Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Nebraska; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit Technology Determination, 12770-12784 [2012-4991]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
12770
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
final rule which is published in the
Rules Section of this Federal Register.
A detailed rationale for the approval is
set forth in the direct final rule. If no
adverse comments are received in
response to this rule, no further activity
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period on this
document. Any parties interested in
commenting on this document should
do so at this time.
Dated: February 16, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012–4995 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R07–OAR–2012–0158; FRL–9639–6]
Approval, Disapproval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Nebraska; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Best Available
Retrofit Technology Determination
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to partially
approve and partially disapprove a
revision to the Nebraska State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Nebraska through the
Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality (NDEQ) on July 13, 2011 that
addresses regional haze for the first
implementation period. This 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’’). States are
required to ensure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. EPA is proposing to approve a
portion of this SIP revision as meeting
certain requirements of the regional
haze program and to partially approve
and partially disapprove those portions
addressing the requirements for best
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
available retrofit technology (BART) and
the long-term strategy (LTS). EPA is
proposing a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) relying on the Transport Rule
to satisfy BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
at one source to address these issues.
DATES: Comments. Written comments
must be received via the methods given
in the Instructions for Comment
Submittal section on or before April 2,
2012.
ADDRESSES: Instructions for Comment
Submittal. Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA–R07–
OAR–2012–0158, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger,
Air Planning and Development Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101.
4. Hand or Courier Delivery: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City,
Kansas 66101; attention: Chrissy
Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8
a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, excluding
Federal holidays. Special arrangements
should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
5. Fax: (913) 551–7864 (please alert
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are
faxing comments).
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov
or email. The www.regulations.gov web
site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system,
which means we will not know your
identity or contact information unless
you provide it in the body of your
comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going
through www.regulations.gov your email
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, we
recommend that you include your name
and other contact information in the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
body of your comment and with any
disk or CD–ROM you submit. If we
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, we 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. For
additional information about EPA’s
public docket visit the EPA Docket
Center homepage at www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning and Development
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street,
Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street Kansas City,
Kansas 66101, or by telephone at (913)
551–7864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA’s proposed
actions?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing
Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for regional
haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and
Current Visibility Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress
Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
E. Long Term Strategy
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and
Reasonably Attributable Visibility
Impairment Long-Term Strategy
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP
Requirements
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
H. Consultation With States and Federal
Land Managers
III. Our Analysis of Nebraska’s Regional Haze
SIP
A. Public Notice
B. Affected Class I Areas
C. Baseline and Natural Visibility
Conditions
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Long-Term Strategy
a. Consultation on Other States’ RPGs
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology
a. BART-Eligible Sources
b. BART-Subject Sources
c. Particulate Matter (PM) Evaluation
d. BART Determination for Omaha Public
Power District (OPPD) Nebraska City
Station (NCS) Unit 1
e. BART Determination for Nebraska Public
Power District (NPPD) Gerald Gentleman
Station (GGS) Units 1 and 2
f. BART Summary and Enforceability
G. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) To
Address SO2 BART for GGS and LTS
H. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI
I. Monitoring Strategy
J. Emissions Inventory
K. Federal Land Manager (FLM)
Consultation
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year
Progress Report
IV. Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for EPA’s
proposed actions?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. The Regional Haze Problem
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
fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates,
nitrates, organic carbon, elemental
carbon, and soil dust) and their
precursors (e.g., SO2, nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia
(NH3) and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react
in the atmosphere to form PM2.5 (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon,
elemental carbon, and soil dust), which
also impair 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.1
Data from the existing visibility
monitoring network, 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
1 Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness
of nutrients in a lake or other body of water,
frequently due to runoff from the land, which
causes a dense growth of plant life and death of
animal life from lack of oxygen.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
national park and wilderness areas. The
average visual range 2 in many Class I
areas (i.e., national parks and 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.
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes as a national goal the
‘‘prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas 3 which impairment
results from manmade air pollution.’’
CAA § 169A(a)(1). The terms
‘‘impairment of visibility’’ and
‘‘visibility impairment’’ are defined in
the Act to include a reduction in visual
range and atmospheric discoloration.
CAA § 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we
promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas
that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a
single source or small group of sources,
i.e., ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility
impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084
(December 2, 1980). These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing
visibility impairment. We deferred
action on regional haze that emanates
from a variety of sources until
2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in
kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be
viewed against the sky.
