Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 76646-76673 [2011-31406]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
76646
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
specified for display on a screen? When
ICT communicates or produces
electronic content or retrieves
information or data, are there additional
unique limiting features that are not
adequately addressed in these
provisions, such as screen and text size
and battery life, which the Board should
address?
Question 7: The 2011 ANPRM has
retained the approach of addressing
features of ICT which make the ICT
accessible and usable to individuals
with disabilities. Are there some
features or technologies addressed in
the ANPRM that are obsolete or that
have changed in a way that makes the
proposed requirements irrelevant or
difficult to apply? If so, commenters
should recommend revisions to those
section(s) of the ANPRM that should be
updated and, if possible, recommend
specific changes that would address the
needs of individuals with disabilities
and the unique characteristics of the
technology concerned.
Question 8: Some modern touch
screen devices, such as versions of some
smartphones and tablets, have proved
popular with people who are blind,
despite not having keys which are
tactilely discernible. Should the
provision requiring that input controls
be tactilely discernible (407.3) be
revised to allow for such novel input
methods? Should the Board add an
exception to 407.3 to allow for input
controls which are not tactilely
discernible when access is provided in
another way? If so, how should access
be addressed when the controls are not
tactilely discernible? Should a
particular technology or method of
approach be specified?
Question 9: As discussed above, the
subsection for WCAG 2.0 conformance
(E207.2) for user interface components
and content of platforms and
applications is intended to set a single
standard for user interfaces, without
regard to underlying rendering
mechanisms, such as web browsers,
operating systems, or platforms. Is
applying the WCAG 2.0 Success and
Conformance criteria to electronic
documents and applications outside the
web browser environment sufficient and
clear to users, or should the Board
provide further clarification? Are there
other accessibility standards more
applicable to user interface components
and content of platforms and
applications than WCAG 2.0 that the
Board should reference?
Nancy Starnes,
Chair.
[FR Doc. 2011–31462 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0870; FRL–9501–4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
a revision to the South Dakota State
Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing
regional haze submitted by the State of
South Dakota on January 21, 2011, as
amended by a submittal received on
September 19, 2011. This SIP revision
was submitted to address the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and our rules that require states
to prevent any future and remedy any
existing man-made impairment of
visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants
from numerous sources located over a
wide geographic area (also referred to as
the ‘‘regional haze program’’).
DATES: Comments: Comments must be
received on or before February 6, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2011–0870, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Email: fallon.gail@epa.gov.
• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are
faxing comments).
• Mail: Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129.
• Hand Delivery: Director, Air
Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries
are only accepted Monday through
Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011–
0870. 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise
protected through https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://www.regulations.gov Web site is
an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which
means EPA will not know your identity
or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment.
If you send an e-mail comment directly
to EPA, without going through https://
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail
address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment
that is placed in the public docket and
made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of
special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. The Regional Office’s official
hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30–4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail
Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (303) 312–
6281, or fallon.gail@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA
mean or refer to the Clean Air Act,
unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our
mean or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to
State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer
to National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
(v) The words South Dakota and State
mean the State of South Dakota.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regional Haze
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and
Current Visibility Conditions
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP
Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
III. Our Evaluation of South Dakota’s
Regional Haze SIP
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and
Current Visibility Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Visibility
Conditions
3. Natural Visibility Impairment
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. BART
1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
2. Identification of Sources Subject to
BART
a. Modeling Methodology
b. Contribution Threshold
c. Sources Identified by South Dakota as
Subject to BART
3. BART Determinations and Federally
Enforceable Limits
a. Otter Tail Power Company, Big Stone I
b. South Dakota’s BART Results and
Summary
D. Evaluation of South Dakota’s Reasonable
Progress Goals
1. WRAP Visibility Modeling
2. Reasonable Progress ‘‘Four-Factor’’
Analyses
3. South Dakota’s Conclusions From the
Four-Factor Analysis
4. Establishment of the Reasonable
Progress Goals
5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s
Reasonable Progress Goals
E. LTS
1. Emissions Inventories
2. Sources of Visibility Impairment in
South Dakota Class I Areas
3. Visibility Projection Modeling
4. Consultation and Emissions Reductions
for Other States’ Class I Areas
5. Mandatory LTS Factors
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution
Programs
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of
Construction Activities
c. Emission Limitation and Schedules of
Compliance
d. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Techniques
f. Enforceability of South Dakota’s
Measures
g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due
to Projected Changes
6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s LTS
F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze
Requirements
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP
Requirements
H. FLM Coordination
I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment
that is produced by a multitude of
sources and activities which are located
across a broad geographic area and emit
particulate matter with a diameter less
than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental
carbon (EC) and soil dust) and its
precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some
cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs)). These
precursors react in the atmosphere to
form PM2.5. PM2.5 impairs visibility by
scattering and absorbing light. Visibility
impairment reduces the clarity, color
and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 also can cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and
contributes to environmental effects
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication.
Data from the ‘‘Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring
network show that visibility impairment
caused by air pollution occurs virtually
all the time at most national park and
wilderness areas. The average visual
range 1 in many Class I areas (i.e.,
national parks, memorial parks,
wilderness areas and international parks
meeting certain size criteria) in the
western United States is 100–150
kilometers, or about one-half to twothirds of the visual range that would
exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1,
1999). In most of the eastern Class I
areas of the United States, the average
visual range is less than 30 kilometers,
or about one-fifth of the visual range
that would exist under estimated
natural conditions. Id.
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I federal
areas 2 which impairment results from
1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
2 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See CAA
section 162(a). In accordance with section 169A of
the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76647
man-made air pollution.’’ CAA
§ 169A(a)(1). The terms ‘‘impairment of
visibility’’ and ‘‘visibility impairment’’
are defined in the Act to include a
reduction in visual range and
atmospheric discoloration. Id. section
169A(g)(6). In 1980, we promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e.,
‘‘RAVI.’’ 45 FR 80084 (December 2,
1980). These regulations represented the
first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. We deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment
had improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues, and we promulgated regulations
addressing regional haze in 1999. 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart P. The Regional Haze
Rule revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into them
provisions addressing regional haze
impairment and establish a
comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included
in our visibility protection regulations at
40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main
regional haze requirements are
summarized in section II of this action.
The requirement to submit a Regional
Haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the
District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands. States were required to submit
a SIP addressing regional haze visibility
impairment no later than December 17,
2007.3 40 CFR 51.308(b).
Few states submitted a Regional Haze
SIP prior to the December 17, 2007
deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA
found that 37 states, including South
Dakota and the District of Columbia,
and the Virgin Islands, had failed to
submit SIPs addressing the regional
of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where
visibility is identified as an important value. See 44
FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a
mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes
in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA
section 162(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they
consider to have visibility as an important value,
the requirements of the visibility program set forth
in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
‘‘mandatory Class I federal areas.’’ Each mandatory
Class I Federal area is the responsibility of an FLM.
See CAA section 302(i). When we use the term
‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory
Class I federal area.’’
3 EPA’s regional haze regulations require
subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40
CFR 51.308(g)–(i).
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76648
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once
EPA has found that a state has failed to
make a required submission, EPA is
required to promulgate a FIP within two
years unless the state submits a SIP and
the Agency approves it within the two
year period. CAA § 110(c)(1).
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the
regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among
states, tribal governments and various
Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the
air quality in Class I areas can be
transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to
effectively address the problem of
visibility impairment in Class I areas,
states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another, taking
into account the effect of emissions from
one jurisdiction on the air quality in
another.
Because the pollutants that lead to
regional haze can originate from sources
located across broad geographic areas,
we have encouraged the states and
tribes across the United States to
address visibility impairment from a
regional perspective. Five regional
planning organizations (RPOs) were
formed to address regional haze and
related issues. The RPOs first evaluated
technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes
impact Class I areas across the country,
and then pursued the development of
regional strategies to reduce emissions
of particulate matter (PM) and other
pollutants leading to regional haze.
The Western Regional Air Program
(WRAP) is a collaborative effort of state
governments, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies established to
conduct data analyses, conduct
pollutant transport modeling and
coordinate planning activities among
the western states. Member state
governments include: Alaska, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, Utah, Washington and
Wyoming. Tribal members include
Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi
Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand
Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak,
Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne
Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San
Felipe and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe
of Fort Hall.
II. Requirements for Regional Haze
SIPs
The following is a summary of the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
See 40 CFR 51.308 for further detail
regarding the requirements of the rule.
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional Haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas.
Section 169A of the CAA and our
implementing regulations require states
to establish long-term strategies for
making reasonable progress toward
meeting this goal. Implementation plans
must also give specific attention to
certain stationary sources that were in
existence on August 7, 1977, but were
not in operation before August 7, 1962,
and require these sources, where
appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
Regional Haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural
and Current Visibility Conditions
The Regional Haze Rule establishes
the deciview (dv) as the principal metric
for measuring visibility. See 70 FR
39104, 39118. This visibility metric
expresses uniform changes in the degree
of haze in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility
conditions, from pristine to extremely
hazy conditions. Visibility is sometimes
expressed in terms of the visual range,
which is the greatest distance in
kilometers or miles at which a dark
object can just be distinguished against
the sky. The deciview is a useful
measure for tracking progress in
improving visibility, because each
deciview change is an equal incremental
change in visibility perceived by the
human eye. Most people can detect a
change in visibility of one deciview.4
The deciview is used in expressing
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (which
are interim visibility goals towards
meeting the national visibility goal),
defining baseline, current and natural
conditions, and tracking changes in
visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must
contain measures that ensure
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national goal of preventing and
remedying visibility impairment in
Class I areas caused by man-made air
pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause regional haze. The
national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., man-made sources of air
pollution would no longer impair
visibility in Class I areas.
4 The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule
provides additional details about the deciview. 64
FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
To track changes in visibility over
time at each of the 156 Class I areas
covered by the visibility program (40
CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the
process for determining reasonable
progress, states must calculate the
degree of existing visibility impairment
at each Class I area at the time of each
Regional Haze SIP submittal and
periodically review progress every five
years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the
Regional Haze Rule requires states to
determine the degree of impairment (in
deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and the
average of the 20 percent most impaired
(‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified
time period at each of their Class I areas.
In addition, states must also develop an
estimate of natural visibility conditions
for the purpose of comparing progress
toward the national goal. Natural
visibility is determined by estimating
the natural concentrations of pollutants
that cause visibility impairment and
then calculating total light extinction
based on those estimates. We have
provided guidance to states regarding
how to calculate baseline, natural and
current visibility conditions.5
For the first Regional Haze SIPs that
were due by December 17, 2007,
‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the
starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’
visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of
visibility impairment for the 20 percent
least impaired days and 20 percent most
impaired days for each calendar year
from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring
data for 2000 through 2004, states are
required to calculate the average degree
of visibility impairment for each Class I
area, based on the average of annual
values over the five-year period. The
comparison of initial baseline visibility
conditions to natural visibility
conditions indicates the amount of
improvement necessary to attain natural
visibility, while the future comparison
of baseline conditions to the then
current conditions will indicate the
amount of progress made. In general, the
2000–2004 baseline period is
considered the time from which
improvement in visibility is measured.
5 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule,
September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
RegionalHaze _envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘our 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance’’); and Guidance for Tracking Progress
Under the Regional Haze Rule, (September 2003,
EPA–454/B–03–004, available at https://
www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/
rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as our
‘‘2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’).
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
The vehicle for ensuring continuing
progress towards achieving the natural
visibility goal is the submission of a
series of Regional Haze SIPs from the
states that establish two reasonable
progress goals (i.e., two distinct goals,
one for the ‘‘best’’ and one for the
‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I area for
each (approximately) 10-year
implementation period. See 40 CFR
51.308(d), (f). The Regional Haze Rule
does not mandate specific milestones or
rates of progress, but instead calls for
states to establish goals that provide for
‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving
natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility
conditions. In setting reasonable
progress goals, states must provide for
an improvement in visibility for the
most impaired days over the
(approximately) 10-year period of the
SIP, and ensure no degradation in
visibility for the least impaired days
over the same period. Id.
In establishing reasonable progress
goals, states are required to consider the
following factors established in section
169A of the CAA and in our Regional
Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A):
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time
necessary for compliance; (3) the energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance; and (4) the
remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. States must
demonstrate in their SIPs how these
factors are considered when selecting
the reasonable progress goals for the
best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. In setting the reasonable
progress goals, states must also consider
the rate of progress needed to reach
natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to as the ‘‘uniform rate of
progress’’ or ‘‘glidepath’’) and the
emission reduction measures needed to
achieve that rate of progress over the 10year period of the SIP. Uniform progress
towards achievement of natural
conditions by the year 2064 represents
a rate of progress, which states are to
use for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress they expect to
achieve. If a state establishes a
reasonable progress goal that provides
for a slower rate of improvement in
visibility than the rate that would be
needed to attain natural conditions by
2064, the state must demonstrate, based
on the reasonable progress factors, that
the rate of progress for the
implementation plan to attain natural
conditions by 2064 is not reasonable,
and that the progress goal adopted by
the state is reasonable. In setting
reasonable progress goals, each state
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
with one or more Class I areas (‘‘Class
I state’’) must also consult with
potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e.,
other nearby states with emission
sources that may be affecting visibility
impairment at the state’s Class I areas.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining
whether a state’s goals for visibility
improvement provide for reasonable
progress toward natural visibility
conditions, EPA is required to evaluate
the demonstrations developed by the
state pursuant to paragraphs 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iii).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit
controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources
with the potential to emit 250 tons or
more per year of any pollutant in order
to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the natural
visibility goal, including a requirement
that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources 6 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install and operate
BART as determined by the state or by
EPA in the case of a plan promulgated
under section 110(c) of the CAA. Under
the Regional Haze Rule, states are
directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.
On July 6, 2005, we published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule at
appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (‘‘BART
Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which of their sources
should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining
appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In
making a BART determination for a
fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant
with a total generating capacity in
excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state
must use the approach set forth in the
6 The ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART are listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76649
BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged,
but not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART
determinations for other types of
sources. Regardless of source size or
type, a state must meet the requirements
of the CAA and our regulations for
selection of BART, and the state’s BART
analysis and determination must be
reasonable in light of the overarching
purpose of the regional haze program.
The process of establishing BART
emission limitations can be logically
broken down into three steps: First,
states identify those sources which meet
the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’
set forth in 40 CFR 51.301 7; second,
states determine which of such sources
‘‘emits any air pollutant which may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any impairment of
visibility in any such area’’ (a source
which fits this description is ‘‘subject to
BART’’); and third, for each source
subject to BART, states then identify the
best available type and level of control
for reducing emissions.
States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source
in the BART determination process. The
most significant visibility-impairing
pollutants are SO2, NOX and PM. We
have stated that states should use their
best judgment in determining whether
VOC or NH3 compounds impair
visibility in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states
may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below
which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area. The state must document this
exemption threshold value in the SIP
and must state the basis for its selection
of that value. Any source with
emissions that model above the
threshold value would be subject to a
BART determination review. The BART
Guidelines acknowledge varying
circumstances affecting different Class I
areas. States should consider the
number of emission sources affecting
the Class I areas at issue and the
magnitude of the individual sources’
impacts. Any exemption threshold set
by the state should not be higher than
0.5 deciviews. 40 CFR part 51, appendix
Y, section III.A.1.
In their SIPs, states must identify
‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ and ‘‘subjectto-BART sources’’ and document their
7 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in
operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76650
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BART control determination analyses.
The term ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used
in the BART Guidelines means the
collection of individual emission units
at a facility that together comprises the
BART-eligible source. In making BART
determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of
the CAA requires that states consider
the following factors: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. See also 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
A Regional Haze SIP must include
source-specific BART emission limits
and compliance schedules for each
source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the
BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five years
after the date of our approval of the
Regional Haze SIP. CAA section
169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the
Regional Haze Rule, general SIP
requirements mandate that the SIP must
also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting for the BART controls on
the source. See CAA section 110(a). As
noted above, the Regional Haze Rule
allows states to implement an
alternative program in lieu of BART so
long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART.
E. Long Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in
section 169A(b) of the CAA that states
include in their Regional Haze SIP a 10to 15 year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the Regional Haze Rule requires that
states include a long term strategy (LTS)
in their Regional Haze SIPs. The LTS is
the compilation of all control measures
a state will use during the
implementation period of the specific
SIP submittal to meet applicable
reasonable progress goals. The LTS must
include ‘‘enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures as necessary to achieve
the reasonable progress goals’’ for all
Class I areas within, or affected by
emissions from, the state. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3).
When a state’s emissions are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Class I area(s) located in another state or
states, the Regional Haze Rule requires
the state to consult with the other
state(s) in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a state with a
Class I area impacted by emissions from
another state must consult with such
contributing state, and must also
demonstrate that it has included in its
SIP all measures necessary to obtain its
share of the emission reductions needed
to meet the reasonable progress goals for
the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). The
RPOs have provided a forum for
significant interstate consultation, but
additional consultations between states
may be required to sufficiently address
interstate visibility issues. This is
especially true where two states belong
to different RPOs.
States should consider all types of
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment in developing their LTS,
including stationary, minor, mobile and
area sources. At a minimum, states must
describe how each of the following
seven factors listed below are taken into
account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including
measures to address reasonably
attributable visibility impairment
(RAVI); (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3)
emissions limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the reasonable
progress goals; (4) source retirement and
replacement schedules; (5) smoke
management techniques for agricultural
and forestry management purposes
including plans as currently exist
within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations
and control measures; and (7) the
anticipated net effect on visibility due to
projected changes in point, area and
mobile source emissions over the period
addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
As part of the Regional Haze Rule, we
revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the
LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI
plan must provide for a periodic review
and SIP revision not less frequently than
every three years until the date of
submission of the state’s first plan
addressing regional haze visibility
impairment, which was due December
17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date,
the state must revise its plan to provide
for review and revision of a coordinated
LTS for addressing RAVI and regional
haze, and the state must submit the first
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
such coordinated LTS with its first
Regional Haze SIP. Future coordinated
LTS and periodic progress reports
evaluating progress towards reasonable
progress goals, must be submitted
consistent with the schedule for SIP
submission and periodic progress
reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and
51.308(g), respectively. The periodic
review of a state’s LTS must report on
both regional haze and RAVI and must
be submitted to us as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP
Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional
Haze Rule includes the requirement for
a monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing and reporting of regional
haze visibility impairment that is
representative of all mandatory Class I
Federal areas within the state. The
strategy must be coordinated with the
monitoring strategy required in section
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this
requirement may be met through
‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE
network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The
monitoring strategy is due with the first
Regional Haze SIP, and it must be
reviewed every five years. The
monitoring strategy must also provide
for additional monitoring sites if the
IMPROVE network is not sufficient to
determine whether reasonable progress
goals will be met.
Under section 51.308(d)(4), the SIP
must also provide for the following:
• Procedures for using monitoring
data and other information in a state
with mandatory Class I areas to
determine the contribution of emissions
from within the state to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas
both within and outside the state;
• Reporting of all visibility
monitoring data to the Administrator at
least annually for each Class I area in
the state, and where possible, in
electronic format;
• Developing a statewide inventory of
emissions of pollutants that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any Class I area. The inventory must
include emissions for a baseline year,
emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates
of future projected emissions. A state
must also make a commitment to update
the inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The Regional Haze Rule requires
control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76651
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those
strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years
thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must
meet the core requirements of section
51.308(d), with the exception of BART.
