revision described below
regarding phase-in of new controls, as a contingent rule if APS does
not implement its alternative emissions control strategy.
By letter dated January 25, 2011, the National Parks Conservation
Association, Black Mesa Water Coalition, Dine Care, Center for
Biological Diversity, Heal Utah, Grand Canyon Trust, Natural Resources
Defense Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Sevier Citizens for Clean
Air & Water, Sierra Club and WildEarth Guardians submitted comments on
EPA's BART proposal and the proposal APS outlined in its November 24,
2010 letter to EPA. The letter from the consortium of environmental
groups requested EPA to require lower emission limits for several
pollutants emitted by FCPP. EPA considers the January 25, 2011 letter a
comment, which we have posted to our docket and will provide a response
to in our final rulemaking.
A. Estimated NOX Emissions Reductions
1. Proposed NOX Emission Limit To Apply on Units 4 and 5
With Installation of SCR by July 31, 2018
EPA's October 19, 2010 BART proposal provided for a facility-wide
heat input-weighted emission limit for FCPP's Units 1-5 of 0.11 lb/
MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis.\3\ EPA determined that FCPP
could achieve this limit by reducing NOX emissions from each
of its five units by 80%. The limit we proposed in our October 19, 2010
BART proposal did not include or rely on combustion controls, i.e., new
Low-NOX burners (LNB). As described in more detail in our
October 19, 2010 proposal (75 FR 64221), and the technical support
document for the proposal, the original cell boiler design of Units 4
and 5 is difficult to retrofit with modern LNB technology, and even if
combustion controls might result in some improvement in NOX
performance, the potential operational problems were not worth the
small incremental reduction in NOX emissions. EPA proposed
to provide a plant-wide limit to allow flexibility to FCPP to
accommodate anticipated SCR retrofit challenges associated with the
small fireboxes for Units 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The BART guidelines at 40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, require
averaging times for EGUs be based on a 30-day rolling average.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has evaluated the NOX emission limit we consider
achievable under APS' alternative emissions control strategy. In APS'
calculations for its November 24, 2010 proposal, APS assumed that under
its proposed strategy, Units 4 and 5 would meet a limit of 0.11 lb/
MMBtu with installation and operation of SCR, not an 80% reduction from
the Unit 4 and 5 baseline of 0.49 lb/MMBtu. If we apply an 80%
emissions reduction solely to Units 4 and 5, APS should be able to
achieve a NOX limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu for each unit. Our
calculations are based on average baseline emissions from Units 4 and 5
of 0.49 lb/MMBtu each, reduced by a conservative estimate of 80%
control of baseline emissions.
In calculating the NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/MMBtu,
EPA is taking into account the degradation of the SCR catalyst over its
lifetime resulting in the need for periodic replacement to maintain its
activity and performance. Historically, FCPP units are scheduled for
outages only once every three years. Based on this, EPA anticipates
that APS will change out its catalyst on the historic outage schedule
and the new catalyst will be installed every three years. EPA has
calculated the 30-day emission limit (0.098 lb/MMbtu) to reflect the
capability of the catalyst to reduce NOX at the end of this
three year period.
EPA has also determined that pursuing higher levels of
NOX reduction efficiency (i.e., greater than 80%) from SCR
on Units 4 and 5 is limited by the formation of sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) from the SCR catalyst.\4\ Although more
layers
[[Page 10535]]
of catalyst could be used in the SCR unit to further enhance
NOX removal, the presence of additional catalyst would
result in higher emissions of sulfuric acid, which is also a
visibility-impairing pollutant. Minimizing the formation of primary
SO3/H2SO4 in the catalyst bed is most
important for visibility improvement at Mesa Verde National Park, the
closest Class I area to FCPP. Primary SO3/
H2SO4 formed on the SCR catalyst would be capable
of impairing visibility immediately after release into the atmosphere,
whereas SO2 emissions need time and distance to convert to
sulfuric acid or particulate ammonium sulfate before these emissions
impact visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The SCR catalyst can oxidize sulfur dioxide (SO2)
to sulfur trioxide (SO3, which, in the presence of water
vapor, forms sulfuric acid) (H2SO4) aerosol,
which causes visibility impairment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, the achievable NOX emission limit for FCPP is
affected by the high ash content in the coal burned by FCPP. The ash
content is approximately 25%, which may adversely affect the capability
of SCR to reach the highest end of the control efficiency range
achieved at other power plants without the use of additional layers of
catalyst or more frequent catalyst replacement.