3 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 a
‘‘Federal Land Manager’’ (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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12771
monitoring, modeling and scientific
knowledge about the relationships
between pollutants and visibility
impairment were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address 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 (RHR)
revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the
regulations provisions addressing RH
impairment and established 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
elements of the regional haze
requirements are summarized in section
II. 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
the first implementation plan
addressing visibility impairment no
later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR
51.308(b).
C. 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. As noted above,
pollution affecting the air quality in
Class I areas can be transported over
long distances, even hundreds of
kilometers. Therefore, to address
effectively 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
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 developed 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 PM and
other pollutants that cause haze.
The State of Nebraska participated in
the planning efforts of the Central
Regional Air Planning Association
(CENRAP), which is affiliated with the
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12772
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Central States Air Resource Agencies
(CENSARA). CENRAP is an organization
of States, tribes, Federal agencies and
other interested parties that identifies
visibility issues and develops strategies
to address them. CENRAP is one of the
five RPOs across the U.S. and includes
the States and tribal areas of Nebraska,
Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota,
Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and
Louisiana. States were also required by
40 CFR 51.308(i) to coordinate with
FLMs during the development of the
State’s strategies to address haze. FLMs
include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
National Park Service.
II. What are the requirements for
regional haze SIPs?
The following is a summary and basic
explanation of the regulations covered
under the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for
a complete listing of the regulations
under which this SIP was evaluated.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
CAA sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2)
require revisions to a SIP to be adopted
by a State after reasonable notice and
public hearing. EPA has promulgated
specific procedural requirements for SIP
revisions in 40 CFR Part 51, subpart F.
These requirements include publication
of notices by prominent advertisement
in the relevant geographic area of a
public hearing on proposed revisions, at
least a 30-day public comment period,
and the opportunity for a public
hearing, and that the State, in
accordance with its laws, submit the
revision to the EPA for approval.
Specific information on Nebraska’s
rulemaking, regional haze SIP
development and public information
process is included in Chapter 3, and
Appendix 3, of the State of Nebraska
regional haze SIP, which is included in
the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
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 BART controls for
the purpose of eliminating or reducing
visibility impairment. The specific
regional haze SIP requirements are
discussed in further detail below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural,
and Current Visibility Conditions
The RHR establishes the deciview
(dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. See 70 FR 39104.
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 expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality
measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the
value of light extinction using a
logarithmic function. The deciview is a
more useful measure for tracking
progress in improving visibility than
light extinction itself 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 anthropogenic
air pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause haze. The national
goal is a return to natural conditions,
i.e., anthropogenic 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
RHR requires States to determine the
degree of impairment (in deciviews) for
the average of the 20 percent least
impaired (‘‘best’’) and 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
4 The preamble to the RHR provides additional
details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725
(July 1, 1999).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
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 RPGs (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 70 FR 3915;
see also 64 FR 35714. The RHR 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 RPGs, 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.
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/rh_
envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘our
2003 Natural Visibility Guidance’’); and Guidance
for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze
Rule, (EPA–454/B–03–004, September 2003,
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\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
States have significant discretion in
establishing RPGs, but are required to
consider the following factors
established in section 169A of the CAA
and in our RHR 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 RPGs for
the best and worst days for each
applicable Class I area. States have
considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as
noted in our reasonable progress
guidance.6 In setting the RPGs, States
must also consider the rate of progress
needed to reach natural visibility
conditions by 2064 (referred to hereafter
as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ or the
‘‘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. In
setting RPGs, 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
Class I State’s areas. 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iv).
States without Class I areas are
required to submit regional haze SIPs to
address their contribution to visibility
impairment. As per the previous
discussion in this proposed rulemaking,
the ability of the long range transport of
pollutants to affect visibility conditions
in areas makes it imperative that each
State evaluate how emissions from
within its borders affect visibility
impairment in Class I areas in other
States.
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
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 greater than
250 tons or more of any pollutant in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
6 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals
under the Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007,
memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to
EPA Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10
(pp. 4–2, 5–1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 7 built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘best available retrofit technology’’
as determined by the State or us in the
case of a plan promulgated under
section 110(c) of the CAA. Under the
RHR, 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.
We promulgated regulations
addressing regional haze in 1999, 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart P.8 These regulations
require all States to submit
implementation plans that, among other
measures, contain either emission limits
representing BART for certain sources
constructed between 1962 and 1977, or
alternative measures that provide for
greater reasonable progress than BART.
40 CFR 51.308(e).
On July 6, 2005, we published the
Guidelines for BART Determinations
Under the Regional Haze Rule 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, 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.