The requirement to evaluate sources for
BART applies only to the first Regional
Haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART
must continue to comply with the BART
provisions of section 51.308(e). Periodic
SIP revisions will assure that the
statutory requirement of reasonable
progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers (FLMs)
The Regional Haze Rule requires that
states consult with Federal land
managers (FLMs) before adopting and
submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i).
States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the reasonable progress goals and on
the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility
impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how
it addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide
procedures for continuing consultation
between the state and FLMs regarding
the state’s visibility protection program,
including development and review of
SIP revisions, five-year progress reports,
and the implementation of other
programs having the potential to
contribute to impairment of visibility in
Class I areas.
III. Our Evaluation of South Dakota’s
Regional Haze SIP
The State of South Dakota submitted
a revision to its SIP to address the
requirements for regional haze on
January 21, 2011. On September 19,
2011, South Dakota submitted an
amendment to the Regional Haze SIP
revision for approval into the South
Dakota SIP. The amendment
incorporated changes made by the State
to ensure approvability of the SIP
revision. The changes incorporated
detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for BART
sources into state regulation,
Administrative Rules of South Dakota
(ARSD) Chapter 74:36:21, including
specifying that BART limits apply at all
times and clarified compliance test
methods for particulate matter and
continuous emission monitoring system
requirements for SO2 and NOX. In
addition, South Dakota revised the
reasonable progress analysis for the GCC
Dacotah cement plant. The following is
a discussion of our evaluation of the
revision.
A. Affected Class I Areas
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d),
South Dakota identified two Class I
areas within its borders: Badlands
National Park and Wind Cave National
Park. South Dakota is responsible for
developing reasonable progress goals for
these two Class I areas. South Dakota
emissions have or may reasonably be
expected to have impacts at Class I areas
in other states including: Boundary
Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area and
Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota;
Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge
Wilderness Area and UL Bend National
Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Area in
Montana; Bridger Wilderness Area,
Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area, Grand
Teton National Park, Teton Wilderness
Area, North Absaroka Wilderness Area,
Washakie Wilderness Area and
Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming;
and Theodore Roosevelt National Park
and Lostwood Wilderness Area in North
Dakota. South Dakota consulted with
the appropriate state air quality agency
in each of these states through their
involvement with the WRAP and
worked with other states that are not
members of WRAP (including
Minnesota and Nebraska). Assessment
of South Dakota’s contribution to haze
in these Class I areas is based on
technical analyses developed by WRAP.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural
and Current Visibility Conditions
As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i)
of the Regional Haze Rule and in
accordance with our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, South Dakota
calculated baseline/current and natural
visibility conditions for its Class I areas,
Badlands and Wind Cave, on the most
impaired and least impaired days, as
summarized below. The natural
visibility conditions, baseline visibility
conditions and visibility impact
reductions needed to achieve the
uniform rate of progress in 2018 for both
South Dakota Class I areas are presented
in Table 1 and further explained in this
section. More detail is available in
Section 3 of the South Dakota SIP.8
TABLE 1—VISIBILITY IMPACT REDUCTIONS NEEDED BASED ON BEST AND WORST DAYS BASELINES, NATURAL CONDITIONS
AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS (URP) GOALS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS I AREAS
20% Worst days
South Dakota
Class I area
2000–2004
Baseline
(dv)
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Badlands ..................................................
National Park ...........................................
Wind Cave ...............................................
National Park ...........................................
20% Best days
2018
Reduction
needed
(delta dv)
2018
URP Goal
(dv)
2064
Natural
conditions
(dv)
2000–2004
Baseline
(dv)
2064
Natural
conditions
(dv)
17.14
15.02
2.12
8.06
6.89
2.86
15.84
13.94
1.90
7.71
5.14
1.88
Natural background visibility as
defined in our 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance is estimated by calculating the
expected light extinction using default
estimates of natural concentrations of
fine particle components adjusted by
site-specific estimates of humidity. This
calculation uses the IMPROVE equation,
which is a formula for estimating light
extinction from the estimated natural
concentrations of fine particle
components (or from components
measured by the IMPROVE monitors).
8 The visibility and uniform rate of progress
calculations presented in Table 1 and elsewhere in
section III.B represent corrections EPA made to
minor math errors in the visibility results South
Dakota presented in the SIP and which the State
agrees will be corrected with the next routine
revision of the SIP. Our corrections are included in
the docket in a spreadsheet entitled, EPA–R08–
OAR–2011–0870 South Dakota Regional Haze
Proposal Section III.B Visibility Conditions
Corrections.
1. Estimating Natural Visibility
Conditions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76652
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
As documented in our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states
to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative
approaches to this guidance to estimate
the values that characterize the natural
visibility conditions of Class I areas.
One alternative approach is to develop
and justify the use of alternative
estimates of natural concentrations of
fine particle components. Another
alternative is to use the ‘‘new IMPROVE
equation’’ that was adopted for use by
the IMPROVE Steering Committee in
December 2005.9 The purpose of this
refinement to the ‘‘old IMPROVE
equation’’ is to provide more accurate
estimates of the various factors that
affect the calculation of light extinction.
For Badlands and Wind Cave, South
Dakota opted to use the revised
IMPROVE equation to calculate natural
background conditions. This is an
acceptable approach under our 2003
Natural Visibility Guidance. EPA has
found the use of the revised IMPROVE
equation appropriate for WRAP states.10
For Badlands, the natural visibility
background for the 20 percent worst
days is 8.06 deciviews and for the 20
percent best days is 2.86 deciviews. For
9 The IMPROVE program is a cooperative
measurement effort governed by a steering
committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from
EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE
monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid
the creation of Federal and state implementation
plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas.
One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify
chemical species and emission sources responsible
for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment.
The IMPROVE program has also been a key
participant in visibility-related research, including
the advancement of monitoring instrumentation,
analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
10 The science behind the revised IMPROVE
equation is summarized in a document entitled,
Technical Support Document for Technical
Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western
Regional Haze Plans, February 28, 2011,
(hereinafter referred to as EPA WRAP Technical
Support Document and available in the docket) and
in numerous published papers. See for example:
Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the
IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light
Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006.
Prepared for IMPROVE, Colorado State University,
Cooperative Institute for Research in the
Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, available at
https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/
publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/
IMPROVEeqReview.htmand Pitchford, Marc., 2006,
Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New
IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species
Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the
Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO
Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September
2006, available at https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/
improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/
naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Wind Cave, the natural visibility result
for the 20 percent worst days is 7.71
deciviews and for the 20 percent best
days is 1.88 deciviews. We have
reviewed South Dakota’s estimates of
the natural visibility conditions and as
the approach used by the State was
consistent with our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance we are proposing to
find them acceptable.
2. Estimating Baseline Visibility
Conditions
As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i)
of the Regional Haze Rule, South Dakota
calculated baseline visibility conditions
for Badlands and Wind Cave. The
baseline condition calculation begins
with the calculation of light extinction
using the IMPROVE equation. The
IMPROVE equation sums the light
extinction 11 resulting from individual
pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates.
As with the natural visibility conditions
calculation, South Dakota chose to use
the revised IMPROVE equation.
The period for establishing baseline
visibility conditions is 2000–2004, and
baseline conditions must be calculated
using available monitoring data. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(2). The South Dakota Regional
Haze SIP employed visibility
monitoring data collected by IMPROVE
monitors located in both South Dakota
Class I areas for the years 2000 through
2004 and the resulting baseline
conditions represent an average for
2000–2004. South Dakota calculated the
baseline conditions at Badlands as 17.14
deciviews on the 20 percent worst days,
and 6.89 deciviews on the 20 percent
best days. South Dakota calculated the
baseline conditions at Wind Cave as
15.84 deciviews on the 20 percent worst
days, and 5.14 deciviews on the 20
percent best days. We have reviewed
South Dakota’s estimations of baseline
visibility conditions and propose to find
these acceptable as the approach the
State used was consistent with our 2003
Natural Visibility Guidance.
3. Natural Visibility Impairment
To address the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), South Dakota
also calculated the number of deciviews
by which baseline conditions exceed
natural visibility conditions at Badlands
and Wind Cave. For Badlands, baseline
conditions exceed natural conditions by
11 The amount of light lost as it travels over one
million meters. The haze index, in units of dv, is
calculated directly from the total light extinction,
bext expressed in inverse megameters (Mm¥1), as
follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10).
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9.08 deciviews (17.14–8.06) for the 20
percent worst days and 4.03 deciviews
(6.89–2.86) for the 20 percent best days.
For Wind Cave, these figures are 8.13
(15.84–7.71) and 3.26 deciviews (5.14–
1.88), respectively.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the reasonable progress
goals, South Dakota analyzed and
determined the uniform rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by the year 2064. In so doing,
South Dakota compared the baseline
visibility conditions in Badlands and
Wind Cave to the natural visibility
conditions in Badlands and Wind Cave
(as described above) and determined the
uniform rate of progress needed in order
to attain natural visibility conditions by
2064 in both Class I areas. South Dakota
constructed the uniform rate of progress
consistent with the requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule by plotting a
straight graphical line from the baseline
level of visibility impairment for 2000–
2004 to the level of visibility conditions
representing no anthropogenic
impairment in 2064 for Badlands and
Wind Cave. The uniform rates of
progress are summarized in Table 2 and
further described below.
Using a baseline visibility value at
Badlands of 17.14 deciviews and a
‘‘refined’’ natural visibility value of 8.06
deciviews for the 20 percent worst days,
South Dakota calculated the uniform
rate of progress to be approximately
0.151 deciviews per year (deciviews/
year or dv/yr). This results in a total
reduction of 9.08 deciviews to reach the
natural visibility condition of 8.06
deciviews in 2064. The uniform rate of
progress results in a visibility
improvement of 2.18 deciviews needed
for the period covered by this SIP
revision submittal (up to and including
2018).
Using a baseline visibility value at
Wind Cave of 15.84 deciviews and a
‘‘refined’’ natural visibility value of 7.71
deciviews for the 20 percent worst days,
South Dakota calculated the uniform
rate of progress to be approximately
0.136 deciviews per year. This results in
a total reduction of 8.13 deciviews to
reach the natural visibility condition of
7.71 deciviews in 2064. The uniform
rate of progress results in a visibility
improvement of 1.89 deciviews needed
for the period covered by this SIP
revision submittal (up to and including
2018).
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
76653
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF UNIFORM RATES OF PROGRESS
Class I area
Badlands
Baseline Conditions ......................................................................
Natural Visibility ............................................................................
Total Improvement by 2064 ..........................................................
Needed Improvement for this SIP by 2018 ..................................
URP ..............................................................................................
17.14 dv ..............................................
8.06 dv ................................................
9.08 dv ................................................
2.18 dv ................................................
0.151 dv/year ......................................
We propose to find that South Dakota
has appropriately calculated the
uniform rates of progress.
C. BART
BART is an element of South Dakota’s
LTS for the first implementation period.
As discussed in more detail in section
II.D of this preamble, the BART
evaluation process consists of three
components: (1) An identification of all
the BART-eligible sources; (2) an
assessment of whether those BARTeligible sources are in fact subject to
BART; and (3) a determination of any
BART controls. South Dakota addressed
these steps as follows:
1. Identification of BART-Eligible
Sources
The first step of a BART evaluation is
to identify all the BART-eligible sources
within the state’s boundaries. The State
identified the BART-eligible sources in
South Dakota by utilizing the approach
set out in the BART Guidelines (70 FR
39158); this approach provides three
criteria for identifying BART-eligible
sources: (1) One or more emission units
at the facility fit within one of the 26
categories listed in the BART
Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s)
began operation on or after August 7,
1962, and was in existence on August 7,
1977; and (3) potential emissions of any
visibility-impairing pollutant from
subject units are 250 tons or more per
year. South Dakota initially screened its
emissions inventory and permitting
database to identify major facilities with
emission units in one or more of the 26
BART categories. Following this, South
Dakota used its databases and records to
identify facilities in these source
categories with potential emissions of
250 tons per year or more for any
visibility-impairing pollutant from any
units that were in existence on August
7, 1977 and began operation on or after
August 7, 1962.
Wind cave
15.84 dv
7.71 dv
8.13 dv
1.89 dv
0.136 dv/year
The BART Guidelines direct states to
address SO2, NOX and direct PM
(including both coarse (PM10) and fine
(PM2.5) particulate matter emissions as
visibility-impairing pollutants and to
exercise their ‘‘best judgment to
determine whether VOC or NH3
emissions from a source are likely to
have an impact on visibility in an area.’’
See 70 FR 39162. The available
inventory information indicates VOCs
in South Dakota overwhelmingly come
from biogenic sources, and NH3 in
South Dakota is primarily due to area
sources, such as livestock and fertilizer
application. Because these are not point
sources, they are not subject to BART.
We have reviewed this information and
propose to find South Dakota’s focus on
SO2, NOX, and PM acceptable.
South Dakota identified BARTeligible sources in South Dakota as
shown in Table 3. This information is
presented in Section 6 of South Dakota’s
SIP.
TABLE 3—LIST OF BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN SOUTH DAKOTA
BART-eligible source
Location
BART source category
(SC)
1. Northern States Power Company
(Units 1, 2, and 3).
2. Otter Tail Power Company, Big
Stone I (Unit 1).
3. Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. .............
Sioux Falls, South Dakota ...............
SC 1—fossil fuel steam electric
plants >250 MMBtu/hr heat input.
SC 1—fossil fuel steam electric
plants >250 MMBtu/hr heat input.
SC 12—lime plants ..........................
1 South
Near Big Stone City, South Dakota
Rapid City, South Dakota ................
N/A.1
Boundary Waters
431 km.
Wind Cave
52 km.
Dakota did not analyze the three units at Northern States Power for distance to Class I areas as they have been decommissioned.
2. Identification of Sources Subject to
BART
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Nearest class I area
The second step of the BART
evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment at any Class I area,
i.e. those sources that are subject to
BART. The BART Guidelines allow
states to consider exempting some
BART-eligible sources from further
BART review because they may not
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
a. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines provide that
states may use the CALPUFF 12
modeling system or another appropriate
model to predict the visibility impacts
from a single source on a Class I area
and to, therefore, determine whether an
12 Note that our reference to CALPUFF
encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system,
which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post
processors. The different versions of CALPUFF
have corresponding versions of CALMET,
CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with
previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer
version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions
of the CALPUFF modeling system are available
from the model developer at https://www.src.com/
verio/download/download.htm.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
individual source is anticipated to cause
or contribute to impairment of visibility
in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to
BART.’’ The BART Guidelines state that
we find CALPUFF is the best regulatory
modeling application currently
available for predicting a single source’s
contribution to visibility impairment (70
FR 39162).
The BART Guidelines also
recommend that states develop a
modeling protocol for making
individual source attributions, and
suggest that states may want to consult
with us and their RPO to address any
issues prior to modeling. South Dakota
relied on WRAP’s CALPUFF modeling
for South Dakota BART sources as
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76654
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
recommended by the BART
Guidelines.13 40 CFR part 51, appendix
Y, section III.A.3.
To determine if each BART-eligible
source has a significant impact on
visibility, South Dakota used WRAP’s
CALPUFF modeling results to estimate
daily visibility impacts above estimated
natural conditions at each Class I area
within 300 km of any BART-eligible
facility, based on maximum actual 24hour emissions over a three year period
(2000–2002).
b. Contribution Threshold
For states using modeling to
determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines
note that the first step is to set a
contribution threshold to assess whether
the impact of a single source is
sufficient to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at a Class I area.
The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a]
single source that is responsible for a 1.0
deciview change or more should be
considered to ‘cause’ visibility
impairment.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161. The
BART Guidelines also state that ‘‘the
appropriate threshold for determining
whether a source contributes to
visibility impairment may reasonably
differ across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general
matter, any threshold that you use for
determining whether a source
‘contributes’ to visibility impairment
should not be higher than 0.5
deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a
contribution threshold, states should
‘‘consider the number of emissions
sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the
individual sources’ impacts.’’ The
Guidelines affirm that states are free to
use a lower threshold if they conclude
that the location of a large number of
BART-eligible sources in proximity to a
Class I area justifies this approach.
South Dakota used a contribution
threshold of 0.5 deciviews for
determining which sources are subject
to BART. The State’s decision was based
on the following factors: (1) 0.5
deciviews equates to the 5% extinction
threshold for new sources under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) New Source Review rules, (2) 0.5
deciviews is consistent with the
threshold selected by other states in the
west, which all selected 0.5 deciviews,
and (3) 0.5 deciviews represents the
limit of perceptible change. Although
we do not agree that all of the factors
considered by South Dakota’s
Department of Environmental and
Natural Resources are relevant in
determining whether a source can be
considered to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment, we propose to
approve the State’s threshold of 0.5
deciviews. As the discussion below
indicates, Big Stone I is the only BARTeligible source in South Dakota in
operation. Given that and the fact that
the modeling indicates that Big Stone I
is reasonably anticipated to have an
impact over the 0.5 deciview threshold
at several Class I Areas, it is apparent
that no BART-eligible sources were
exempted from review based on the 0.5
deciviews threshold that could have had
meaningful impact on visibility in one
or more Class I areas. We are proposing
that 0.5 deciviews is a reasonable
threshold for South Dakota in
determining whether its BART-eligible
sources are subject to BART.
c. Sources Identified by South Dakota as
Subject to BART
South Dakota determined that the
three units at Northern States Power
were not subject to BART because the
units have been decommissioned and
are no longer permitted to operate under
the facility’s Title V air quality permit.
Consistent with the BART Guidelines,
South Dakota requested that WRAP
model each of its remaining operating
BART-eligible sources to assess the
extent of their contribution to visibility
impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
The WRAP modeling results
demonstrated that Pete Lien and Sons,
Inc. did not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at any Class I area.
After reviewing the modeling inputs,
South Dakota determined that the
vertical kiln should be modeled again
due to several errors. However, before
additional modeling could be done, Pete
Lien and Sons, Inc. shut down and
dismantled the kiln in 2009 per its Title
V permit.14
The WRAP modeling results for Otter
Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I are
summarized in Table 4. The results
show that Big Stone I’s emissions cause
visibility impacts that exceed the 0.5
deciviews threshold at the Badlands
National Park in South Dakota,
Theodore Roosevelt National Park in
North Dakota, and Boundary Waters
Wilderness and Voyageurs National
Park in Minnesota.
TABLE 4—WRAP’S MODELING RESULTS FOR BIG STONE I
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Class I area
State
Minimum distance
to class I area
(km)
98th
percentile visibility
impact
(dv)1
Badlands .........................................................................................................................................
Boundary Waters ............................................................................................................................
Bridger ............................................................................................................................................
Fitzpatrick ........................................................................................................................................
Grand Teton ....................................................................................................................................
Lostwood .........................................................................................................................................
Medicine Lake .................................................................................................................................
North Absaroka ...............................................................................................................................
Teton ...............................................................................................................................................
Theodore Roosevelt .......................................................................................................................
UL Bend ..........................................................................................................................................
Voyageurs .......................................................................................................................................
Washakie ........................................................................................................................................
Wind Cave ......................................................................................................................................