For these reasons, EPA is proposing to require a NOX
emission limit in this supplemental proposed rule of 0.098 lb/MMBtu. We
are proposing to approve the alternative emission control strategy
requiring Units 1-3 to shut down by January 1, 2014 and Units 4 and 5
to meet an 80% NOX reduction, with a limit of 0.098 lb/
MMBtu, by July 31, 2018. This emission limit can be met by installation
of SCR.
EPA is requesting comment on whether to provide FCPP with
additional flexibility for meeting the 0.098 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) limit by setting the limit as a heat-input weighted limit for
Units 4 and 5,\5\ similar to our BART proposal on October 19, 2010
which set a plant-wide heat-input-weighted limit for Units 1-5. EPA is
also requesting comment on whether our final rule should also set a
lower NOX emission limit that would be averaged over a
longer averaging time to reflect the capability of the SCR when the
catalyst is fresher at the beginning of the three-year outage schedule.
Therefore, EPA is requesting comment on whether an additional, more
stringent (i.e., lower than 0.098 lb/MMBtu) heat-input-weighted
emission limit, representing greater than 80% control, and averaged
over one or three years would be appropriate to assure the optimized
operating efficiency for an SCR-controlled unit where EPA anticipates a
three-year replacement of the catalyst.\6\ A heat-input-weighted limit
averaged over one year could reflect the capability over the third year
of the catalyst in use in either unit. A three-year average on an
individual unit would reflect the capability of the catalyst to reduce
NOX over its entire duration of use. EPA anticipates that
the most stringent numerical limit would be for a single-unit limit on
a 3-year rolling average. Under either of these approaches, the
emission limit would be set such that the facility would be required to
inject sufficient ammonia to maximize the reduction of the
NOX no matter what the age of the catalyst.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The heat-input-weighted limit would be based on the heat
input generated by each individual unit, rather than the rated
capacity, which is identical for Units 4 and 5.
\6\ This more strigent numerical NOX limit with the
longer averaging time could reflect the capability of the catelyst
over a more extended period than a short term limit that
accommodates deterioration of catalyst activity just before new
catalyst is installed.
\7\ Although ammonia also contributes to visibility impairment,
as discussed in the Technical Support Document for our October 29,
2010 proposal, ammonia slip from the SCR is expected to react with
SO3/H2SO4 in the flue gas to form
particulate ammonium sulfate or bisulfate, which would be captured
by the downstream air preheaters, scrubbers, and baghouses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Alternative Emissions Control Strategy Will Result in Greater
Visibility Improvement Than BART
As noted above, EPA's BART proposal was for a facility-wide heat
input-weighted NOX emission limit on Units 1-5 of 0.11 lb/
MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis.\8\ If EPA were to finalize its
BART proposal, the facility-wide NOX emission limit would
apply 5 years after the effective date of the final rule. To evaluate
the alternative emissions control strategy, EPA is assuming that the
earliest possible effective date for a final BART rule for FCPP would
be January 1, 2012. This means that FCPP would be required to meet the
facility-wide 0.11 lb/MMBtu NOX emission limit beginning in
2017. APS calculated this to mean that in 2017 the total that could be
emitted from Units 1-5 under EPA's BART proposal would be 9,184 tpy
NOX (See item number 0080.1 in the docket for this
rulemaking: ``Emissions calculations from APS for its Alternative
Proposal 11-29-10.xlsx'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For PM, EPA proposed an emission limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu to
Units 1-3 and 0.015 lb/MMbtu on Units 4 and 5. The limit on Units 1-
3 would be achievable by installing and operating new particulate
controls on those units, such as new electrostatic precipitators or
baghouses, and by proper operation of the existing baghouses on
Units 4 and 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APS is proposing to reduce NOX (and other pollutants) by
shutting down Units 1-3 by January 1, 2014, three years earlier than
would be achieved by EPA's BART proposal. Because of these shutdowns,
APS projected that NOX emissions from FCPP, under its
proposed alternative, during 2014-2016 would be lower than would be
emitted in those years under EPA's October 19, 2010 proposal. However,
under the alternative emission control strategy, emissions in 2017 and
2018 would be higher than in EPA's October 19, 2010 proposal, because
APS would not achieve its final NOX reductions until the
beginning of 2019. Under APS' proposal, beginning in 2019, Units 4 and
5 would meet an emission limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu, resulting in total
emissions of 6,498 tpy NOX. Therefore, APS' proposal would
produce approximately 30% less NOX emissions per year than
EPA's BART proposal beginning in 2019.
In contrast to APS' proposal to meet a limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu by
the end of 2018, EPA is proposing as the alternative emission control
strategy to require a lower NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/
MMBtu beginning July 31, 2018. EPA is proposing a compliance date five
months earlier than APS' proposal in order to meet the requirement of
the Regional Haze Rule that all necessary emission reductions for an
alternative measure take place during the period of the first long-term
strategy for regional haze.\9\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii). Under this
alternative control strategy, total annual emissions of NOX
from FCPP at 0.098 lb/MMBtu would be 5,798 tpy. EPA's emissions
calculations are included in the docket for this proposed rulemaking
(see ``EPA comparison of BART and alternative 2-3-11.xlsx''). If EPA
finalizes a rule requiring APS to implement EPA's alternative emissions
control strategy with a NOX emission limit of 0.098 lb/
MMBtu, FCPP would produce approximately 37% less NOX
emissions per year than under EPA's BART proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Regional Haze Rule requires revisions to regional haze
implementation plans be submitted to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every
ten years thereafter. This date marks the end of the first long term
strategy period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alternative emissions control strategy would realize the 37%
greater NOX emissions reductions two years later than would
potentially result from EPA's BART proposal, but within the period of
the first long-term strategy for regional haze. Our evaluation,
supported by the modeled visibility improvements discussed in Section
C, is that significantly lower NOX emissions from FCPP
occurring within the period of the first long term strategy and
continuing on into the future, but occurring two years later than could
potentially occur through EPA BART proposal, will achieve better
reasonable
[[Page 10536]]
progress towards the Clean Air Act's national visibility goal.
The amount by which NOX will be reduced between 2014 and
2019 is somewhat less certain because of differing assumptions used in
APS' and EPA's evaluations. APS compared NOX emissions for
each year from 2014 until 2019 under its proposal against EPA's October
19, 2010 BART proposal as reproduced in Table 3.
Table 3--APS' Comparison of NOX Emissions (Tons) Based on EPA BART
Proposal and APS Alternative Proposal, Reproduced From November 24, 2010
Submittal From APS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposal APS proposal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014.................................... 45,132 28,948
2015.................................... 45,132 28,948
2016.................................... 45,132 28,948
2017.................................... 9,184 28,948
2018.................................... 9,184 28,948
2019.................................... 9,184 6,498
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The values APS used in Table 3, however, assume that EPA's BART
determination would not have required installation of any
NOX emissions controls until 2017 and that SCR would become
fully operational on all 5 units simultaneously in 2017. Therefore, APS
interpreted EPA's BART proposal to allow NOX emissions of
45,132 tpy to continue until the beginning of 2017.
EPA's BART proposal on October 19, 2010, however, included interim
emission limits for the 5 units that would (if finalized) have applied
following a phased-in schedule for SCR installation. Historically FCPP
has operated on a 3-year outage cycle for its boilers.\10\ Therefore,
EPA's BART proposal assumed that Units 1-3 would be retrofit
simultaneously in one outage, Unit 4 would be retrofit in a second
annual outage, and Unit 5 would be retrofit in the third annual outage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ FCPP is a baseload power plant that operates its boilers
year-round at full capacity except during outages. Power plants
typically schedule periodic major and minor outages to allow for
routine maintenance of its boiler units. To accomodate its five
boiler units, EPA understands that the boilers at FCPP are on a
three-year major outage cycle, with Units 4, 5, and 1-3 alternating
major outages every 3 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 compares our calculations of the short-term (2014-2019)
NOX emissions and Table 5 compares our calculations for
short-term (2014-2019) PM emissions, between EPA's BART proposal,
assuming EPA could finalize the interim emissions limits to be
effective January 1, 2012,\11\ and the alternative emissions control
strategy with a final compliance date for installation and operation of
SCR on Units 4 and 5 of July 31, 2018.\12\ (See ``EPA Comparison of
BART and Alternative 2-3-11.xlsx'' in the docket for this rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The interim limits that EPA included in the proposed BART
rule included a larger margin of compliance with the interim limits
to provide APS the flexibility to develop strategies for meeting the
plant-wide limit of 0.11 lb/MMBtu by 2017 in ways other than
achieving 80% reduction equally on all units.