SD
MN
WY
WY
WY
ND
MT
WY
WY
ND
MT
MN
WY
SD
470
431
1,041
1,050
1,112
585
690
1,013
1,052
555
902
438
1,006
572
0.683
1.034
0.001
0.001
0.001
0.263
0.256
0.011
0.004
0.687
0.089
0.729
0.007
0.263
13 The WRAP modeling protocol is available at
https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_
BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
initial startup of Unit #45. Pete Lien and Sons
fulfilled this commitment by notifying South
Dakota on March 13, 2009, that the vertical kiln was
shutdown and dismantled. See SIP Section 6.1.2.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
14 Although Pete Lien and Sons’ existing Title V
air quality permit still identifies the vertical kiln as
a unit, permit condition 1.1 specifies in the footnote
of Table 1–1 that Pete Lien and Sons is required to
shutdown and dismantle the vertical kiln before the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76655
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 4—WRAP’S MODELING RESULTS FOR BIG STONE I—Continued
Class I area
State
Minimum distance
to class I area
(km)
98th
percentile visibility
impact
(dv)1
Yellowstone .....................................................................................................................................
WY
1,049
0.009
1 Modeling
results represent the maximum 98th percentile impact over the modeled 3-year meteorological period 2001–2003.
In reviewing Otter Tail’s results, the
State rounded to one significant figure
and determined that Big Stone I
emissions cause visibility impacts that
exceed the 0.5 deciviews threshold at
the same Class I areas identified in the
WRAP modeling in addition to Isle
Royale in Michigan. South Dakota relied
on Otter Tail’s modeling, noting that it
best represented the visibility impacts
from Big Stone I because the original
WRAP modeling did not have the
correct emission rates and stack
parameters and that the modeling
protocol adjustments improved the
accuracy of the model over long
distances.
• Step 1: Identify All Available
Retrofit Control Technologies,
• Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options,
• Step 3: Evaluate Control
Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies,
• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and
Document the Results, and
• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
In determining BART, the State must
consider the five statutory factors in
section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs
of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. See also 40
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The five-factor
analysis occurs during steps 4 and 5 of
the process.
South Dakota requested that Otter Tail
Power Company complete a BART
analysis for Big Stone I and used this
analysis as a basis for its BART
determination for this source for NOX,
SO2 and PM. The Otter Tail BART
analysis is included in Appendix C of
the SIP. Otter Tail generally followed
the five steps contained in the BART
Guidelines and evaluated the five BART
factors. In some instances, South Dakota
identified additional control
technologies for evaluation and also
added an analysis of average cost
effectiveness compared to visibility
benefit (dollar per deciview) for the
various multi-pollutant control options.
We find that South Dakota, through its
reliance on Otter Tail’s BART analysis,
reasonably considered the five BART
factors and arrived at a reasonable
BART determination for Big Stone I. We
propose to approve South Dakota’s
BART determination summarized
below.
3. BART Determinations and Federally
Enforceable Limits
a. Otter Tail Power Company, Big
Stone I
The third step of a BART evaluation
is to perform the BART analysis. The
BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164)
describe the BART analysis as
consisting of the following five steps:
Background
Big Stone I is a steam electric
generating plant located near Big Stone
City, South Dakota with one generating
unit burning Powder River Basin coal
South Dakota allowed Otter Tail
Power Company to re-run the modeling
after the company identified several
errors in actual emission rates and stack
parameters. After additional review,
Otter Tail Power Company developed a
revised modeling protocol that both the
State and EPA approved. The modeling
protocol is included in Appendix A of
the SIP. The results from Otter Tail’s
modeling are summarized in Table 5.
Otter Tail’s modeling report is included
in Appendix B of the SIP.
TABLE 5—OTTER TAIL’S MODELING
RESULTS FOR BIG STONE I
Class I area
98th
percentile
visibility
impact
(dv)1
Badlands ...............................
Boundary Waters ..................
Lostwood ..............................
Theodore Roosevelt .............
Voyageurs .............................
Wind Cave ............................
Isle Royale ............................
0.5
1.1
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.7
1 Modeling
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
results represent the maximum
98th percentile impact over the modeled meteorological years 2002, 2006, and 2007.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and a net electrical output of 475 MW.
The Otter Tail Power Company is the
operating agent for the Big Stone Plant
co-owners: NorthWestern Energy,
Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co., a
division of MDU Resources Group, and
Otter Tail Power Company. The
generating unit is a Babcock cyclone
boiler that started operating in 1975.
The State analyzed each pollutant and
its effect on the visibility in Class I
areas. Since Big Stone I does not have
a total generating capacity greater than
750 MW, South Dakota was not required
to follow the BART Guidelines in
determining BART, but it generally
followed the approach for determining
BART set out in the Guidelines. A
summary of the State’s analyses of
existing controls and potential BART
controls for each pollutant is set forth
below. The State’s BART determination
for Big Stone I is provided in Section 6
of the SIP. The visibility and cost
impacts noted in the following
assessment are derived from the
company’s BART analysis provided in
Appendix B of the SIP.15
Unit 1 Boiler
SO2 BART Review: Unit 1 has no
existing SO2 controls. The baseline
uncontrolled SO2 emissions that South
Dakota reported in the SIP are 18,000
tons per year.
Step 1: Identify All Available
Technologies.
The State identified the following SO2
control options as having potential
application to Unit 1: Fuel switching,
coal cleaning, coal upgrading (K-Fuel),
hydrated lime injection, semi-dry flue
gas desulfurization (FGD), wet FGD,
Enviroscrub, electro catalytic oxidation
and the Airborne process.
Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options.
The State eliminated the following
options as technically infeasible: Coal
15 Otter Tail’s costs rely on the CUECost model.
While we are satisfied with the State’s control
technology conclusions as further described in this
section, in general we do not recommend relying on
the CUECost model. According to the BART
Guidelines, ‘‘cost estimates should be based on the
OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where possible’’ ‘‘[i]n
order to maintain and improve consistency.’’ 70 FR
39104, 39166. The OAQPS Control Cost Manual is
now known as The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual, EPA/452/B–02–001, 6th Ed., January 2002.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76656
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
cleaning, coal upgrading, hydrated lime
injection, Enviroscrub, Electro catalytic
oxidation and the Airborne process.
Fuel switching is a viable method to
reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by
switching to a fuel with lower sulfur
content. The Big Stone facility’s primary
fuel source is subbituminous coal
obtained from the Powder River Basin
in Wyoming. Powder River Basin
subbituminous coal has one of the
lowest sulfur contents available in the
United States. As such, the State
concluded that Otter Tail Power
Company has already implemented fuel
switching.
Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness
of Remaining Control Technology.
The State considered the control
efficiencies listed in Table 6.
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I SO2 BART ANALYSIS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 1 BOILER 1
Control efficiency
(%)
Control option
Wet FGD #1 .....................................................................................
Wet FGD #2 .....................................................................................
Semi-Dry FGD #1 ............................................................................
Semi-Dry FGD #2 ............................................................................
Emission rate
(lb/MMBtu)
95
83
90
83
Emissions
reduction
(tons/yr)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
0.043
0.15
0.09
0.15
900
3,130
1,880
3,130
17,100
14,870
16,120
14,870
1 South Dakota calculated emissions from a baseline of 18,000 tons per year of SO . The baseline was derived from the highest average 242
hour average emission rate (4,832 pounds per hour) for calendar years 2001 through 2003 and operations occurring 85% of the time or 7,746
hours per year.
Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and
Document Results.
Factor 1: Costs of compliance.
The State relied on Otter Tail’s cost
analysis for SO2 controls and this is
summarized below in Table 7. The State
deemed the average cost effectiveness
reasonable for the two remaining control
options, semi-dry and wet FGD.
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I SO2 BART COST ANALYSIS FOR UNIT 1 BOILER
Total installed
capital cost
(MM$)
Control option
Wet FGD #1 .....................................................................................
Wet FGD #2 .....................................................................................
Semi-Dry FGD #1 ............................................................................
Semi-Dry FGD #2 ............................................................................
Factor 2: Energy impacts.
The State noted increased energy
demand estimates provided by Otter
Tail of 9,500 kilowatts (2.0 percent of
generation) for wet FGD and 3,325
kilowatts (0.7 percent of generation) for
semi-dry FGD. The State did not
identify any energy requirements that
would preclude the selection of either of
the two alternatives.
Factor 3: Non-air quality
environmental impacts.
The State described the non-air
quality environmental impacts of the
two control alternatives including the
solid and aqueous waste streams. The
semi-dry FGD system would be installed
upstream of the existing baghouse. The
baghouse would be used to collect the
injected lime and reacted sulfur dioxide
Emissions
reduction
(tons/yr)
Total annual cost
(MM$)
$171.8
171.8
141.3
141.3
emissions along with other existing
particulate matter emissions. Otter Tail
did not identify how much additional
particulate matter would be collected by
the baghouse due to the use of the semidry FGD system. Otter Tail assumed the
additional material collected in the
baghouse would be negligible compared
to the existing collection. Otter Tail
estimated that the wet FGD system
would generate an additional 44,700
tons of gypsum solids which would
need to be properly disposed. The State
did not identify any non-air quality
effects that would preclude the selection
of either of the two alternatives.
Factor 4: Remaining useful life.
The expected remaining useful life of
the unit is greater than 30 years.
Factor 5: Evaluate visibility impacts.
$29.05
28.90
23.57
23.33
Cost
effectiveness
($/ton)
17,100
14,870
16,120
14,870
$1,699
1,944
1,462
1,569
Table 8 presents a comparison of the
visibility impacts of the two top control
options, wet FGD and semi-dry FGD.
The values are derived from modeling
conducted by Otter Tail. For the cases
presented, Otter Tail held the emission
rates for NOX and PM constant but
varied the SO2 emissions rates in the
model as noted. In some cases, the
modeling predicted that the semi-dry
FGD would produce a greater visibility
benefit than the wet FGD. It is not clear
why the model predicted this result; it
may relate to stack parameters. Based on
the visibility modeling, the State found
that there would be no discernible
visibility benefit from selecting a wet
FGD over a semi-dry FGD.
TABLE 8—VISIBILITY IMPACT COMPARISON BETWEEN WET AND SEMI-DRY FGD SO2 CONTROLS 1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[98th Percentile—Deciviews]
Option 2
Control equipment
Class I area 4
#3 .............
OFA and Semi-dry FGD (0.09 lb/MMBtu) ..........................
#4 .............
OFA and Wet FGD (0.043 lb/MMBtu) ................................
Boundary Waters ..
Voyageurs ............
Isle Royale ............
Badlands ...............
Theodore Roosevelt.
Boundary Waters ..
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2002
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
2006
2007
0.319
0.307
0.363
0.219
0.087
0.534
0.391
0.287
0.172
0.234
0.620
0.450
0.323
0.230
0.173
0.350
0.521
0.611
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
76657
TABLE 8—VISIBILITY IMPACT COMPARISON BETWEEN WET AND SEMI-DRY FGD SO2 CONTROLS 1—Continued
[98th Percentile—Deciviews]
Option 2
Class I area 4
Control equipment
2002
2007
#5a ...........
SOFA and Semi-dry FGD (0.09 lb/MMBtu) .......................
#5b ...........
SOFA and Wet FGD (0.043 lb/MMBtu) .............................
Comparison Review 3 (incremental visibility impact of wet
FGD (in Option 5a) compared to semi-dry FGD (in Option 5b)).
0.312
0.351
0.225
0.084
0.464
0.250
0.191
0.230
0.502
0.290
0.234
0.138
0.031
¥0.013
¥0.009
Voyageurs ............
Isle Royale ............
Badlands ...............
Theodore Roosevelt.
Boundary Waters ..
Voyageurs ............
Isle Royale ............
Badlands ...............
Theodore Roosevelt.
Boundary Waters ..
Voyageurs ............
Isle Royale ............
Badlands ...............
Theodore Roosevelt.
Boundary Waters ..
0.005
¥0.012
0.006
¥0.003
0.073
¥0.037
0.019
¥0.004
0.052
¥0.033
0.004
¥0.035
0.250
0.249
0.285
0.165
0.069
0.419
0.306
0.226
0.133
0.186
0.493
0.354
0.256
0.180
0.141
0.274
0.244
0.274
0.174
0.066
0.407
0.365
0.195
0.147
0.180
0.478
0.393
0.227
0.182
0.108
0.024
¥0.012
¥0.015
Voyageurs ............
Isle Royale ............
Badlands ...............
Theodore Roosevelt.
Comparison Review 3 (incremental visibility impact of wet
FGD (in Option 3) compared to semi-dry FGD (in Option 4)).
Voyageurs ............
Isle Royale ............
Badlands ...............
Theodore Roosevelt.
Boundary Waters ..
2006
¥0.005
¥0.011
0.009
¥0.003
0.059
¥0.031
0.014
¥0.006
0.039
¥0.029
0.002
¥0.033
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Otter Tail Power Company conducted visibility modeling for both wet and semi-dry FGD options using combined controls with constant emission rates for NOX and PM. Thus, the results shown include the noted SO2 and NOX control options and the existing fabric filter PM control option.
2 An explanation of each of the numbered control options and the corresponding emission rates is included in Section 6 of the SIP, Table 6–
13, p. 94.
3 A negative number means the wet FGD had a lower visibility impact than the semi-dry FGD.
4 These are the Class I areas that exceed the 0.5 deciview threshold as listed in Table 5.
Step 5: Select BART.
South Dakota determined BART to be
the second ranked control option, semidry FGD at 90 percent control efficiency
in Section 6.3.5.2 of the SIP. Even
though the top ranked control option,
wet FGD at 95 percent control
efficiency, reduced the SO2 emissions
more than the second ranked option, the
State determined that there is no
discernible difference between the two
options when considering visibility
impacts. South Dakota specified BART
limits of 505 lb/hour and 0.09 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) that
apply at all times including periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction. The
estimated cost of the semi-dry FGD
system was $1,462 per ton ($/ton) of
SO2 removed, and the capital and
annualized costs were estimated to be
$141,300,000 and $23,570,000 per year
($/year or $/yr), respectively.
We are proposing to approve the
State’s SO2 BART determination for Big
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Stone I. The State’s assessment of costs
and other impacts and its elimination of
the wet FGD at 95% control efficiency
was reasonable based on the five-factor
analysis. While the average cost
effectiveness values for both wet FGD
and semi-dry FGD are reasonable, the
modeling predicted that the use of a wet
FGD at 95% efficiency rather than a
semi-dry FGD at 90% efficiency would
result in minimal, if any, visibility
benefit. Thus, it was reasonable for the
State to eliminate a wet FGD at 95%
efficiency from consideration. The
installation of a semi-dry FGD at Big
Stone I will result in a reduction in
annual SO2 emissions from the plant of
approximately 16,120 tons.16 The
visibility benefit for the selected BART
16 The selected SO emission limit of 0.09 lb/
2
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) also happens to be
well below the presumptive limit for EGU’s without
existing controls and over the 750 MW generating
capacity threshold described in the BART
Guidelines.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
controls for all pollutants combined is
provided in the summary in Table 12 in
section III.C.3.b. below.
NOX BART Review: Big Stone I is
already equipped with overfire air
(OFA) for NOX control. South Dakota
indicates in the SIP that Unit 1 has
baseline controlled NOX emissions of
18,000 tons per year with an emission
rate of 0.65 lb/MMBtu.
Step 1: Identify All Available
Technologies.
South Dakota identified the following
control options as having potential
application as BART: Selective catalytic
reduction (SCR), oxygen enhanced
combustion, catalytic absorption/
oxidation, gas reburn, Enviroscrub,
electro-catalytic oxidation, NOXStar,
Cascade processes, selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR), rich reagent
injection (RRI), flue gas recirculation
(FGR), separated over-fire air (SOFA),
over-fire air (OFA), and low-NOX
burners (LNB).
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76658
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Step 2: Eliminate Technically
Infeasible Options.
The State identified the following
control options as technically infeasible:
Oxygen enhanced combustion,
absorption/oxidation, gas reburn,
Enviroscrub, electro-catalytic oxidation,
NOXStar, Cascade processes, and LNB.
The State noted that flue gas
recirculation is not known to reduce
nitrogen oxide emissions any further
when added with an over-fire air
system. Therefore, the State and Otter
Tail Power Company did not conduct
any further review of flue-gas
recirculation.
Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness
of Remaining Control Technology.
The State considered the control
efficiencies listed in Table 9.
TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I NOX BART ANALYSIS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 1 BOILER 1
Control
efficiency
(%)
Control option
SCR and SOFA ...............................................................................
RRI, SNCR and SOFA ....................................................................
SNCR and SOFA .............................................................................
SOFA ...............................................................................................
OFA ..................................................................................................
Emission
rate
(lb/MMBtu)
89
77
60
42
25
Emissions
(tons/yr)
0.10
0.20
0.35
0.50
0.65
2,000
4,090
7,220
10,360
13,490
Emissions
reduction
(tons/yr)
16,000
13,910
10,780
7,640
4,510
1 South Dakota calculated emissions from a baseline of 18,000 tons per year of NO . The baseline was derived from the highest average 24X
hour average emission rate (4,855 pounds per hour) for calendar years 2001 through 2003 and operations occurring 85% of the time or 7,746
hours per year.
Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and
Document Results.
Factor 1: Costs of compliance.
The State relied on Otter Tail’s cost
analysis for NOX controls and this is
summarized below in Table 10. The
State deemed the average cost
effectiveness reasonable for all of the
remaining control options, SCR, SNCR,
RRI, SOFA, and OFA, as provided by
Otter Tail.
TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I NOX BART COST ANALYSIS FOR UNIT 1 BOILER
Total
installed
capital cost
(MM$)
Control option
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SCR and SOFA .............................................................................
RRI, SNCR and SOFA ..................................................................
SNCR and SOFA ...........................................................................
SOFA .............................................................................................
OFA ................................................................................................
Factor 2: Energy impacts.
The State noted that all the energy
impacts were less than one percent of
the plant’s generating capacity and did
not identify any energy requirements
that would preclude the selection of any
of the alternatives.
Factor 3: Non-air quality
environmental impacts.
The State discussed that the OFA and
SOFA systems would increase the
amount of unburned carbon in the
flyash, which would increase the
amount of flyash that needs to be
properly disposed. Otter Tail Power
Company considers this increase
negligible compared to the existing
amount of flyash being properly
disposed.
The State noted that the SNCR and
the SCR systems would generate a small
amount of unreacted ammonia or urea
to be emitted. Even though ammonia
and urea are not considered regulated
air pollutants, these emissions are
involved in the formation of ammonium
sulfates and ammonium nitrates, which
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
Total
Annual
cost (MM$)
$81.9
16.2
11.9
4.8
0
contribute to the amount of visibility
impairment.
The State did not identify any non-air
quality environmental impacts that
would preclude the selection of any of
the control equipment alternatives.
Factor 4: Remaining useful life.
The expected remaining useful life of
the unit is greater than 30 years.
Factor 5: Evaluate visibility impacts.
Table 12, below, presents the
visibility impacts for the State’s selected
BART controls for all pollutants. The
values presented come from Otter Tail’s
modeling. The State found that SCR +
SOFA would result in greater visibility
improvement than the other options.
Step 5: Select BART.
South Dakota determined BART to be
SCR + SOFA. South Dakota specified
BART limits of 561 lb/hour and 0.10 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) that
apply at all times including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
The estimated cost of the SCR + SOFA
controls was $825 per ton ($/ton) of
NOX removed, and the capital and
annualized costs were estimated to be
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Emissions
reduction
(tons/yr)
$13.21
11.39
3.99
0.65
0.14
16,000
13,910
10,780
7,640
4,510
Average cost
effectiveness
($/ton)
$825
818
197
85
31
$81,800,000, and $13,210,000 per year
($/year or $/yr), respectively.