\12\ The annual emissions in both Tables 2 and 4 are likely
overestimated because they do not account for zero emissions from an
individual unit (or set of units) when it is not operating during
its scheduled outage.
Table 4--EPA's Comparison of NOX Emissions (Tons) Based on EPA BART Proposal and the Alternative Emission
Control Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative
EPA BART emission
proposal control Proposal with lower emissions
strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.......................................... 45,132 45,132 Same.
2013.......................................... 45,132 45,132 Same.
2014.......................................... 45,132 28,947 Alternative.
2015.......................................... 33,908 28,947 Alternative.
2016.......................................... 22,074 28,947 EPA BART.
2017.......................................... 9,026 28,947 EPA BART.
2018.......................................... 9,026 19,302 EPA BART.
2019 and beyond............................... 9,026 5,798 Alternative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--EPA's Comparison of PM Emissions (Tons) Based on EPA BART Proposal and the Alternative Emission Control
Strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternative
EPA BART emission
proposal control Proposal with lower emissions
strategy
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012.......................................... 1,564 1,564 Same.
2013.......................................... 1,564 1,564 Same.
2014.......................................... 1,564 886 Alternative.
2015.......................................... 1,564 886 Alternative.
2016.......................................... 1,179 886 Alternative.
2017.......................................... 1,179 886 Alternative.
2018.......................................... 1,179 886 Alternative.
2019 and beyond............................... 1,179 886 Alternative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 10537]]
Therefore, if finalized as proposed and effective on January 1,
2012, we estimate that EPA's BART proposal would result in lower
NOX emissions from 2016-2018, an additional year (2016)
compared to APS' calculations that do not account for interim limits.
In 2014 and 2015, and beginning in 2019 into the future, the
alternative emissions control strategy would result in lower
NOX emissions than EPA's BART proposal. For PM, starting in
2014, the alternative emission control strategy would always result in
lower emissions of PM compared to EPA's BART proposal because of the
closure of Units 1-3 in 2014.
In today's supplemental proposed rule, EPA acknowledges that the
interim emission limits proposed on October 19, 2010, were based on
APS' historic outage schedule and were required to ensure that the
installation of new controls occurred as expeditiously as practicable.
APS may have challenged those proposed interim emission limits and
requested EPA to finalize a BART rule that allowed installation of SCR
on all units simultaneously 5 years after the effective date of the
final rule (i.e., in 2017). Thus, if EPA's re-evaluation of the interim
limits resulted in a determination that the interim limits were not
practicable, the interim emission reductions we estimated over 2015-
2016, might not have been realized if the final rule was issued without
interim limits. In our October 19, 2010 proposal, EPA also failed to
include proposed regulatory language regarding the phased-in SCR
installation, a gap which we address in Section D of this supplemental
proposed rule.
B. Benefits in Addition to NOX Emissions Reductions
On November 29, 2010, APS provided to EPA the spreadsheet on which
its emission estimates were based. This spreadsheet is included in the
docket for the proposed rulemaking (See the spreadsheet posted to the
docket for this rulemaking: EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683.0080.1, ``Emissions
calculations from APS for its Alternative Proposal 11-29-10.xlsx'').
Baseline emissions reported by APS (labeled ``status quo'' in the
spreadsheet) of NOX, SO2, PM, Hg, and
CO2, are included in Table 6. Emissions of NOX,
SO2, and PM are reported in tons per year (tpy); Hg
emissions are reported in pounds per year (lb/yr); and CO2
emissions are reported in million tons per year.
Table 6--Baseline Emissions of NOX (tpy), PM (tpy), SO2 (tpy), Hg (lb/Year), and CO2 (Million tpy) Reported by
APS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX PM SO2 Hg CO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1................................................... 5,790 186 748 113 1.6
Unit 2................................................... 4,751 215 731 109 1.5
Unit 3................................................... 5,643 277 1,373 139 2.1
Unit 4................................................... 14,474 443 4,298 117 6.0
Unit 5................................................... 14,474 443 4,611 116 6.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The alternative emission control strategy to shut down Units 1-3 by
2014 not only results in 100% control of NOX, but also 100%
control of all other pollutants emitted by those units, including
SO2, PM, Hg and other hazardous air pollutants, and
CO2, whereas EPA's proposal to install SCR on Units 1-5 and
new PM controls on Units 1-3 would only result in 80% and 57% \13\
control of NOX and PM, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The percent reduction in PM emissions was calculated for
Units 1-3 and assumed that imposing an emission limit on Units 4 and
5 would not change the measured emission rates from those units
because Units 4 and 5 would continue to be controlled by the
existing baghouses. Thus, the PM emission reduction is calculated as
a MW-weighted average reduction from Units 1-3, using baseline
emissions that range from 0.025 lb/MMBtu (Unit 1) to 0.029 lb/MMBtu
(Units 2 and 3), and the proposed post-control BART limit of 0.012
lb/MMBtu on Units 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Modeling and Demonstrating Reasonable Progress
The Regional Haze Rule requires that implementation plans that rely
on an alternative measure to BART demonstrate that the alternative
achieves greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The rule
further states that ``[i]f the distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure
results in greater emissions reductions, than the alternative measures
may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress''. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3). Because the emissions reductions under EPA's October 19,
2010 BART proposal and the alternative emission control strategy
proposed in this supplemental proposed rule occur from the same
facility, the distribution of emissions under BART and the alternative
are not substantially different. Therefore, because the alternative
emission control strategy results in greater emissions reductions that
our BART proposal, EPA may deem the alternative emission control
strategy to achieve greater reasonable progress.
Although an explicit modeling demonstration is not required based
on the provisions of 40 CFR 31.08(e)(3), APS provided a modeling
analysis demonstrating that its proposed alternative would result in
greater visibility improvement than EPA's October 2010 BART proposal.
EPA evaluated the modeling submitted by APS and modeled our alternative
emission control strategy in comparison to our October 2010 proposal.
EPA compared our BART proposal to the alternative emissions control
strategy based on emissions after full SCR installation is complete.
For EPA's BART proposal, SCR would have been completed on all units in
2017 if the final BART rule becomes effective in 2012. For the
alternative emissions control strategy, EPA is proposing emissions
reductions from full SCR installation and operation on Units 4 and 5 be
completed by July 31, 2018.
APS provided EPA with the modeling files generated by AECOM.\14\
EPA has evaluated those modeling files for this supplemental proposed
rule. APS' modeling differs in some minor ways from the modeling used
to support EPA's October 19, 2010 BART proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Modeling files from APS and EPA modeling analyses are
available from EPA upon request. Please see the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this supplemental proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Technical Support Document (TSD) for our October 19, 2010
BART proposal, EPA provided the emission rates of various pollutants
from each of the five units used in the CALPUFF modeling analysis.
These modeling inputs for the SCR control case, in pounds per hour (lb/
hr) are included in Table 7 and represent the 24-hour average actual
emission rate from the highest emitting day of the meteorological
period modeled (2001-2003), consistent with the guidelines
[[Page 10538]]
provided in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y (BART Guidelines). The CALPUFF
inputs require values for SO2, sulfate (SO4),
NOX, secondary organic aerosol (SOA), fine PM, coarse PM,
and elemental carbon (EC).
The modeling inputs used by APS in its analysis of its proposal are
included in Table 8. APS' emission inputs for NOX and PM
rely on EPA's proposed 30-day rolling average emission limits (as shown
in Table 40 of our Technical Support Document). These inputs represent
80% control of baseline NOX emissions: limit for Unit 1 =
0.16 lb/MMBtu, Unit 2 = 0.13 lb/MMBtu, Unit 3 = 0.12 lb/MMBtu, and
Units 4 and 5 = 0.10 lb/MMBtu each; and PM emission rates of 0.012 lb/
MMBtu from Units 1-3 and 0.015 lb/MMBtu from Units 4 and 5. APS used
the peak 24-hour average emissions when modeling the Baseline Impact,
but used the lower 30-day rolling average emission limits shown in
Table 8 to model visibility benefits from controls rather than the
highest emitting day average shown in Table 7. Thus, the baseline and
SCR control scenarios from APS' modeling are not directly comparable
because of the different averaging times of the inputs (24-hour versus
30-day average).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ In our October 2010 BART proposal, we conducted our
modeling analyses for NOX and PM controls separately. In
Table 6, the emission inputs for NOX and SO4,
from the SCR control case, are combined with inputs for SOA, PM
fine, PM coarse, and EC, from the PM control case, for better
comparison with APS's representation of EPA's BART proposal.
Emission inputs for SO2 were identical for the SCR and PM
control scenarios.