We are proposing to approve the
State’s NOX BART determination for Big
Stone I. The State’s assessment of costs
and other impacts was reasonable. The
installation of SCR and SOFA at Big
Stone I will result in a reduction in
annual NOX emissions from the plant of
approximately 16,000 tons. Table 12,
below, provides the visibility benefit for
the selected BART controls for all
pollutants combined.
PM BART Review: Big Stone I is
already equipped with a pulse jet fabric
filter baghouse for PM which is
considered the most efficient control
technology available. The baseline
controlled PM emissions that South
Dakota reported in the SIP are 300 tons
per year with an emission rate of 0.015
lb/MMBtu. The State identified the
following PM control options as having
potential application to the Big Stone I
boiler: Existing fabric filter baghouse,
new fabric filter baghouse, compact
hybrid particulate collector (COHPAC),
electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber,
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and cyclones/multiclones. The State did
not eliminate any of the control
technologies as technically infeasible for
controlling PM emissions from the
boiler.
South Dakota determined BART to be
no additional controls. The State
reviewed the five BART factors
generally, but noted no further detailed
analysis was required since Otter Tail
has already installed and is operating a
fabric filter baghouse, which is the top
particulate control technology. South
Dakota specified BART limits of 67.3 lb/
hour and 0.012 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average). The latter represents a
stringent level of control that is
consistent with recent Best Available
Control Technology determinations for
PSD permits.
We are proposing to approve the
State’s PM BART determination for Big
Stone I. The State’s assessment that no
detailed analysis is required since the
most stringent control option is already
in place is consistent with the BART
Guidelines. (40 CFR 51, appendix Y,
IV.D.5.) Furthermore, since South
Dakota’s proposed BART emission
limits does not explicitly exempt
emissions during malfunctions, we
interpret the SIP to require compliance
with the PM limits at all times
(including malfunctions).
b. South Dakota’s BART Results and
Summary
We have summarized South Dakota’s
BART determinations in Table 11
below. We have summarized the
visibility impacts at the appropriate
Class I areas for South Dakota’s selected
BART controls in Table 12 below. The
substantial emissions reductions in SO2
and NOX will result in a significant
improvement in visibility at several
Class I areas. The visibility
improvement from reducing both
pollutants at the most impacted area,
Boundary Waters, is estimated to be 0.9
deciviews and 54 fewer days above 0.5
deciviews.17
South Dakota’s Regional Haze Rule,
which we are proposing to approve with
the SIP, requires each source subject to
BART to install and operate BART no
later than five years after we approve
the Regional Haze SIP. Administrative
Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) Chapter
74:36:21. Given the scope of the retrofits
involved, five years represents a
schedule that is expeditious as
practicable. This satisfies the
76659
requirement under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv), that ‘‘each source
subject to BART be required to install
and operate BART as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than 5
years after approval of the
implementation plan revision.’’
As noted previously, to be
approvable, the Regional Haze SIP must
include monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements to ensure that
the BART limits are enforceable. South
Dakota has included these requirements
in ARSD Chapter 74:36:21. We have
reviewed these requirements and find
them to be adequate as they relate to the
BART limits we are proposing to
approve. In particular, for SO2 and NOX
BART limits, the rule requires the use
of continuous emission monitoring
systems (CEMS) to determine
compliance, generally in accordance
with 40 CFR part 75. For the filterable
PM BART limits, the rule requires stack
testing. Adequate recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are also
specified.
For the reasons discussed above, we
propose to find that South Dakota
satisfied the BART requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e).
TABLE 11—SOUTH DAKOTA BART DETERMINATIONS FOR BIG STONE I UNIT 1 BOILER
Pollutant
Baseline
emissions
(tons/yr)1
Baseline
level of
control
(% reduction)
BART
level of
control
(% reduction)
Emissions
after
controls
(tons/yr)
Control device
Emission
reduction
(tons/yr)
Emission limit
SO2 .............
18,000
0
90
Semi-dry FGD ...............
1,880
16,120
NOX ............
18,000
25
88
SOFA + SCR ................
2,000
16,000
PM ..............
300
95–99.9
95–99.9
Existing Fabric Filter .....
....................
....................
505 lb/hr, and 0.09 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average.
561 lb/hr, and 0.10 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average.
67.3 lb/hr, and 0.012 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling
average.
1 South Dakota calculated baseline emissions for SO and NO by identifying the highest average 24-hour average actual emission rate for the years 2001 through
2
X
2003 and adjusted this to 85% operations level or 7,746 hours per year.
TABLE 12—VISIBILITY IMPACTS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA’S BART DETERMINATIONS FOR BIG STONE I UNIT 1 BOILER
[98th Percentile—Deciviews]
Control options
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SCR, SOFA, and Semi-Dry
Class I area
FGD 1
...........
2002
Boundary Waters ......................................
Voyageurs ................................................
Isle Royale ................................................
Badlands ...................................................
Theodore Roosevelt .................................
2006
0.097
0.086
0.092
0.079
0.036
2007
0.136
0.107
0.077
0.060
0.070
0.170
0.123
0.098
0.070
0.064
1 The results reflect the visibility impacts after installation of controls with an SCR at a NO emissions rate of 0.1 lb/MMBtu, a semi-dry FGD at
X
an SO2 emissions rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, and the existing pulse jet fabric filter baghouse at a PM emissions rate of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. The selected BART emissions limits for SO2 and PM are lower than the modeled values, therefore, the visibility impacts after BART controls are installed will be lower than those presented in this table. See Table 8 for a comparison of visibility impacts for wet and semi-dry FGD. See Table 5
for baseline visibility impacts.
17 The 0.9 deciviews estimated visibility benefit at
Boundary Waters is calculated by subtracting the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
2007 impact of 0.17 deciviews in Table 12 from the
baseline impact of 1.1 deciviews in Table 5. Our
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
calculations for 54 fewer days above 0.5 deciviews
are included in the docket.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76660
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Evaluation of South Dakota’s
Reasonable Progress Goals
In order to establish reasonable
progress goals for Badlands and Wind
Cave and to determine the controls
needed for the LTS, South Dakota
followed the process established in the
Regional Haze Rule. First, South Dakota
identified the anticipated visibility
improvement in 2018 in the two South
Dakota Class I areas using the WRAP
Community Multi-Scale Air Quality
(CMAQ) photochemical grid modeling
results. This modeling identified the
extent of visibility improvement from
the baseline by pollutant for each Class
I area. The modeling relied on projected
source emission inventories, which
included enforceable Federal and state
regulations already in place and
anticipated BART controls.
South Dakota then identified, with
input from EPA, the sources and source
categories (other than BART sources) in
South Dakota that are major contributors
to visibility impairment and considered
whether these sources should be
controlled based on a consideration of
the factors identified in the CAA and
EPA’s regulations. See CAA 169A(g)(1)
and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). South
Dakota also computed the baseline
visibility impacts for these sources
using their 2002 actual emissions and
the CALPUFF modeling system. Next,
based on this analysis, South Dakota set
the reasonable progress goals for each
Class I area and compared the
reasonable progress goals for each area
to the 2018 uniform rate of progress.
The SIP includes South Dakota’s
analysis and conclusion that reasonable
progress will be made by 2018,
including an analysis of pollutant
trends, emission reductions, and
improvements expected. The reasonable
progress discussion and analyses are
included in Section 7 of the SIP. We are
proposing to approve South Dakota’s
submitted reasonable progress goals as
described more fully below.
1. WRAP Visibility Modeling
The primary tool WRAP relied upon
for modeling regional haze
improvements by 2018, and for
estimating South Dakota’s Reasonable
Progress Goals, was the CMAQ model.
The CMAQ model was used to estimate
2018 visibility conditions in South
Dakota and all western Class I areas,
based on application of anticipated
regional haze strategies in the various
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
states’ regional haze plans, including
assumed controls on BART sources.18
2. Reasonable Progress ‘‘Four-Factor’’
Analysis
In determining the measures
necessary to make reasonable progress,
states must take into account the
following four factors and demonstrate
how they were taken into consideration
in selecting reasonable progress goals
for a Class I area:
• Costs of Compliance,
• Time Necessary for Compliance,
• Energy and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts of Compliance,
and
• Remaining Useful Life of any
Potentially Affected Sources.
CAA 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
308(d)(1)(i)(A).
As the purpose of the reasonable
progress analysis is to evaluate the
potential of controlling certain sources
or source categories for addressing
visibility from manmade sources, the
four-factor analysis conducted by South
Dakota addresses only anthropogenic
sources, on the assumption that the
focus should be on sources that can be
‘‘controlled.’’ In its evaluation of
potential sources or source categories
for reasonable progress, South Dakota
primarily considered point sources.
South Dakota determined that the key
pollutants contributing to visibility
impairment at the two Class I areas are
SO2, organic carbon and NOX. South
Dakota also only considered controls for
emissions of SO2 and NOX (i.e., sulfate
and nitrate) which are typically
associated with anthropogenic sources.
South Dakota determined the major
source of organic carbon in the two
Class I areas is natural fire. By reviewing
the WRAP modeling results, South
Dakota determined that PM emissions
from point sources contribute only a
minimal amount to visibility
impairment in the South Dakota Class I
areas.
Based on the WRAP CMAQ modeling,
South Dakota’s contribution of ammonia
sulfate, organic carbon mass, and
ammonia nitrate concentrations is
approximately 1.5% for ammonia
sulfate, minimal for organic carbon
mass, and 4% for ammonia nitrate.
Therefore, South Dakota concluded that
18 We provide a more detailed discussion on the
WRAP modeling in section IV.E.3 below and in the
EPA WRAP Technical Support Document available
in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minimal gain would be achieved from
further reduction in sulfur dioxide,
organic carbon mass, and nitrogen oxide
emissions from point sources within
South Dakota. More discussion on
sources of sulfate and nitrate emissions
and the State’s rationale for focusing on
point sources is included in Section 7
of the SIP. South Dakota initially
asserted that a four-factor analysis was
not warranted based on its belief that
Badlands and Wind Cave would both
achieve the needed reductions to meet
the uniform rate of progress for both
Class I areas despite the WRAP
predictions. This belief was based on
the State’s conclusion that the emission
estimates included in the WRAP
modeling turned out to be too high. The
emission estimates did not include
reductions reflecting the BART emission
limits for Otter Tail Power Company’s
BigStone I facility but did include
anticipated emissions from two
proposed coal-fired power plants—Big
Stone II and NextGen. The Big Stone II
facility will not be constructed and the
NextGen facility is on hold indefinitely.
However, South Dakota did not
remodel with revised emissions
estimates to demonstrate that the
uniform rate of progress would be met
for Badlands and Wind Cave. EPA
therefore requested that South Dakota
perform a four-factor analysis for three
facilities, at a minimum: the Black Hills
Ben French power plant, the GCC
Dacotah cement plant, and the Pete Lien
and Sons lime plant. South Dakota did
perform a four-factor analysis for Black
Hills Ben French and GCC Dacotah
based on the WRAP’s report,
Supplementary Information for FourFactor Analyses for Selected Individual
Facilities in South Dakota, May 19,
2009, authored by EC/R (hereinafter
referred to as the EC/R Report). The EC/
R Report is included in Appendix F of
the SIP. The EC/R report did not address
the Pete Lien and Sons lime plant.
During our review of South Dakota’s
four-factor analysis, we analyzed actual
emissions data from EPA’s 2002
National Emissions Inventory database.
We started with the emissions inventory
totals for SO2 and NOX then divided the
actual emissions (Q) in tons per year
from the sources by their distance (D) in
kilometers to the nearest Class I Federal
area. A summary list of the largest
sources we reviewed in our Q/D
analysis is included below in Table 13.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76661
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 13—EPA Q/D ANALYSIS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA SOURCES
SO2 + NOX
2000–2004
average
(tons)
Source
Black Hills, Ben French Power Plant ..............................................................................
GCC Dacotah ..................................................................................................................
John Morrell & Company .................................................................................................
Merillat Industries Inc. ......................................................................................................
Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. .................................................................................................
South Dakota did not undertake a
reasonable progress analysis of John
Morrell & Company or Merillat
Industries, Inc. Given the low Q/D
values associated with these two
sources, we are proposing to find that
South Dakota’s approach was
reasonable.
Although Pete Lien and Sons, Inc.
also had a Q/D of less than 10, the State
did consider whether controls should be
required for reasonable progress. South
Dakota opted, however, not to conduct
a full four-factor analysis on Pete Lien
and Sons but did a general review of the
impacts of this facility. Pete Lien and
Sons’ SO2 emissions are less than 1 ton/
year and so have a de minimus impact
on visibility in any Class I area. For
NOX, the State has determined that the
plant is already required to use what is
considered Best Available Control
Technology (BACT), and thus no further
controls are required. As further
explanation, the 2002 NOX emissions
for Pete Lien and Sons were 272 tons/
year. In May 2008, the company
included a BACT analysis for NOX in a
PSD application for a new preheatertype rotary lime kiln and ancillary
equipment for this facility. The BACT
analysis found non-selective catalytic
reduction and selective catalytic
reduction to be technically infeasible for
several reasons including temperatures
and the location of injection nozzles.
Distance
to nearest
Class I area
(km)
1,782
4,465
648
135
276
South Dakota reviewed the application
at the time and agreed with the
conclusion that BACT for a lime rotary
kiln was considered good combustion
practices. South Dakota conducted a
further review of EPA’s RACT/BACT/
LAER Clearinghouse to determine if any
new rotary lime kilns had been
permitted since Pete Lien and Sons’
PSD application had been submitted
with more stringent post-combustion
BACT controls. There were three
entries. One occurred in each of the
states of Texas, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
The Texas source only involved carbon
monoxide. In Ohio and Wisconsin, the
permitting authorities had concluded in
the BACT analyses for NOX that no
control technologies were cost effective
and that good combustion practices
were considered BACT. The State
concluded there were no new rotary
lime kilns that had been required to
install post-combustion NOX controls
for BACT. As a result, the State
concluded that such controls would not
constitute BART.
South Dakota also evaluated Pete Lien
and Sons’ visibility impacts at Badlands
and Wind Cave by conducting a
CALPUFF modeling analysis. The
modeling report is included in
Appendix I of the SIP. A summary of
the modeling results is provided below
in Table 14.
Q/D to closest
Class I area
(tons/km)
65
66
410
58
59
27.41
67.66
1.58
2.33
4.68
TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF BASELINE
VISIBILITY IMPACTS FROM REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE PETE LIEN
AND SONS
[98th Percentile, dv]
Year
2002 ..........
2006 ..........
2007 ..........
Badlands
Wind Cave
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.05
We propose to approve South
Dakota’s less detailed analysis for Pete
Lien and conclusion that no controls are
required. A Q/D value of 10 is generally
viewed as a conservative threshold for
identifying facilities that may have
significant source-specific impacts. We
consider a Q/D threshold of 10 to be
reasonable for this planning period
based on the FLM’s proposed FLAG
Guidance amendments for initial
screening criteria, as well as statements
in EPA’s BART guidelines.19 For Pete
Lien and Sons, the Q/D of 4.68 is well
below this threshold; the baseline
visibility impacts analysis by South
Dakota in Table 14 confirms that Pete
Lien and Sons does not have significant
source-specific impacts.
South Dakota undertook a more
detailed analysis of the two sources that
exceeded a Q/D of 10, Black Hills Ben
French and GCC Dacotah. These sources
are further described below in Table 15.
TABLE 15—SOUTH DAKOTA SOURCES FOR REASONABLE PROGRESS FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSES
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Source
Black Hills, Ben French
Power Plant.
GCC Dacotah
1 South
SO2 actual
average
emissions
2002
(tons/yr)
NOX actual
average emissions 2002
(tons/yr)
Unit
Type
Capacity
Unit 1 Boiler ....................
EGU ................................
25 MWe ..........................
785
907
Wet Kiln 4 .......................
Wet Kiln 5 .......................
Wet Kiln 6 1 .....................
Cement Plant ..................
Cement Plant ..................
Cement Plant ..................
550 tons clinker/day ........
550 tons clinker/day ........
2,250 tons clinker/day .....
26
431
885
707
388
2,267
Dakota opted not to include Kiln 6 in its four-factor analysis as further described in the State’s conclusions in section III.D.3 below.
19 The relevant language in our BART Guidelines
reads, ‘‘Based on our analyses, we believe that a
state that has established 0.5 dv as a contribution
threshold could reasonably exempt from the BART
review process sources that emit less than 500 tons
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
per year of NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX and SO2),
as long as these sources are located more than 50
kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that
emit less than 1000 tons per year of NOX or SO2
(or combined NOX and SO2) that are located more
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
than 100 kilometers from any Class I area.’’ (See 40
CFR 51, appendix Y, section III, How to Identify
Sources ‘‘Subject to BART.’’) The values described
equate to a Q/D of 10.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76662
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Four-Factor Analysis
The control options and costs that
South Dakota considered were derived,
in part, from the EC/R report. EPA also
requested South Dakota consider SNCR
at GCC Dacotah which was not included
in the EC/R report. For the Black Hills
Ben French and GCC Dacotah
reasonable progress sources, SO2 and
NOX are uncontrolled, although the
Black Hills Ben French facility uses
low-sulfur coal (0.33 wt%) to minimize
formation of SO2 during combustion.
Cost of Compliance
Tables 16 and 17 show the cost of
compliance for the control technologies
evaluated for each of the reasonable
progress sources.
TABLE 16—CONTROL OPTION COSTS FOR REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE BLACK HILLS, BEN FRENCH POWER PLANT 1
Pollutant
Control option
2002
Control efficiency
(tons/yr)
%
Reductions
%
(tons/yr)
Capital
cost
($1000)
(tons/yr)
Annual
cost
($1000)
Cost effectiveness
range
($/ton)
High end
907
30
75
272
680
1,250
195
717
287
907
50
65
454
590
1,780
298
656
505
SNCR ..............................
907
30
75
272
680
1,290
770
2,831
1,132
SCR ................................
907
40
90
363
816
3,000
754
2,077
924
4,250
SO2 ..................................
Low end
LNB .................................
LNB w/OFA .....................
NOX .................................
1,068
2,942
1,309
Dry Sorbent Injection ......
785
10
40
79
314
4,300
1,700
21,519
5,414
Spray Dryer Absorber .....
785
................
90
................
707
11,600
2,670
................
3,777
Wet FGD .........................
785
................
90
................
707
14,600
2,760
................
3,904
1 The
cost analysis was based on a 30-year equipment life. Black Hills indicated the expected life of the Ben French power plant is 10 years. South Dakota conducted an additional analysis with a 10-year equipment life. The 10-year evaluation resulted in slightly higher average cost effectiveness values but did not change
the outcome of the analysis. All controls are cost effective with the exception of the dry sorbent injection at the lowest end of the control efficiency range which would
not reflect the true performance capability of the technology; we consider the high end of the range to be most appropriate.
TABLE 17—CONTROL OPTION COSTS FOR REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE GCC DACOTAH, CEMENT PLANT 1
Pollutant
Control option
2002
Control efficiency
(tons/yr)
%
Reductions
%
(tons/yr)
(tons/yr)
Capital
cost
($1000)
Annual cost
($1000)
Cost effectiveness
range
($/ton)
High end
Low end
Wet Kiln 4
NOX ...............................
LNB (indirect) ................
707
30
40
212
283
526
129
608
456
LNB (direct) ...................
707
................
40
................
283
1,873
331
................
1,170
Biosolids Injection .........
707
................
23
................
163
................
....................
2
2
CemStar ........................
707
20
60
141
424
1,599
299
2,121
705
3
Mid-Kiln .........................
20
50
141
354
2,748
¥315
LoTOxTM .......................
707
80
90
566
636
................
....................
2
2
SCR ...............................
707
................
80
................
566
14,813
4,137
................
7,309
SNCR ............................
SO2 ................................
707
3
707
30
40
212
283
................
878 3
4,142
3,102
Wet FGD .......................
26
90
99
23
26
9,133
1,370
59,565
52,692
116
155
526
129
1,112
832
Wet Kiln 5
LNB (indirect) ................
388
30
LNB (direct) ...................
388
................
40
................
155
1,873
331
................
2,135
Biosolids Injection .........
388
................
23
................
89
................
....................
2
2
CemStar ........................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
NOX ...............................
40
388
20
60
78
233
1,599
299
3,833
1,283
Mid-Kiln .........................
388
20
50
78
194
2,748
¥315
3
3
2
.......................
388
80
90
310
349
................
....................
2
SCR ...............................
388
30
40
116
155
................
878 3
7,569
5,665
SNCR ............................
388
................
80
................
310
14,813
4,137
................
13,345
Wet FGD .......................
431
90
99
388
427
9,133
1,370
3,531
3,208
LoTOxTM
SO2 ................................
1 South
Dakota also did an analysis based on operating scenario with 50% fewer hours based on last five years of actual operations showing all costs would still be
economical.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
2 The
76663
EC/R report did not list a cost per ton because it did not identify any capital or annual costs.
Dakota did not list a cost per ton because the annual cost was a negative number.
3 South
Time Necessary for Compliance
While the State did not provide
specifics on the time necessary for
compliance, the EC/R report upon
which the State relied for other aspects
of its four-factor analysis found that up
to 6.5 years after SIP approval would be
necessary to achieve compliance with
some of the control options. The State
did not identify the time necessary for
compliance as a factor that would
preclude selection of any of the
analyzed control options.
Energy and Non-Air Quality Impacts
The State did not identify any energy
or non-air quality impacts that would
preclude selection of any of the
analyzed control options. The EC/R
report upon which the state relied for
other aspects of its four-factor analysis
describes the various potential energy
and non-air quality impacts of various
control technologies in general terms for
consideration.
Remaining Useful Life of the Source
South Dakota found the remaining
useful life would be at least 10 years for
the Black Hills, Ben French Power Plant
but also considered a 30 year life in its
cost analysis. South Dakota used a
remaining useful life of at least 30 years
for the GCC Dacotah Cement Plant Kiln
4 and Kiln 5 but generally questioned
the accuracy of this based on much
reduced operations over the past five
years.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Visibility Improvement
In addition to evaluating the four
statutory factors, South Dakota also
considered the baseline visibility
impacts for each RP source based on
maximum 24-hour emission rates for
meteorological years 2002, 2006, and
2007 compared to natural background.
The CALPUFF modeling results for
Black Hills Ben French and GCC
Dacotah are summarized in Tables 18
and 19 below. The modeling reports are
available in Appendices G and H of the
SIP.
20 The National Park Service commented that
South Dakota’s reasonable progress analysis should
also include Kiln #6 at GCC Dacotah as the National
Park Service believes SNCR technology is a feasible
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
determined SO2 BACT for Kiln 6 and
TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF BASELINE
VISIBILITY IMPACTS FROM REASON- imposed a corresponding emissions
ABLE PROGRESS SOURCE BLACK limit.
Based on the baseline visibility
HILLS BEN FRENCH UNIT 1 BOILER
impacts, the State concluded that
visibility benefits from controls at Ben
French and GCC Dacotah would be
Year
Badlands
Wind Cave
small. Given the small benefits, the
2002 ..........
0.21
0.22 State concluded that additional controls
2006 ..........
0.23
0.23 during this planning period would not
2007 ..........
0.20
0.30 be warranted to achieve reasonable
progress. The State did not include a
discussion of its four-factor analyses in
TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF BASELINE
explaining the basis for its conclusion
VISIBILITY IMPACTS FROM REASON- that additional controls are unwarranted
ABLE PROGRESS SOURCE GCC but instead based its determination on
DACOTAH KILNS 4 AND 5
the modeling of baseline visibility
[98th Percentile, dv]
impacts.
[98th Percentile, dv]
Year
Badlands
2002 ..........
2006 ..........
2007 ..........
0.32
0.32
0.31
Wind Cave
0.36
0.36
0.46
4. Establishment of the Reasonable
Progress Goals
South Dakota declined to conduct a
four-factor analysis for GCC Dacotah
Kiln 6. In addressing a concern raised
by the National Park Service 20 during
the public comment period for the GCC
Dacotah Cement Plant, South Dakota
provided an explanation in an email to
EPA regarding its decision not to
include GCC Dacotah’s Kiln 6 in its
four-factor analysis for the facility and
specifically, not to impose SNCR
controls on that unit. 21 As the State
explained, GCC Dacotah submitted a
PSD air quality application for an
upgrade to Kiln 6 in November 2001. In
issuing the PSD permit in 2003, South
Dakota determined NOX BACT for Kiln
6 was the installation of staged
combustion with a thermal efficient inline low-NOX calciner complimented by
a LNB with indirect firing in the kiln;
South Dakota found that SNCR was not
technically feasible for Kiln 6. GCC
Dacotah installed the required NOX
BACT controls. South Dakota also
40 CFR 308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze
Rule requires states to ‘‘establish goals
(in deciviews) that provide for
reasonable progress towards achieving
natural visibility conditions’’ for each
Class I area of the state. These
reasonable progress goals are interim
goals that must provide for incremental
visibility improvement for the most
impaired visibility days, and ensure no
degradation for the least impaired
visibility days. The reasonable progress
goals for the first planning period are
goals for the year 2018.
Based on (1) The results of the WRAP
CMAQ modeling; (2) the results of the
four-factor analysis of major South
Dakota sources; and (3) the emission
controls on South Dakota BART sources,
South Dakota established reasonable
progress goals for the most impaired
days for both of South Dakota’s Class I
areas, as identified in Table 20 below.
Also shown in Table 20 is a comparison
of the reasonable progress goals to the
uniform rate of progress for both Class
I areas. The reasonable progress goals
for the 20% worst days fall short of the
uniform rate of progress by 1.28 and
1.34 deciviews for Badlands and Wind
Cave, respectively.
control option for cement kilns. August 17, 2011
letter from NPS, John Bunyak to DENR, Rick
Boddicker. This letter is included in the docket.
21 Email from Rick Boddicker, DENR to Gail
Fallon, EPA Region 8 (October 11, 2011). This email
is included in the docket.
3. South Dakota’s Conclusions From the
Four-Factor Analysis
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76664
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 20—COMPARISON OF REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS TO UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS ON MOST IMPAIRED
DAYS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS I AREAS
Visibility conditions on 20% worst days
(dv)
Average for
20% worst
days
(baseline
2000–2004)
South Dakota class I area
Badlands National Park ...................................................................................
Wind Cave National Park ................................................................................
South Dakota’s reasonable progress
goals for Badlands for 2018 for the 20%
worst days represent a 0.84 deciviews
improvement over baseline and its
reasonable progress goals for Wind Cave
for 2018 represent a 0.56 deciviews
improvement over baseline. South
Dakota’s reasonable progress goals
establish a slower rate of progress than
2018 URP
goal
17.14
15.84
15.02
13.94
the uniform rate of progress. South
Dakota has calculated that under the
rate of progress represented by its
reasonable progress goals, South Dakota
would attain natural visibility
conditions in the year 2265 for Badlands
and 2236 for Wind Cave, or 201 and 172
years, respectively, beyond 2064.
Table 21 provides a comparison of
South Dakota’s reasonable progress
RPG
(WRAP
projection)
16.30
15.28
Percentage of
URP achieved
40
29
goals to baseline conditions on the least
impaired days. This comparison
demonstrates that South Dakota’s
reasonable progress goals will result in
no degradation in visibility conditions
in the first planning period; instead, for
the 20% best days, there would be a
slight improvement in visibility from
the baseline for both Class I areas.
TABLE 21—COMPARISON OF REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS TO BASELINE CONDITIONS ON LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS FOR
SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS I AREAS
Visibility conditions on 20% best
days (dv)
South Dakota
class I area
Average for
20% best days
(Baseline
2000–2004)
Badlands National Park ...............................................................................................................
Wind Cave National Park ............................................................................................................
South Dakota believes the reasonable
progress goals it established for the
South Dakota Class I areas are
reasonable, and that it is not reasonable
to achieve the glide path in 2018, based
on the State’s findings from the fourfactor analysis combined with its
visibility analyses that indicate the
benefit would be small.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
In accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii), each state that
causes or contributes to impairment in
a Class I area in another state or states
is required to consult with other states
and demonstrate that it has included in
its SIP all measures necessary to obtain
its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the progress goals for
the Class I area. If the state has
participated in a regional planning
process, the state must ensure it has
included all measures needed to achieve
its apportionment of emission reduction
obligations agreed upon through that
process.
South Dakota consulted directly with
neighboring states through the WRAP,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
and relied on the technical tools, policy
documents, and other products that all
western states used to develop their
regional haze plans. Discussions with
neighboring states included review of
major contributing sources of air
pollution, as documented in numerous
WRAP reports and projects. The focus of
this review process was interstate
transport of emissions, major sources
believed to be contributing, and whether
any mitigation measures were needed.
All the states relied upon similar
emission inventories, results from
source apportionment studies and
BART modeling, review of IMPROVE
monitoring data, existing state smoke
management programs, and other
information in assessing the extent to
which each state contributes to visibility
impairment other states’ Class I areas.
The WRAP Implementation Work
Group was one of the primary
collaboration mechanisms. South
Dakota participated in WRAP and
worked with other states that are not
members of WRAP (including
Minnesota and Nebraska) in developing
its SIP. Otter Tail Power Company’s Big
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6.89
5.14
RPG
(WRAP
projection)
6.64
5.02
Achieved ‘‘no
degradation’’
(Y/N)
Y
Y
Stone I facility is the only source in
South Dakota that is reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment with visibility impacts
greater than 0.5 deciviews at a Class I
area. This facility is predicted to
contribute to visibility impairment at
the Badlands National Park in South
Dakota; Theodore Roosevelt National
Park in North Dakota; Boundary Waters
Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs
National Park in northern Minnesota
and the Isle Royale National Park in
Michigan. Otter Tail Power Company
developed a case-by-case BART analysis
that South Dakota reviewed to establish
the BART emission limits for Big Stone
I. The case-by-case BART analysis and
South Dakota’s review were submitted
to the appropriate states for their
comments. South Dakota established
BART procedures in the Administrative
Rules of South Dakota that are
equivalent to Federal regulation in 40
CFR part 51 and adopted the BART
emission limits and monitoring
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements applicable to BARTeligible coal fired power plants (which
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
includes Big Stone I) in the rule. The
requirements will eventually be adopted
in Otter Tail Power Company’s Title V
air quality operating permit for the Big
Stone I facility. South Dakota believes
the BART requirements represent South
Dakota’s fair share of emission
reductions for Class I areas impacted by
emissions from South Dakota sources
and other states provided no adverse
comments.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) of the Regional
Haze Rule requires a state to
demonstrate that its regional haze plan
includes all measures necessary to
obtain its fair share of emission
reductions needed to meet reasonable
progress goals. Based on the
consultation described above, South
Dakota identified no major
contributions that supported developing
new interstate strategies, mitigation
measures, or emission reduction
obligations. Both South Dakota and
neighboring states agreed that the
implementation of BART and other
existing measures in state regional haze
plans were sufficient for the states to
meet the reasonable progress goals for
their Class I areas, and that future
consultation would address any new
strategies or measures needed.
6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s
Reasonable Progress Goals
We are proposing to approve South
Dakota’s conclusion that it is not
reasonable to meet the uniform rate of
progress for Badlands and Wind Cave by
2018. Where a state has established a
reasonable progress goal that provides
for a slower rate of improvement in
visibility than the rate that would be
needed to attain natural conditions by
2064, the state must demonstrate, based
on the four statutory factors that the rate
of progress for the implementation plan
to attain natural conditions by 2064 is
not reasonable and that the progress
goal adopted by the State is reasonable.
While South Dakota undertook a fourfactor analyses which it described in its
SIP, the State made the determination
not to impose additional controls for
reasonable progress at the facilities in
South Dakota most likely to have the
largest source-specific impacts. The
State based that determination on the
modeled baseline visibility impacts for
the facilities.
EPA proposes to approve the State’s
determination that it is not reasonable to
achieve the uniform rates of progress at
Badlands and Wind Cave and that the
reasonable progress goals adopted by
the State are reasonable based on
consideration of the following:
a. Findings from the four-factor
analysis along with the State’s baseline
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
visibility analyses indicate likely
visibility benefits from the most costeffective controls would be small.
b. Sources outside South Dakota—
including other states and Canada—
contribute most of the visibility
impairing pollutants at Class I areas in
South Dakota, with South Dakota’s
emissions ranging from 2 to 18 percent
of the total emissions for each type of
pollutant.
c. On the 20 percent most impaired
days, sulfate and organic carbon are the
two greatest contributors to visibility
impairment at both Class I areas. The
four-factor analyses performed by the
State show the costs for controlling SO2
at these facilities is excessive, given the
minimal visibility benefits from such
controls. Much of the organic carbon
emissions are from natural fires that
cannot be controlled.
d. Although, as noted in Table 20
above, the reasonable progress goals for
Badlands and Wind Cave fall short of
the uniform rate of progress, these goals
are based on the WRAP CMAQ
modeling and the WRAP 2018
projections. As South Dakota discussed
in the SIP, the WRAP 2018 projections
overestimated emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants from sources in
South Dakota. It is therefore likely that
the actual rate of progress will be closer
to the uniform rate of progress.
We also agree with South Dakota’s
conclusion that it appropriately
consulted with other states for this
planning period. We also agree with
South Dakota’s determination that it
needed no further controls beyond those
already contained in the SIP to address
impacts on Class I areas in other states.
Finally, we are proposing to approve
South Dakota’s conclusion that no
additional controls on non-BART
sources are needed at this time. We
expect South Dakota to evaluate
additional controls for the sources
below and other sources during the next
regional haze planning period.
Below we discuss each reasonable
progress source and EPA’s conclusions
regarding the State’s reasonable progress
determination.
Black Hills, Ben French Unit 1
EPA is proposing to approve the
State’s conclusion that no additional
SO2 controls are warranted for this unit
for this planning period. The cost
effectiveness values range from $3,777
for a spray dryer absorber to $21,519 per
ton for the least efficient dry sorbent
injection option. Based on the cost
effectiveness values and the minimal
visibility benefits from controlling this
unit, we find that South Dakota
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76665
reasonably rejected additional SO2
controls during this planning period.
EPA is proposing to approve the
State’s conclusion that no additional
NOX controls are warranted for this unit
for this planning period. The cost
effectiveness values range from $287 for
LNB to $2,942 per ton for SCR. Some of
these costs are reasonable. However,
South Dakota also considered the
visibility impacts—it modeled visibility
impacts of 0.23 deciviews at Badlands
and 0.30 deciviews at Wind Cave from
all emissions from the source—and any
visibility improvement that would
result from additional NOX controls
alone would be significantly less than
these values. When the costs are
weighed against visibility improvement,
South Dakota’s determination that
additional controls of NOX are not
warranted in this planning period is
reasonable, and we are proposing to
approve it.
GCC Dacotah Kilns 4, 5, and 6
EPA is proposing to approve the
State’s conclusion that no additional
SO2 controls are warranted for Kilns 4
and 5 for this planning period. The cost
effectiveness values for a new wet FGD
system range from $52,692 to $59,565
per ton on Kiln 4 and from $3,208 to
$3,531 per ton on Kiln 5. Based on the
cost effectiveness values and South
Dakota’s modeling of baseline visibility
impacts from Kilns 4 and 5, we find that
South Dakota reasonably rejected
additional SO2 controls during this
planning period.
EPA is proposing to approve the
State’s conclusion that no additional
NOX controls for Kilns 4 and 5 are
reasonable for this planning period. For
Kiln 4, the cost effectiveness values
range from $456 per ton for LNB to
$7,309 per ton for SCR. For Kiln 5 the
cost effectiveness values range from
$832 per ton for LNB to $13,345 per ton
for SCR. Some of these costs are
reasonable. However, South Dakota
modeled the baseline visibility impacts
from Kilns 4 and 5 combined—0.32
deciviews at Badlands and 0.46 at Wind
Cave—and any visibility benefits that
would result from additional NOX
controls alone would be significantly
less than these values. We therefore
propose to find that South Dakota
reasonably rejected additional NOX
controls during this planning period.
EPA is also proposing to approve the
State’s determination that no additional
NOX or SO2 controls are required on
Kiln 6. During this planning period, it
is reasonable for the State to rely on the
relatively recent NOX and SO2 BACT
determinations in the 2003 PSD permit
for Kiln 6. However, during the next
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76666
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
planning period, the State should
reconsider these determinations.
included in Section 8 of the Regional
Haze SIP.
E. LTS
1. Emissions Inventories
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that
South Dakota document the technical
basis, including modeling, monitoring,
and emissions information, on which it
relied to determine its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations
necessary for achieving reasonable
progress in each mandatory Class I
Federal area it affects. South Dakota
must identify the baseline emissions
inventory on which its strategies are
based. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires
that South Dakota identify all
anthropogenic (human-caused) sources
of visibility impairment it considered in
developing its LTS. This includes major
and minor stationary sources, mobile
sources, and area sources. In its efforts
to meet these requirements, South
Dakota relied on technical analyses
developed by WRAP and approved by
all state participants, as described
below.
Emissions within South Dakota are
both naturally occurring and man-made.
Two primary sources of naturally
occurring emissions include wildfires
and windblown dust. In South Dakota,
the primary sources of anthropogenic
emissions include electric utility steam
generating units, energy production and
processing sources, agricultural
production and processing sources,
As described in section II.E of this
action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by
the state for achieving its reasonable
progress goals. The LTS must include
‘‘enforceable emissions limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures as necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class
I areas within, or affected by emissions
from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
South Dakota’s LTS for the first
implementation period addresses the
emissions reductions from Federal, state
and local controls that take effect in the
state from the end of the baseline period
starting in 2004 until 2018. The South
Dakota LTS was developed by South
Dakota, in coordination with the WRAP,
through an evaluation of the following
components: (1) WRAP emission
inventories for a 2002 baseline and a
2018 projection (including reductions
from WRAP member state controls
required or expected under Federal and
state regulations (including BART)); (2)
modeling to determine visibility
improvement and apportion individual
state contributions; (3) state
consultation; and (4) application of the
LTS factors. The State’s detailed LTS is
prescribed burning, and fugitive dust
sources. The South Dakota inventory
includes emissions of SO2, NOX, PM2.5,
PM10, primary organic aerosol,
elemental carbon, VOCs, NH3, and CO.
See Section 5 of the SIP.