Table 7--EPA's CALPUFF Modeling Inputs Used for Our October 19, 2010 BART Proposal With SCR on Units 1-5 and PM
Controls on Units 1-3 \15\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2...................................................... 522.54 615.12 1042.09 2026.10 2131.85
SO4...................................................... 8.57 8.58 11.06 2.24 2.25
NOX...................................................... 404.03 319.89 394.16 1003.20 901.71
SOA...................................................... 9.40 9.41 12.13 32.00 32.20
PM fine.................................................. 17.26 20.39 23.60 100.93 48.02
PM coarse................................................ 13.19 15.58 18.03 77.12 36.69
EC....................................................... 0.66 0.78 0.91 3.88 1.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8--APS' CALPUFF Modeling Inputs Representing EPA's BART Proposal (Units 1-5), Combining NOX and PM
Controls, Provided by APS to Support Its Alternative Proposal (Units 4 and 5 Only)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units 1 and 2 Unit 3 Units 4 and 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................................................. 1137.66 1042.09 4157.95
SO4............................................................. 17.15 11.06 4.49
NOX............................................................. 681.62 363.84 1605.10
SOA............................................................. 18.81 12.13 64.20
PM fine......................................................... 27.71 17.87 122.89
PM coarse....................................................... 11.29 7.28 93.90
EC.............................................................. 1.06 0.69 4.72
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to other modeling assumptions, APS used the same
assumptions that supported EPA's October 19, 2010 BART proposal. APS
directly used EPA's modeling inputs for the 1 ppb (IWAQM default)
background ammonia scenario from our proposed BART determination and
modeled additional scenarios: EPA's BART proposal using emission inputs
for Units 1-5 in Table 7, and APS's proposed alternative using emission
inputs from Table 7 for only Units 4 and 5 (with no modeling of Units
1-3 to account for shut down of those units).
EPA reviewed APS' emission inputs and modeling files and determined
that when APS modeled EPA's October 19, 2010 BART proposal, APS relied
on lower NOX and PM emissions than EPA used in our proposal.
NOX emissions modeled by AECOM were 6-16% lower than EPA's
modeling values from our proposal, and PM emissions as modeled by AECOM
were 18-60% lower than our proposal. APS estimated that EPA's BART
proposal (using the inputs from Table 7) would reduce the impact of
FCPP on the 16 Class I areas by an average of 59%. APS modeling showed
that its alternative emissions control strategy would reduce the impact
of FCPP on the 16 Class I areas by an average of 74% (See Table 8).
Table 8--Modeling Results--98th Percentile Delta dv Improvement and Percent Change in Delta Deciview (dv) \16\
Impact From EPA's BART Proposal and APS' Alternative Proposal Compared to Baseline Impacts From 2001-2003 Using
1 ppb Ammonia Background Scenario as Modeled by AECOM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance to Baseline Improvement from EPA's Improvement from APS'
FCPP impact proposal proposal
Class I area -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kilometers
(km) Delta dv Delta dv % Delta dv %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches National Park.............. 245 4.11 2.5 58 3.08 75
Bandelier Wilderness Area......... 216 2.90 1.71 58 2.12 74
Black Canyon of the Gunnison WA... 217 2.36 1.47 62 1.84 76
Canyonlands NP.................... 214 5.24 2.97 54 3.86 72
Capitol Reef NP................... 283 3.23 1.94 54 2.46 72
[[Page 10539]]
Grand Canyon NP................... 345 1.63 0.91 58 1.14 75
Great Sand Dunes NM............... 279 1.16 0.69 63 0.84 76
La Garita WA...................... 202 1.72 1.08 63 1.3 77
Maroon Bells Snowmass WA.......... 294 1.04 0.65 64 0.79 78
Mesa Verde NP..................... 62 5.95 2.67 48 3.57 66
Pecos WA.......................... 258 2.16 1.19 59 1.55 74
Petrified Forest NP............... 224 1.40 0.69 58 0.93 74
San Pedro Parks WA................ 160 3.88 2.15 55 2.77 72
West Elk WA....................... 137 1.87 1.24 64 1.45 77
Weminuche WA...................... 245 2.76 1.76 61 2.08 75
Wheeler Peak WA................... 265 1.53 0.88 60 1.12 75
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Delta dv or Average % ........... 42.93 24.5 59% 30.9 74%
Change in Delta dv...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA re-modeled the