An emissions inventory for each
pollutant was developed by WRAP for
South Dakota for the baseline year 2002
and for 2018, which is the first
reasonable progress milestone.22 The
2018 emissions inventory was
developed by projecting 2002 emissions
and applying reductions expected from
Federal and state regulations. The
emission inventories developed by
WRAP were calculated using approved
EPA methods.
There are 10 different emission
inventory source categories identified in
the South Dakota regional haze Plan:
point, area, oil and gas, on-road, offroad, all fire, biogenic, road dust,
fugitive dust and windblown dust.
Tables 22 through 30 show the 2002
baseline emissions, the 2018 projected
emissions, and net changes of emissions
for SO2, NOX, primary organic aerosol,
elemental carbon, PM2.5, PM10, NH3,
VOC and carbon monoxide (CO) by
source category in South Dakota. The
methods that WRAP used to develop
these emission inventories are described
in more detail in Section 5 of the SIP
and in the EPA WRAP Technical
Support Document (TSD).
TABLE 22—SOUTH DAKOTA SO2 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 1
South Dakota Statewide SO2 Emissions
[Tons/year]
Source category
Baseline 2002
Future 2018
Net change
Percent change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 2 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Oil and Gas ......................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
14,037
11,171
469
0
1,198
6
922
6,066
4
24
0
11,996
3,425
465
0
1,789
0
129
199
5
26
0
¥2,041
¥7,746
¥4
0
591
¥6
¥793
¥5,867
1
2
0
¥15
¥69
¥1
0
49
¥100
¥86
¥97
25
8
0
Total ..........................................................................................
22,726
14,609
¥8,117
¥36
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 SO emissions shown include both gas and particulate.
2
2 Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included
in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison.
In 2018, South Dakota’s sulfate
contribution switched mainly to point
and area sources, and like other states
and regions in the United States, mobile
source contributions are minimal due to
22 These inventories, in addition to being
available in Section 5 of the SIP, are also available
at https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/
HazePlanning.aspx.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
new changes in Federal emission
standards from mobile sources.
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76667
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 23—SOUTH DAKOTA NOX EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 1
South Dakota Statewide NOX Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 2 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Oil and Gas ......................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
20,699
14,552
1,713
52,852
2,903
361
29,224
39,039
5
27
0
30,186
15,323
1,694
52,852
3,309
557
8,059
23,785
6
27
0
9,487
771
¥19
0
406
196
¥21,165
¥15,254
1
0
0
46
5
¥1
0
14
54
¥72
¥39
20
0
0
Total ..........................................................................................
146,823
120,475
¥26,348
¥18
1 NO emissions shown include both gas and particulate.
X
2 Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included
in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions row but separated for comparison.
TABLE 24—SOUTH DAKOTA PRIMARY ORGANIC AEROSOL EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018
South Dakota Statewide Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 1 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Oil and Gas ......................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
10
0
4,574
0
1,792
0
278
942
255
1,317
0
8
0
4,531
0
1,769
0
270
386
325
1,322
0
¥2
0
¥43
0
¥23
0
¥8
¥556
70
5
0
¥20
............................
¥1
............................
¥1
............................
¥3
¥59
27
0
............................
Total ..........................................................................................
9,168
8,611
¥557
¥6
1 Otter
Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison.
TABLE 25—SOUTH DAKOTA ELEMENTAL CARBON EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018
South Dakota Statewide Elemental Carbon Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Point .................................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
0
717
0
306
0
339
3,234
18
89
0
0
715
0
314
0
86
1,072
23
90
89
0
¥2
0
8
0
¥253
¥2,162
5
1
89
0
0
0
0
0
¥75
¥67
28
1
*
Total ..........................................................................................
4,703
2,389
¥2,314
¥49
* Greater than 100.
As detailed in Tables 26 and 27, the
primary sources of PM (both PM2.5 and
PM10) are road, fugitive and windblown
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
dust (agriculture, construction, and
unpaved and paved roads).
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76668
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 26—SOUTH DAKOTA PM2.5 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018
South Dakota Statewide PM2.5 Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 1 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
216
209
839
0
1,804
0
0
0
4,061
25,220
50,274
205
0
821
0
1,920
0
0
0
5,190
25,840
50,274
¥11
¥209
¥18
0
116
0
0
0
1,129
620
0
¥5
¥100
¥2
0
6
0
0
0
28
2
0
Total ..........................................................................................
82,414
84,250
¥11
¥5
1 Otter
Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison.
TABLE 27—SOUTH DAKOTA PM10 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018
South Dakota Statewide PM10 Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 1 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
727
209
754
0
156
0
169
0
38,164
122,914
452,470
9,847
318
751
0
190
0
188
0
48,773
129,009
452,470
9,120
109
¥3
0
34
0
19
0
10,609
6,095
0
*
52
0
0
22
0
0
0
28
5
0
Total ..........................................................................................
615,354
641,228
25,874
4
1 Otter
Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison.
* Greater than 100.
TABLE 28—SOUTH DAKOTA NH3 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018
South Dakota Statewide NH3 Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 1 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
100
29
562
0
118,877
0
842
25
0
0
0
102
0
553
0
118,992
0
1,075
36
0
0
0
2
¥29
¥9
0
115
0
233
11
0
0
0
2
¥100
¥2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total ..........................................................................................
120,406
120,758
352
0
1 Otter
Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76669
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 29—SOUTH DAKOTA VOC EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018
South Dakota Statewide VOC Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 1 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
2,542
107
3,853
445,241
40,511
33,721
13,741
12,764
0
0
0
4,510
112
3,808
445,241
49,659
562
5,101
7,686
0
0
0
1,968
5
¥45
0
9,148
¥33,159
¥8,640
¥5,078
0
0
0
77
5
¥1
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total ..........................................................................................
552,373
516,567
¥35,806
¥6
1 Otter
Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison.
TABLE 30—SOUTH DAKOTA CO EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018
South Dakota Statewide CO Emissions
[Tons/year]
Baseline
2002
Source category
Future
2018
Net
change
Percent
change
Point .................................................................................................
Big Stone I 1 .....................................................................................
All Fire ..............................................................................................
Biogenic ...........................................................................................
Area .................................................................................................
Area Oil and Gas .............................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...............................................................................
Road Dust ........................................................................................
Fugitive Dust ....................................................................................
Wind Blown Dust .............................................................................
4,700
490
64,326
103,402
23,029
11
221,726
92,508
0
0
0
16,632
509
63,843
103,402
23,773
16
120,041
95,276
0
0
0
11,932
19
¥483
0
744
5
¥101,685
2,768
0
0
0
*
4
¥1
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total ..........................................................................................
509,702
422,983
¥86,719
¥17
1 Otter
Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison.
* Greater than 100.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Sources of Visibility Impairment in
South Dakota Class I Areas
In order to determine the significant
sources contributing to haze in South
Dakota’s Class I areas, South Dakota
relied upon two source apportionment
analysis techniques developed by the
WRAP. The first technique was regional
modeling using the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model (CAMx) and the PM
Source Apportionment Technology
(PSAT) tool, used for the attribution of
sulfate and nitrate sources only. The
second technique was the Weighted
Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, used for
attribution of sources of organic carbon,
elemental carbon, PM2.5 and PM10. The
WEP tool is based on emissions and
residence time, not modeling.
PSAT uses the CAMx air quality
model to show nitrate-sulfate-ammonia
chemistry and apply this chemistry to a
system of tracers or ‘‘tags’’ to track the
chemical transformations, transport, and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
removal of NOX and SO2. These two
pollutants are important because they
tend to originate from anthropogenic
sources. Therefore, the results from this
analysis can be useful in determining
contributing sources that may be
controllable, both in-state and in
neighboring states.
WEP is a screening tool that helps to
identify source regions that have the
potential to contribute to haze formation
at specific Class I areas. Unlike PSAT,
this method does not account for
chemistry or deposition. The WEP
combines emissions inventories, wind
patterns and residence times of air
masses over each area where emissions
occur, to estimate the percent
contribution of different pollutants. Like
PSAT, the WEP tool compares baseline
values (2000–2004) to 2018 values, to
show the improvement expected by
2018, for sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, PM2.5 and PM10. More
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
information on the WRAP modeling
methodologies is available in the EPA
WRAP TSD.
The PSAT and WEP results for South
Dakota are provided in Sections 4 and
5 of the SIP. See the EPA WRAP TSD
for details on how the 2018 emissions
inventory was constructed. WRAP and
South Dakota used this inventory and
other states’ 2018 emission inventories
to construct visibility projection
modeling for 2018.
3. Visibility Projection Modeling
The Regional Modeling Center (RMC)
at the University of California Riverside,
under the oversight of the WRAP
Modeling Forum, performed modeling
for the regional haze LTS for the WRAP
member states, including South Dakota.
The modeling analysis is a complex
technical evaluation that began with
selection of the modeling system. The
RMC primarily used the CMAQ
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76670
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
photochemical grid model to estimate
2018 visibility conditions in South
Dakota and all western Class I areas,
based on application of the regional
haze strategies in the various state
plans, including assumed controls on
BART sources.
The RMC developed air quality
modeling inputs, including annual
meteorology and emissions inventories
for: (1) A 2002 actual emissions base
case; (2) a planning case to represent the
2000–2004 regional haze baseline
period using averages for key emissions
categories; and (3) a 2018 base case of
projected emissions determined using
factors known at the end of 2005. All
emission inventories were spatially and
temporally allocated using the SMOKE
modeling system. Each of these
inventories underwent a number of
revisions throughout the development
process to arrive at the final versions
used in CMAQ modeling. The WRAP
states’ modeling was developed in
accordance with our guidance.23 A more
detailed description of the CMAQ
modeling performed for the WRAP can
be found in Section 5 of the SIP and in
the EPA WRAP TSD.
The photochemical modeling of
regional haze for the WRAP states for
2002 and 2018 was conducted on the
36-km resolution national regional
planning organization domain that
covered the continental United States,
portions of Canada and Mexico, and
portions of the Atlantic and Pacific
Oceans along the east and west coasts.
The RMC examined the model
performance of the regional modeling
for the areas of interest before
determining whether the CMAQ model
results were suitable for use in the
regional haze assessment of the LTS and
for use in the modeling assessment. The
2002 modeling efforts were used to
evaluate air quality/visibility modeling
for a historical episode—in this case, for
calendar year 2002—to demonstrate the
suitability of the modeling systems for
subsequent planning, sensitivity and
emissions control strategy modeling.
Model performance evaluation
compares output from model
simulations with ambient air quality
data for the same time period to
23 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other
Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
(EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, located at https://
www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf Emissions Inventory
Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze
Regulations, August 2005, updated November 2005
(‘‘our Modeling Guidance’’), located at https://
www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/,
EPA–454/R–05–001.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
determine whether model performance
is sufficiently accurate to justify using
the model to simulate future conditions.
Once the RMC determined that model
performance was acceptable, it used the
model to determine the 2018 reasonable
progress goals using the current and
future year air quality modeling
predictions, and compared the
reasonable progress goals to the uniform
rate of progress.
4. Consultation and Emissions
Reductions for Other States’ Class I
Areas
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that
South Dakota consult with another state
if its emissions are reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment in that state’s Class I area(s),
and that South Dakota consult with
other states if those other states’
emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment at
Badlands or Wind Cave. South Dakota’s
consultations with other states are
described in section III.D.5 above. After
evaluating whether emissions from
South Dakota sources contribute to
visibility impairment in other states’
Class I areas, South Dakota concluded
that Otter Tail Power Company’s Big
Stone I facility was the only source in
South Dakota that is reasonably
anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment of a Class I are in another
state. South Dakota’s evaluation relied
upon NOX and SO2 BART and
reasonable progress reductions as
described in the SIP. South Dakota did
consult with other states and tribes,
largely through the WRAP process, in
order to meet the regulatory
requirements. South Dakota also worked
with states that are not members of
WRAP including Minnesota and
Nebraska.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if
South Dakota emissions cause or
contribute to impairment in another
state’s Class I area, South Dakota must
demonstrate that it has included in its
Regional Haze SIP all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the
emission reductions needed to meet the
progress goal for that Class I area.
Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires
that, since South Dakota participated in
a regional planning process, it must
ensure it has included all measures
needed to achieve its apportionment of
emission reduction obligations agreed
upon through that process. As we state
in the Regional Haze Rule, South
Dakota’s commitments to participate in
WRAP bind it to secure emission
reductions agreed to as a result of that
process, unless it proposes a separate
process and performs its consultations
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
on the basis of that process. See 64 FR
35735.
South Dakota accepted and
incorporated the WRAP-developed
visibility modeling into its Regional
Haze SIP, and the Regional Haze SIP
includes the controls assumed in the
modeling. South Dakota satisfied the
Regional Haze Rule’s requirements for
consultation and included controls in
the SIP sufficient to address the relevant
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule
related to impacts on Class I areas in
other states.
5. Mandatory LTS Factors
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that
South Dakota, at a minimum, consider
certain factors in developing its LTS.
The LTS factors are: (a) Emission
reductions due to ongoing air pollution
control programs, including measures to
address RAVI; (b) measures to mitigate
the impacts of construction activities;
(c) emissions limitations and schedules
for compliance to achieve the
reasonable progress goals; (d) source
retirement and replacement schedules;
(e) smoke management techniques for
agricultural and forestry management
purposes including plans as currently
exist within the state for these purposes;
(f) enforceability of emissions
limitations and control measures; and
(g) the anticipated net effect on visibility
due to projected changes in point, area
and mobile source emissions over the
period addressed by the LTS.
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air
Pollution Programs
In addition to its BART
determinations, South Dakota’s LTS
incorporates emission reductions due to
a number of ongoing air pollution
control programs.
i. PSD/New Source Review Rules
The two primary regulatory tools for
addressing visibility impairment from
industrial sources are BART and the
PSD New Source Review rules. The PSD
rules protect visibility in Class I areas
from new industrial sources and major
changes to existing sources. South
Dakota’s Air Pollution Control Rules
(ARSD Chapter 74:36) contain
requirements for visibility impact
assessment and mitigation associated
with emissions from new and modified
major stationary sources. A primary
responsibility of South Dakota under
these rules is visibility protection.
Chapter 74:36:09 and 74:36:10 describes
mechanisms for visibility impact
assessment and review by South Dakota,
as well as impact modeling methods
and requirements. Typically, this
modeling is conducted for sources
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
within 300 kilometers of a Class I area.
South Dakota will not issue an air
quality permit to any new major source
or major modification within this
distance that is found through modeling
to cause significant visibility
impairment, unless the impact is
mitigated.
ii. South Dakota’s Phase I Visibility
Protection Program
EPA implemented a RAVI protection
program in 1987 with a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for South
Dakota to meet the general visibility
plan requirements and long-term
strategies of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306,
respectively. The existing Federal RAVI
program is compatible with the regional
haze program and no revisions are
needed at this time. South Dakota
indicated in the SIP that it will
coordinate with EPA to conduct joint
periodic reviews and revisions of the
long-term RAVI strategy as required by
40 CFR 51.306(c). South Dakota noted in
its Regional Haze Plan that it may
consider incorporation of the RAVI
program into South Dakota’s SIP in the
future. See Section 8.5.1 of the SIP.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
iii. On-Going Implementation of State
and Federal Mobile Source Regulations
Mobile source annual emissions show
a major decrease in NOX in South
Dakota from 2002 to 2018. See Table 23
above. This reduction will result from
numerous ‘‘on the books’’ Federal
mobile source regulations. This trend is
expected to provide significant visibility
benefits. Beginning in 2006, EPA
mandated new standards for on-road
(highway) diesel fuel, known as ultralow sulfur diesel. This regulation
dropped the sulfur content of diesel fuel
from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15
ppm. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
enables the use of cleaner technology
diesel engines and vehicles with
advanced emissions control devices,
resulting in significantly lower
emissions.
Diesel fuel intended for locomotive,
marine, and non-road (farming and
construction) engines and equipment
was required to meet a low sulfur diesel
fuel maximum specification of 500 ppm
sulfur in 2007 (down from 5000 ppm).
By 2010, the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel
standard of 15 ppm sulfur applied to all
non-road diesel fuel. Locomotive and
marine diesel fuel will be required to
meet the ultra-low sulfur diesel
standard beginning in 2012, resulting in
further reductions of diesel emissions.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of
Construction Activities
In developing its LTS, South Dakota
has considered the impact of
construction activities. Based on general
knowledge of construction activity in
the state, and without conducting
extensive research on the contribution
of emissions from construction activities
to visibility impairment in South Dakota
Class I areas, South Dakota found that
current state regulations adequately
address construction activities. Current
rules addressing impacts from
construction activities in South Dakota
include ARSD 74:36:18, which regulates
fugitive dust emissions for facilities in
the Rapid City area.
c. Emission Limitation and Schedules of
Compliance
The SIP contains emission limits and
schedules of compliance for the one
source subject to BART—Otter Tail
Power Company’s Big Stone I. The
schedule for implementation of BART
for this source is identified in Section
6.4 of the SIP and in State rule ARSD
74:36:21 that we are proposing to
approve with this SIP.
d. Source Retirement and Replacement
Schedules
The State does not anticipate major
source retirements or replacements.
Replacement of existing facilities will be
managed according to the State’s
existing SIP. The 2018 modeling that
WRAP conducted included emissions
from two proposed coal-fired power
plants and one proposed oil refinery in
South Dakota. Although the PSD permit
has been issued for one of the proposed
coal-fired power plants, the applicant
notified South Dakota that it is no
longer going to build the plant. The
second coal-fired power plant requested
that South Dakota put its application on
hold until further notice. Therefore, the
next modeling exercise for determining
visibility in 2018 will need to be
adjusted to reflect these developments,
and the current modeling results for
2018 are potentially conservative.
e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke
Management Techniques
40 CFR 308(d)(3)(v)(E) of the Regional
Haze Rule requires the LTS to address
smoke management techniques for
agricultural and forestry burning. As
part of the long term strategy, South
Dakota will investigate the impacts that
a smoke management plan for wild fires
and prescribed burns will have on the
20% most impaired days within the first
planning period of 2013. Currently very
little agricultural burning takes place in
South Dakota and the majority of
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76671
agricultural land lies in the eastern twothirds of the State, while both Class I
areas are in the western third. In
addition, South Dakota did not observe
any of the 20% most impaired days that
were attributed to agricultural burning
in the eastern half of South Dakota.
Therefore, agricultural burning does not
appear to have much of an impact on
visibility at South Dakota’s Class I areas.
However, there is some grass burning in
and around the Class I areas that South
Dakota has committed to investigate to
determine if this practice warrants being
covered under a smoke management
plan. See Section 8.5.5 of the SIP.
Additionally, South Dakota is
investigating prescribed burns
conducted by the National Park Service
and the U.S. Forest Service and the
impact of prescribed burns on organic
carbon mass, ammonia sulfide, and
ammonia nitrate levels. South Dakota
has observed there is evidence that fires
contributed to the 20% most impaired
days during the baseline period.
South Dakota has taken the initial
steps in developing a smoke
management plan by contacting
appropriate groups that will need to
collaborate on this effort. South Dakota
has been in contact with the South
Dakota Division of Wildland Fire
Suppression regarding their prescribed
fire database to begin assessing the
impacts from such fires on visibility at
the State’s Class I areas. South Dakota
will continue working with the FLMs,
other state agencies, and local
governments during the development
and implementation of the smoke
management plan.
f. Enforceability of South Dakota’s
Measures
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) of the
Regional Haze Rule requires states to
ensure that emission limitations and
control measures used to meet
reasonable progress goals are
enforceable. In addition to what is
required by the Regional Haze Rule,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include adequate
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for the regional
haze emission limits and requirements.
See CAA section 110(a). As noted, the
SIP specifies BART emission limits and
compliance schedules, and South
Dakota has included such limits and
compliance schedules in the state
regional haze rule, ARSD 74:36:21,
included in the regional haze SIP we are
proposing to approve. These emission
limits apply at all times, including
periods of startup, shutdown, and
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
76672
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
malfunction.24 In addition to specifying
the limits and compliance schedules,
the state rule specifies monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. South Dakota worked
closely with EPA in developing these
requirements. For SO2 and NOX limits,
South Dakota has required the use of
CEMS that must be operated and
maintained in accordance with relevant
EPA regulations, in particular, 40 CFR
part 75. For PM limits, the SIP requires
testing in accordance with EPAapproved test methods. The SIP requires
that relevant records be kept for five
years, and that sources report excess
emissions on a quarterly basis.
g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility
Due to Projected Changes
The anticipated net effect on visibility
due to projected changes in point, area,
and mobile source emissions during this
planning period is addressed in sections
III.E.3 above.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s
LTS
South Dakota’s LTS satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3),
and we are proposing to approve it.
F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional
Haze Requirements
Our visibility regulations direct states
to coordinate their RAVI LTS and
monitoring provisions with those for
regional haze, as explained in section
II.F, above. Under our RAVI regulations,
the RAVI portion of a state SIP must
address any integral vistas identified by
the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304.
See 40 CFR 51.302. An integral vista is
defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ‘‘view
perceived from within the mandatory
Class I federal area of a specific
landmark or panorama located outside
the boundary of the mandatory Class I
federal area.’’ Visibility in any
mandatory Class I Federal area includes
any integral vista associated with that
area. The FLMs did not identify any
integral vistas in South Dakota. In
addition, there have been no
certifications of RAVI for South Dakota
Class I areas. The South Dakota Regional
Haze SIP, in Sections 10.6.1 and 9.0,
does address the two requirements
regarding coordination of the regional
haze LTS and monitoring provisions
with the RAVI LTS and monitoring
provisions. As noted in the Regional
Haze SIP, South Dakota has made a
24 As noted above, with respect to the PM BART
limits for Big Stone I Unit 1, because the SIP does
not explicitly exempt emissions during
malfunctions from the limits, we interpret the SIP
to require compliance with the PM limits at all
times (including malfunctions).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
commitment to coordinate the South
Dakota regional haze long term strategy
with EPA’s RAVI FIP long term strategy.
See Section 8.5.1 of the SIP. We propose
to find that the Regional Haze SIP
appropriately supplements and
augments the EPA FIP for RAVI
visibility provisions by updating the
monitoring and LTS provisions to
address regional haze. We discuss the
relevant monitoring provisions further
below.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP
Requirements
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the
SIP contain a monitoring strategy for
measuring, characterizing, and reporting
regional haze visibility impairment that
is representative of all mandatory Class
I Federal areas within the state. This
monitoring strategy must be coordinated
with the monitoring strategy required in
40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this
requirement may be met through
participation in the IMPROVE network.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires
the establishment of any additional
monitoring sites or equipment needed to
assess whether reasonable progress
goals to address regional haze for all
mandatory Class I Federal areas within
the state are being achieved. Consistent
with EPA’s monitoring regulations for
RAVI and regional haze, South Dakota
indicates in Section 9.0 of the Regional
Haze SIP that it will rely on the
IMPROVE network for compliance
purposes. The IMPROVE monitors at the
South Dakota Class I Areas also
described in Section 9.0 of the SIP. We
propose to find that South Dakota has
satisfied the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4) enumerated in this
paragraph.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that
South Dakota establish procedures by
which monitoring data and other
information are used in determining the
contribution of emissions from within
South Dakota to regional haze visibility
impairment at mandatory Class I
Federal areas both within and outside
the State. The IMPROVE monitoring
program is national in scope, and other
states have similar monitoring and data
reporting procedures, ensuring a
consistent and robust monitoring data
collection system. As 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4) indicates, participation in
the IMPROVE program constitutes
compliance with this requirement. We
therefore propose that South Dakota has
satisfied this requirement.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that
the SIP provide for the reporting of all
visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
mandatory Class I Federal area in the
state. To the extent possible, South
Dakota should report visibility
monitoring data electronically. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the
SIP provide for other elements,
including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures, necessary to assess and
report on visibility. We propose that
South Dakota’s participation in the
IMPROVE network ensures that the
monitoring data is reported at least
annually and is easily accessible;
therefore, such participation complies
with this requirement.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that
South Dakota maintain a statewide
inventory of emissions of pollutants that
are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in
any mandatory Class I Federal area. The
inventory must include emissions for a
baseline year, emissions for the most
recent year for which data are available,
and estimates of future projected
emissions. The State must also include
a commitment to update the inventory
periodically. Please refer to section
III.E.1, above, where we discuss South
Dakota’s emission inventory. South
Dakota states in Section 5.1 of the SIP
that it intends to update the South
Dakota statewide emissions inventories
periodically and review periodic
emissions information from other states
and future emissions projections. We
propose that this satisfies the
requirement.
H. FLM Coordination
Badlands and Wind Cave are both
managed by the National Park Service,
the FLM for these South Dakota Class I
areas. Although the FLMs are very
active in participating in the regional
planning organizations, the Regional
Haze Rule grants the FLMs a special role
in the review of the regional haze SIPs,
summarized in section II.H, above. The
FLMs and the state environmental
agencies are our partners in the regional
haze process.
Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), South
Dakota was obligated to provide
National Park Service with an
opportunity for consultation, in person
and at least 60 days prior to holding a
public hearing on the Regional Haze
SIP. South Dakota sent a draft of its
Regional Haze SIP to the National Park
Service and other FLMs on January 15,
2010. South Dakota held a public
hearing in front of the Board of Minerals
and Environment on September 15,
2010. In July 2011, South Dakota
provided the FLMs and others a draft of
proposed amendments to the Regional
Haze SIP. The FLMs provided
comments to South Dakota’s amended
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
submittal. The State held another public
hearing on August 18, 2011.
40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that
South Dakota provide in its Regional
Haze SIP a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs. The FLMs communicated to
the State (and EPA) their concerns on
the January 15, 2010 draft Regional Haze
SIP. South Dakota responded to the
FLM’s comments and concerns in
Appendix D of the Regional Haze SIP.
The National Park Service commented
on the Regional Haze SIP amendment
regarding its concerns pertaining to a
reasonable progress four-factor analysis
to evaluate controls at GCC Dacotah’s
Kiln 6 and additional consultation with
Nebraska on Gerald Gentleman Station.
South Dakota provided us with its
rationale on GCC Dacotah’s Kiln 6
which we discussed in section III.D.2.
above. We also noted our agreement
with the level of consultation with
Nebraska for this planning period in
section III.D.6. above. According to the
Regional Haze Rule, South Dakota
should consult with Nebraska during
the next planning period.
Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies
the regional haze SIP must provide
procedures for continuing consultation
between the state and FLMs on the
implementation of the visibility
protection program required by 40 CFR
51.308, including development and
review of implementation plan revisions
and 5-year progress reports, and on the
implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas. South Dakota
commits in Section 10 of its Regional
Haze SIP to continue to coordinate and
consult with the FLMs as required by 40
CFR 51.308(i)(4). South Dakota states
that it intends to consult the FLMs in
the development and review of
implementation plan revisions; review
of progress reports; and development
and implementation of other programs
that may contribute to impairment of
visibility at South Dakota and other
Class I areas.
We are proposing that the State
complied with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(i).
I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year
Progress Reports
South Dakota commits in Section 11
of the SIP to complete items required in
the future by the Regional Haze Rule.
South Dakota acknowledged its
obligation under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to
submit periodic progress reports and
Regional Haze SIP revisions, with the
first report due by July 31, 2018 and
every ten years thereafter.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:57 Dec 07, 2011
Jkt 226001
South Dakota acknowledged its
obligation under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to
submit a progress report in the form of
a SIP revision to us every five years
following the initial submittal of the
Regional Haze SIP. The report will
evaluate the progress made towards the
reasonable progress goals for each
mandatory Class I area located within
South Dakota and in each mandatory
Class I area located outside South
Dakota that may be affected by
emissions from within South Dakota.
IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing to approve South
Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP revision,
including ARSD Chapter 74:36:21, that
was submitted on January 21, 2011 and
an amendment to this submittal that
was submitted on September 19, 2011.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements, and it does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
76673
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: November 29, 2011.
Howard M. Cantor,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region
8.
[FR Doc. 2011–31406 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0025; FRL–9502–
5]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas;
Revisions to the New Source Review
(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP);
General Definitions; Definition of
Modification of Existing Facility
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of Proposed
Disapproval.
AGENCY:
EPA is withdrawing a
proposed disapproval proposed on
September 23, 2009, regarding two
provisions that have been superseded by
later submitted revisions. EPA is taking
these actions under section 110 of the
Clean Air Act.
DATES: The proposed rule published
September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48450) is
withdrawn as of December 8, 2011.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\08DEP1.SGM
08DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 236 (Thursday, December 8, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76646-76673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31406]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0870; FRL-9501-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the South Dakota
State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze submitted by
the State of South Dakota on January 21, 2011, as amended by a
submittal received on September 19, 2011. This SIP revision was
submitted to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
and our rules that require states to prevent any future and remedy any
existing man-made impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas
caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located
over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze
program'').
DATES: Comments: Comments must be received on or before February 6,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0870, by one of the following methods:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
Email: fallon.gail@epa.gov.
Fax: (303) 312-6064 (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing
comments).
Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted Monday
through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0870. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The https://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA, without
going through https://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30-4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (303)
312-6281, or fallon.gail@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
(v) The words South Dakota and State mean the State of South
Dakota.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Regional Haze
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
[[Page 76647]]
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS)
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment (RAVI)
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
III. Our Evaluation of South Dakota's Regional Haze SIP
A. Affected Class I Areas
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility
Conditions
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
3. Natural Visibility Impairment
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
C. BART
1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
a. Modeling Methodology
b. Contribution Threshold
c. Sources Identified by South Dakota as Subject to BART
3. BART Determinations and Federally Enforceable Limits
a. Otter Tail Power Company, Big Stone I
b. South Dakota's BART Results and Summary
D. Evaluation of South Dakota's Reasonable Progress Goals
1. WRAP Visibility Modeling
2. Reasonable Progress ``Four-Factor'' Analyses
3. South Dakota's Conclusions From the Four-Factor Analysis
4. Establishment of the Reasonable Progress Goals
5. Reasonable Progress Consultation
6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota's Reasonable Progress Goals
E. LTS
1. Emissions Inventories
2. Sources of Visibility Impairment in South Dakota Class I
Areas
3. Visibility Projection Modeling
4. Consultation and Emissions Reductions for Other States' Class
I Areas
5. Mandatory LTS Factors
a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution Programs
b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of Construction Activities
c. Emission Limitation and Schedules of Compliance
d. Source Retirement and Replacement Schedules
e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke Management Techniques
f. Enforceability of South Dakota's Measures
g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due to Projected Changes
6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota's LTS
F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze Requirements
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
H. FLM Coordination
I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year Progress Reports
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Regional Haze
Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a
multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad
geographic area and emit particulate matter with a diameter less than
2.5 microns (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic
carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC) and soil dust) and its precursors
(e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). These precursors react in the
atmosphere to form PM2.5. PM2.5 impairs
visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment
reduces the clarity, color and visible distance that one can see.
PM2.5 also can cause serious health effects and mortality in
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition
and eutrophication.
Data from the ``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments'' (IMPROVE) monitoring network show that visibility
impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at
most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range \1\
in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks, memorial parks, wilderness
areas and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the
western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air
pollution. 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 1999). In most of the eastern
Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less
than 30 kilometers, or about one-fifth of the visual range that would
exist under estimated natural conditions. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I federal areas \2\ which
impairment results from man-made air pollution.'' CAA Sec. 169A(a)(1).
The terms ``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment''
are defined in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and
atmospheric discoloration. Id. section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``RAVI.'' 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These
regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. We deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment
had improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See CAA section
162(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in
consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of
156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. See
44 FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a mandatory Class I
area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. CAA section 162(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of an FLM. See CAA section 302(i). When
we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in
1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P. The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations
to integrate into them provisions addressing regional haze impairment
and establish a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR
51.300-309. Some of the main regional haze requirements are summarized
in section II of this action. The requirement to submit a Regional Haze
SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands. States were required to submit a SIP addressing regional haze
visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\3\ 40 CFR
51.308(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA's regional haze regulations require subsequent updates
to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)-(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Few states submitted a Regional Haze SIP prior to the December 17,
2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states,
including South Dakota and the District of Columbia, and the Virgin
Islands, had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional
[[Page 76648]]
haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once EPA has found that a state has
failed to make a required submission, EPA is required to promulgate a
FIP within two years unless the state submits a SIP and the Agency
approves it within the two year period. CAA Sec. 110(c)(1).
B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments and
various Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the air quality in Class
I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility
impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in
coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of
emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another.
Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate
from sources located across broad geographic areas, we have encouraged
the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility
impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning
organizations (RPOs) were formed to address regional haze and related
issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better
understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the
country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies to
reduce emissions of particulate matter (PM) and other pollutants
leading to regional haze.
The Western Regional Air Program (WRAP) is a collaborative effort
of state governments, tribal governments and various Federal agencies
established to conduct data analyses, conduct pollutant transport
modeling and coordinate planning activities among the western states.
Member state governments include: Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South
Dakota, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band
of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina
Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon,
Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe,
Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe of
Fort Hall.
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
The following is a summary of the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule. See 40 CFR 51.308 for further detail regarding the requirements
of the rule.
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional Haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and our implementing regulations require
states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable progress
toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific
attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence on
August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and
require these sources, where appropriate, to install Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for the purpose of eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment. The specific Regional Haze SIP
requirements are discussed in further detail below.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview (dv) as the
principal metric for measuring visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 39118. This
visibility metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in
terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility
conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility is
sometimes expressed in terms of the visual range, which is the greatest
distance in kilometers or miles at which a dark object can just be
distinguished against the sky. The deciview is a useful measure for
tracking progress in improving visibility, because each deciview change
is an equal incremental change in visibility perceived by the human
eye. Most people can detect a change in visibility of one deciview.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule provides additional
details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The deciview is used in expressing reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
(which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national
visibility goal), defining baseline, current and natural conditions,
and tracking changes in visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must contain
measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal
of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas
caused by man-made air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions
that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., man-made sources of air pollution would no longer
impair visibility in Class I areas.
To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437), and as
part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I
area at the time of each Regional Haze SIP submittal and periodically
review progress every five years midway through each 10-year
implementation period. To do this, the Regional Haze Rule requires
states to determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the
average of the 20 percent least impaired (``best'') and the average of
the 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility days over a
specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In addition,
states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions
for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural
visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of
pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total
light extinction based on those estimates. We have provided guidance to
states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural and current
visibility conditions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under
the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-005, available
at https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/RegionalHaze _
envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance''); and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the
Regional Haze Rule, (September 2003, EPA-454/B-03-004, available at
https://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf,
(hereinafter referred to as our ``2003 Tracking Progress
Guidance'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first Regional Haze SIPs that were due by December 17,
2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20
percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each
calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through
2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility
impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values
over the five-year period. The comparison of initial baseline
visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the
amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the
future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions
will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 2000-2004
baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in
visibility is measured.
[[Page 76649]]
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of Regional Haze
SIPs from the states that establish two reasonable progress goals
(i.e., two distinct goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the
``worst'' days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10-year
implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f). The Regional Haze
Rule does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but
instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for
``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural (i.e., ``background'')
visibility conditions. In setting reasonable progress goals, states
must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired
days over the (approximately) 10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same
period. Id.
In establishing reasonable progress goals, states are required to
consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA
and in our Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The
costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the
energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4)
the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States
must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when
selecting the reasonable progress goals for the best and worst days for
each applicable Class I area. In setting the reasonable progress goals,
states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of
progress'' or ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed
to achieve that rate of progress over the 10-year period of the SIP.
Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year
2064 represents a rate of progress, which states are to use for
analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve.
If a state establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides for a
slower rate of improvement in visibility than the rate that would be
needed to attain natural conditions by 2064, the state must
demonstrate, based on the reasonable progress factors, that the rate of
progress for the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by
2064 is not reasonable, and that the progress goal adopted by the state
is reasonable. In setting reasonable progress goals, each state with
one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with
potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with
emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the
state's Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining whether
a state's goals for visibility improvement provide for reasonable
progress toward natural visibility conditions, EPA is required to
evaluate the demonstrations developed by the state pursuant to
paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iii).
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources with the potential to emit 250 tons or more per year
of any pollutant in order to address visibility impacts from these
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary
sources \6\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install and operate
BART as determined by the state or by EPA in the case of a plan
promulgated under section 110(c) of the CAA. Under the Regional Haze
Rule, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such
``BART-eligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than
requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress
towards improving visibility than BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject to BART
are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 6, 2005, we published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 (``BART Guidelines'') to assist states in determining which of
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. 70
FR 39104. In making a BART determination for a fossil fuel-fired
electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of
750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set forth in the BART
Guidelines. A state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART
Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources.
Regardless of source size or type, a state must meet the requirements
of the CAA and our regulations for selection of BART, and the state's
BART analysis and determination must be reasonable in light of the
overarching purpose of the regional haze program.
The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be
logically broken down into three steps: First, states identify those
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth
in 40 CFR 51.301 \7\; second, states determine which of such sources
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a
source which fits this description is ``subject to BART''); and third,
for each source subject to BART, states then identify the best
available type and level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility-impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX and
PM. We have stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether VOC or NH3 compounds impair visibility
in Class I areas.
Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold
value for their BART modeling, below which a BART-eligible source would
not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any
source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciviews. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1.
In their SIPs, states must identify ``BART-eligible sources'' and
``subject-to-BART sources'' and document their
[[Page 76650]]
BART control determination analyses. The term ``BART-eligible source''
used in the BART Guidelines means the collection of individual emission
units at a facility that together comprises the BART-eligible source.
In making BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires
that states consider the following factors: (1) The costs of
compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance; (3) any existing pollution control technology in use at the
source; (4) the remaining useful life of the source; and (5) the degree
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to
result from the use of such technology. See also 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
A Regional Haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a
state has made its BART determination, the BART controls must be
installed and in operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years after the date of our approval of the Regional
Haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the Regional Haze Rule, general SIP
requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for
the BART controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a). As noted
above, the Regional Haze Rule allows states to implement an alternative
program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would BART.
E. Long Term Strategy (LTS)
Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that
states include in their Regional Haze SIP a 10- to 15 year strategy for
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze
Rule requires that states include a long term strategy (LTS) in their
Regional Haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures
a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP
submittal to meet applicable reasonable progress goals. The LTS must
include ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals''
for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area(s) located in
another state or states, the Regional Haze Rule requires the state to
consult with the other state(s) in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a state
with a Class I area impacted by emissions from another state must
consult with such contributing state, and must also demonstrate that it
has included in its SIP all measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable progress goals
for the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). The RPOs have provided a forum
for significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations
between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate
visibility issues. This is especially true where two states belong to
different RPOs.
States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of
visibility impairment in developing their LTS, including stationary,
minor, mobile and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how
each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account
in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs, including measures to address reasonably
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI); (2) measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and
schedules for compliance to achieve the reasonable progress goals; (4)
source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including
plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6)
enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7)
the anticipated net effect on visibility due to projected changes in
point, area and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by
the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment (RAVI)
As part of the Regional Haze Rule, we revised 40 CFR 51.306(c)
regarding the LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide
for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every
three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan
addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December
17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before
this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze,
and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first
Regional Haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS and periodic progress reports
evaluating progress towards reasonable progress goals, must be
submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic
progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g),
respectively. The periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both
regional haze and RAVI and must be submitted to us as a SIP revision.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional Haze Rule includes the
requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing and
reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative
of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy
must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section
51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with
the first Regional Haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years.
The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring
sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether
reasonable progress goals will be met.
Under section 51.308(d)(4), the SIP must also provide for the
following:
Procedures for using monitoring data and other information
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and
where possible, in electronic format;
Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include
emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for
which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions.
A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory
periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The Regional Haze Rule requires control strategies to cover an
initial implementation period extending to the
[[Page 76651]]
year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those
strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP
revisions must meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d), with
the exception of BART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART
applies only to the first Regional Haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART
must continue to comply with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e).
Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of
reasonable progress will continue to be met.
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The Regional Haze Rule requires that states consult with Federal
land managers (FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR
51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in
person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the
SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to
discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I
area and to offer recommendations on the development of the reasonable
progress goals and on the development and implementation of strategies
to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its
SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the
FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing
consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state's
visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP
revisions, five-year progress reports, and the implementation of other
programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility
in Class I areas.
III. Our Evaluation of South Dakota's Regional Haze SIP
The State of South Dakota submitted a revision to its SIP to
address the requirements for regional haze on January 21, 2011. On
September 19, 2011, South Dakota submitted an amendment to the Regional
Haze SIP revision for approval into the South Dakota SIP. The amendment
incorporated changes made by the State to ensure approvability of the
SIP revision. The changes incorporated detailed monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for BART sources into state
regulation, Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) Chapter
74:36:21, including specifying that BART limits apply at all times and
clarified compliance test methods for particulate matter and continuous
emission monitoring system requirements for SO2 and
NOX. In addition, South Dakota revised the reasonable
progress analysis for the GCC Dacotah cement plant. The following is a
discussion of our evaluation of the revision.
A. Affected Class I Areas
In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), South Dakota identified two
Class I areas within its borders: Badlands National Park and Wind Cave
National Park. South Dakota is responsible for developing reasonable
progress goals for these two Class I areas. South Dakota emissions have
or may reasonably be expected to have impacts at Class I areas in other
states including: Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area and
Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota; Medicine Lake National Wildlife
Refuge Wilderness Area and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge Wilderness
Area in Montana; Bridger Wilderness Area, Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area,
Grand Teton National Park, Teton Wilderness Area, North Absaroka
Wilderness Area, Washakie Wilderness Area and Yellowstone National Park
in Wyoming; and Theodore Roosevelt National Park and Lostwood
Wilderness Area in North Dakota. South Dakota consulted with the
appropriate state air quality agency in each of these states through
their involvement with the WRAP and worked with other states that are
not members of WRAP (including Minnesota and Nebraska). Assessment of
South Dakota's contribution to haze in these Class I areas is based on
technical analyses developed by WRAP.
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and Current Visibility Conditions
As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule
and in accordance with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, South
Dakota calculated baseline/current and natural visibility conditions
for its Class I areas, Badlands and Wind Cave, on the most impaired and
least impaired days, as summarized below. The natural visibility
conditions, baseline visibility conditions and visibility impact
reductions needed to achieve the uniform rate of progress in 2018 for
both South Dakota Class I areas are presented in Table 1 and further
explained in this section. More detail is available in Section 3 of the
South Dakota SIP.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The visibility and uniform rate of progress calculations
presented in Table 1 and elsewhere in section III.B represent
corrections EPA made to minor math errors in the visibility results
South Dakota presented in the SIP and which the State agrees will be
corrected with the next routine revision of the SIP. Our corrections
are included in the docket in a spreadsheet entitled, EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0870 South Dakota Regional Haze Proposal Section III.B
Visibility Conditions Corrections.
Table 1--Visibility Impact Reductions Needed Based on Best and Worst Days Baselines, Natural Conditions and Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) Goals for
South Dakota Class I Areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst days 20% Best days
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota Class I area 2018 Reduction 2064 Natural 2064 Natural
2000-2004 2018 URP Goal needed (delta conditions 2000-2004 conditions
Baseline (dv) (dv) dv) (dv) Baseline (dv) (dv)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands................................................ 17.14 15.02 2.12 8.06 6.89 2.86
National Park...........................................
Wind Cave............................................... 15.84 13.94 1.90 7.71 5.14 1.88
National Park...........................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions
Natural background visibility as defined in our 2003 Natural
Visibility Guidance is estimated by calculating the expected light
extinction using default estimates of natural concentrations of fine
particle components adjusted by site-specific estimates of humidity.
This calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a formula for
estimating light extinction from the estimated natural concentrations
of fine particle components (or from components measured by the IMPROVE
monitors).
[[Page 76652]]
As documented in our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, EPA allows
states to use ``refined'' or alternative approaches to this guidance to
estimate the values that characterize the natural visibility conditions
of Class I areas. One alternative approach is to develop and justify
the use of alternative estimates of natural concentrations of fine
particle components. Another alternative is to use the ``new IMPROVE
equation'' that was adopted for use by the IMPROVE Steering Committee
in December 2005.\9\ The purpose of this refinement to the ``old
IMPROVE equation'' is to provide more accurate estimates of the various
factors that affect the calculation of light extinction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The IMPROVE program is a cooperative measurement effort
governed by a steering committee composed of representatives from
Federal agencies (including representatives from EPA and the FLMs)
and RPOs. The IMPROVE monitoring program was established in 1985 to
aid the creation of Federal and state implementation plans for the
protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the objectives of
IMPROVE is to identify chemical species and emission sources
responsible for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The
IMPROVE program has also been a key participant in visibility-
related research, including the advancement of monitoring
instrumentation, analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy
formulation and source attribution field studies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Badlands and Wind Cave, South Dakota opted to use the revised
IMPROVE equation to calculate natural background conditions. This is an
acceptable approach under our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance. EPA has
found the use of the revised IMPROVE equation appropriate for WRAP
states.\10\ For Badlands, the natural visibility background for the 20
percent worst days is 8.06 deciviews and for the 20 percent best days
is 2.86 deciviews. For Wind Cave, the natural visibility result for the
20 percent worst days is 7.71 deciviews and for the 20 percent best
days is 1.88 deciviews. We have reviewed South Dakota's estimates of
the natural visibility conditions and as the approach used by the State
was consistent with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance we are
proposing to find them acceptable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The science behind the revised IMPROVE equation is
summarized in a document entitled, Technical Support Document for
Technical Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) in Support of Western Regional Haze Plans, February 28, 2011,
(hereinafter referred to as EPA WRAP Technical Support Document and
available in the docket) and in numerous published papers. See for
example: Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the IMPROVE
Equation for Estimating Ambient Light Extinction Coefficients--Final
Report. March 2006. Prepared for IMPROVE, Colorado State University,
Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, Fort Collins,
Colorado, available at https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/IMPROVEeqReview.htmand
Pitchford, Marc., 2006, Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the
New IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species Concentrations Estimates.
Final Report of the Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO
Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 2006, available at
https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Estimating Baseline Visibility Conditions
As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) of the Regional Haze Rule,
South Dakota calculated baseline visibility conditions for Badlands and
Wind Cave. The baseline condition calculation begins with the
calculation of light extinction using the IMPROVE equation. The IMPROVE
equation sums the light extinction \11\ resulting from individual
pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. As with the natural
visibility conditions calculation, South Dakota chose to use the
revised IMPROVE equation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The amount of light lost as it travels over one million
meters. The haze index, in units of dv, is calculated directly from
the total light extinction, bext expressed in inverse
megameters (Mm-1), as follows: HI = 10
ln(bext/10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The period for establishing baseline visibility conditions is 2000-
2004, and baseline conditions must be calculated using available
monitoring data. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2). The South Dakota Regional Haze
SIP employed visibility monitoring data collected by IMPROVE monitors
located in both South Dakota Class I areas for the years 2000 through
2004 and the resulting baseline conditions represent an average for
2000-2004. South Dakota calculated the baseline conditions at Badlands
as 17.14 deciviews on the 20 percent worst days, and 6.89 deciviews on
the 20 percent best days. South Dakota calculated the baseline
conditions at Wind Cave as 15.84 deciviews on the 20 percent worst
days, and 5.14 deciviews on the 20 percent best days. We have reviewed
South Dakota's estimations of baseline visibility conditions and
propose to find these acceptable as the approach the State used was
consistent with our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance.
3. Natural Visibility Impairment
To address the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), South
Dakota also calculated the number of deciviews by which baseline
conditions exceed natural visibility conditions at Badlands and Wind
Cave. For Badlands, baseline conditions exceed natural conditions by
9.08 deciviews (17.14-8.06) for the 20 percent worst days and 4.03
deciviews (6.89-2.86) for the 20 percent best days. For Wind Cave,
these figures are 8.13 (15.84-7.71) and 3.26 deciviews (5.14-1.88),
respectively.
4. Uniform Rate of Progress
In setting the reasonable progress goals, South Dakota analyzed and
determined the uniform rate of progress needed to reach natural
visibility conditions by the year 2064. In so doing, South Dakota
compared the baseline visibility conditions in Badlands and Wind Cave
to the natural visibility conditions in Badlands and Wind Cave (as
described above) and determined the uniform rate of progress needed in
order to attain natural visibility conditions by 2064 in both Class I
areas. South Dakota constructed the uniform rate of progress consistent
with the requirements of the Regional Haze Rule by plotting a straight
graphical line from the baseline level of visibility impairment for
2000-2004 to the level of visibility conditions representing no
anthropogenic impairment in 2064 for Badlands and Wind Cave. The
uniform rates of progress are summarized in Table 2 and further
described below.
Using a baseline visibility value at Badlands of 17.14 deciviews
and a ``refined'' natural visibility value of 8.06 deciviews for the 20
percent worst days, South Dakota calculated the uniform rate of
progress to be approximately 0.151 deciviews per year (deciviews/year
or dv/yr). This results in a total reduction of 9.08 deciviews to reach
the natural visibility condition of 8.06 deciviews in 2064. The uniform
rate of progress results in a visibility improvement of 2.18 deciviews
needed for the period covered by this SIP revision submittal (up to and
including 2018).
Using a baseline visibility value at Wind Cave of 15.84 deciviews
and a ``refined'' natural visibility value of 7.71 deciviews for the 20
percent worst days, South Dakota calculated the uniform rate of
progress to be approximately 0.136 deciviews per year. This results in
a total reduction of 8.13 deciviews to reach the natural visibility
condition of 7.71 deciviews in 2064. The uniform rate of progress
results in a visibility improvement of 1.89 deciviews needed for the
period covered by this SIP revision submittal (up to and including
2018).
[[Page 76653]]
Table 2--Summary of Uniform Rates of Progress
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class I area Badlands Wind cave
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Conditions............. 17.14 dv.......... 15.84 dv
Natural Visibility.............. 8.06 dv........... 7.71 dv
Total Improvement by 2064....... 9.08 dv........... 8.13 dv
Needed Improvement for this SIP 2.18 dv........... 1.89 dv
by 2018.
URP............................. 0.151 dv/year..... 0.136 dv/year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find that South Dakota has appropriately calculated
the uniform rates of progress.
C. BART
BART is an element of South Dakota's LTS for the first
implementation period. As discussed in more detail in section II.D of
this preamble, the BART evaluation process consists of three
components: (1) An identification of all the BART-eligible sources; (2)
an assessment of whether those BART-eligible sources are in fact
subject to BART; and (3) a determination of any BART controls. South
Dakota addressed these steps as follows:
1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources
The first step of a BART evaluation is to identify all the BART-
eligible sources within the state's boundaries. The State identified
the BART-eligible sources in South Dakota by utilizing the approach set
out in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 39158); this approach provides three
criteria for identifying BART-eligible sources: (1) One or more
emission units at the facility fit within one of the 26 categories
listed in the BART Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s) began operation
on or after August 7, 1962, and was in existence on August 7, 1977; and
(3) potential emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant from
subject units are 250 tons or more per year. South Dakota initially
screened its emissions inventory and permitting database to identify
major facilities with emission units in one or more of the 26 BART
categories. Following this, South Dakota used its databases and records
to identify facilities in these source categories with potential
emissions of 250 tons per year or more for any visibility-impairing
pollutant from any units that were in existence on August 7, 1977 and
began operation on or after August 7, 1962.
The BART Guidelines direct states to address SO2,
NOX and direct PM (including both coarse (PM10)
and fine (PM2.5) particulate matter emissions as visibility-
impairing pollutants and to exercise their ``best judgment to determine
whether VOC or NH3 emissions from a source are likely to
have an impact on visibility in an area.'' See 70 FR 39162. The
available inventory information indicates VOCs in South Dakota
overwhelmingly come from biogenic sources, and NH3 in South
Dakota is primarily due to area sources, such as livestock and
fertilizer application. Because these are not point sources, they are
not subject to BART. We have reviewed this information and propose to
find South Dakota's focus on SO2, NOX, and PM
acceptable.
South Dakota identified BART-eligible sources in South Dakota as
shown in Table 3. This information is presented in Section 6 of South
Dakota's SIP.
Table 3--List of BART-Eligible Sources in South Dakota
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART-eligible source Location BART source category (SC) Nearest class I area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Northern States Power Company Sioux Falls, South Dakota. SC 1--fossil fuel steam N/A.\1\
(Units 1, 2, and 3). electric plants >250
MMBtu/hr heat input.
2. Otter Tail Power Company, Big Near Big Stone City, South SC 1--fossil fuel steam Boundary Waters
Stone I (Unit 1). Dakota. electric plants >250 431 km.
MMBtu/hr heat input.
3. Pete Lien and Sons, Inc........ Rapid City, South Dakota.. SC 12--lime plants....... Wind Cave
52 km.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ South Dakota did not analyze the three units at Northern States Power for distance to Class I areas as they
have been decommissioned.
2. Identification of Sources Subject to BART
The second step of the BART evaluation is to identify those BART-
eligible sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment at any Class I area, i.e. those
sources that are subject to BART. The BART Guidelines allow states to
consider exempting some BART-eligible sources from further BART review
because they may not reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute
to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
a. Modeling Methodology
The BART Guidelines provide that states may use the CALPUFF \12\
modeling system or another appropriate model to predict the visibility
impacts from a single source on a Class I area and to, therefore,
determine whether an individual source is anticipated to cause or
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas, i.e., ``is
subject to BART.'' The BART Guidelines state that we find CALPUFF is
the best regulatory modeling application currently available for
predicting a single source's contribution to visibility impairment (70
FR 39162).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Note that our reference to CALPUFF encompasses the entire
CALPUFF modeling system, which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and
CALPOST models and other pre and post processors. The different
versions of CALPUFF have corresponding versions of CALMET, CALPOST,
etc. which may not be compatible with previous versions (e.g., the
output from a newer version of CALMET may not be compatible with an
older version of CALPUFF). The different versions of the CALPUFF
modeling system are available from the model developer at https://www.src.com/verio/download/download.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART Guidelines also recommend that states develop a modeling
protocol for making individual source attributions, and suggest that
states may want to consult with us and their RPO to address any issues
prior to modeling. South Dakota relied on WRAP's CALPUFF modeling for
South Dakota BART sources as
[[Page 76654]]
recommended by the BART Guidelines.\13\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
section III.A.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The WRAP modeling protocol is available at https://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine if each BART-eligible source has a significant impact
on visibility, South Dakota used WRAP's CALPUFF modeling results to
estimate daily visibility impacts above estimated natural conditions at
each Class I area within 300 km of any BART-eligible facility, based on
maximum actual 24-hour emissions over a three year period (2000-2002).
b. Contribution Threshold
For states using modeling to determine the applicability of BART to
single sources, the BART Guidelines note that the first step is to set
a contribution threshold to assess whether the impact of a single
source is sufficient to cause or contribute to visibility impairment at
a Class I area. The BART Guidelines state that, ``[a] single source
that is responsible for a 1.0 deciview change or more should be
considered to `cause' visibility impairment.'' 70 FR 39104, 39161. The
BART Guidelines also state that ``the appropriate threshold for
determining whether a source contributes to visibility impairment may
reasonably differ across states,'' but, ``[a]s a general matter, any
threshold that you use for determining whether a source `contributes'
to visibility impairment should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.'' Id.
Further, in setting a contribution threshold, states should ``consider
the number of emissions sources affecting the Class I areas at issue
and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts.'' The Guidelines
affirm that states are free to use a lower threshold if they conclude
that the location of a large number of BART-eligible sources in
proximity to a Class I area justifies this approach.
South Dakota used a contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews for
determining which sources are subject to BART. The State's decision was
based on the following factors: (1) 0.5 deciviews equates to the 5%
extinction threshold for new sources under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) New Source Review rules, (2) 0.5
deciviews is consistent with the threshold selected by other states in
the west, which all selected 0.5 deciviews, and (3) 0.5 deciviews
represents the limit of perceptible change. Although we do not agree
that all of the factors considered by South Dakota's Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources are relevant in determining whether
a source can be considered to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment, we propose to approve the State's threshold of 0.5
deciviews. As the discussion below indicates, Big Stone I is the only
BART-eligible source in South Dakota in operation. Given that and the
fact that the modeling indicates that Big Stone I is reasonably
anticipated to have an impact over the 0.5 deciview threshold at
several Class I Areas, it is apparent that no BART-eligible sources
were exempted from review based on the 0.5 deciviews threshold that
could have had meaningful impact on visibility in one or more Class I
areas. We are proposing that 0.5 deciviews is a reasonable threshold
for South Dakota in determining whether its BART-eligible sources are
subject to BART.
c. Sources Identified by South Dakota as Subject to BART
South Dakota determined that the three units at Northern States
Power were not subject to BART because the units have been
decommissioned and are no longer permitted to operate under the
facility's Title V air quality permit. Consistent with the BART
Guidelines, South Dakota requested that WRAP model each of its
remaining operating BART-eligible sources to assess the extent of their
contribution to visibility impairment at surrounding Class I areas.
The WRAP modeling results demonstrated that Pete Lien and Sons,
Inc. did not cause or contribute to visibility impairment at any Class
I area. After reviewing the modeling inputs, South Dakota determined
that the vertical kiln should be modeled again due to several errors.
However, before additional modeling could be done, Pete Lien and Sons,
Inc. shut down and dismantled the kiln in 2009 per its Title V
permit.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Although Pete Lien and Sons' existing Title V air quality
permit still identifies the vertical kiln as a unit, permit
condition 1.1 specifies in the footnote of Table 1-1 that Pe