The process of establishing BART
emission limitations can be logically
broken down into three steps: first,
7 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART are listed in CAA section
169A(g)(7).
8 In American Corn Growers Ass’n v. EPA, 291
F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2002), the U.S Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling
vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the
regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART
guidelines to address the court’s ruling in that case.
See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12773
States identify those sources which
meet the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible
source’’ set forth in 40 CFR 51.301;9
second, States determine whether 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
appropriate type and the 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. States
should use their best judgment in
determining whether volatile organic
compounds (VOC) or ammonia
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 dv (70 FR 39161).
In their SIPs, States must identify
potential BART sources, described as
‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR,
and document their 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 BARTeligible 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
9 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were put in place
between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977, and
whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12774
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States are
free to determine the weight and
significance to be assigned to each
factor. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
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. See CAA section
169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP must also include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
BART controls on the source. See CAA
section 110(a).
As noted above, the RHR 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. Under
regulations issued in 2005 revising the
regional haze program, EPA made just
such a demonstration for the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR). See 70 FR 39104
(July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations provide
that States participating in the CAIR
cap-and trade program under 40 CFR
Part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved
CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the
CAIR FIP in 40 CFR Part 97 need not
require affected BART-eligible electric
generating units (EGUs) to install,
operate, and maintain BART for
emissions of SO2 and NOX. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not
address direct emissions of PM, States
were still required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs
subject to BART for that pollutant.
Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted
in the remand of the rule to EPA. See
North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176
(DC Cir. 2008). EPA issued a new rule
in 2011 to address the interstate
transport of NOX and SO2 in the eastern
United States. See 76 FR 48208 (August
8, 2011) (‘‘the Transport Rule,’’ also
known as the Cross-State Air Pollution
Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA
proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would
achieve greater reasonable progress
towards the national goal than would
BART in the States in which the
Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219.
Based on this proposed finding, EPA
also proposed to revise the RHR to allow
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
States to substitute participation in the
trading programs under the Transport
Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has
not taken final action on that rule. Also
on December 30, 2011, the Circuit Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia
issued an order addressing the status of
the Transport Rule and CAIR in
response to motions filed by numerous
parties seeking a stay of the Transport
Rule pending judicial review. In that
order, the DC Circuit stayed the
Transport Rule pending the court’s
resolutions of the petitions for review of
that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P.
v. EPA (No. 11–1302 and consolidated
cases). The court also indicated that
EPA is expected to continue to
administer the CAIR in the interim until
the court rules on the petitions for
review of the Transport Rule.
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 ten
to fifteen year strategy for making
reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3)
of the RHR requires that States include
a 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 any applicable
RPGs. 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 located in another State, the
RHR requires the impacted State to
coordinate with the contributing States
in order to develop coordinated
emissions management strategies. 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate
that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of
the emission reductions needed to meet
the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs
have provided forums 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
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
account in developing their LTS: (1)
Emission reductions due to ongoing air
pollution control programs; (2)
measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; (3) emissions
limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the RPG; (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; (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 Long-Term Strategy
As part of the RHR, EPA 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 in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(b) and (c). The State must revise
its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for
addressing RAVI and regional haze on
or before this date. It must also submit
the first such coordinated LTS with its
first regional haze SIP. Future
coordinated LTSs, and periodic progress
reports evaluating progress toward
RPGs, 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 be submitted to EPA
as a SIP revision and report on both
regional haze and RAVI impairment.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP
Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR
includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
characterizing, and reporting of
visibility impairment that is
representative of all Class I 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 Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (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
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
it must be reviewed every five (5) years.
The monitoring strategy must also
provide for additional monitoring sites
if the IMPROVE network is not
sufficient to determine whether RPGs
will be met.
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 haze visibility
impairment at Class I areas both within
and outside the State;
• For a State with no mandatory Class
I areas, procedures for using monitoring
data and other information to determine
the contribution of emissions from
within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in
other States;
• 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, along
with a commitment to update the
inventory periodically; and
• Other elements, including
reporting, recordkeeping, and other
measures necessary to assess and report
on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to
cover an initial implementation period
extending to the year 2018, with a
comprehensive reassessment and
revision of those strategies, as
appropriate, every ten 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), as noted
above. 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
The RHR requires that States consult
with other States and 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 sixty days prior
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 RPGs 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 Analysis of Nebraska’s
Regional Haze SIP
The State of Nebraska submitted a
regional haze SIP revision to EPA on
July 13, 2011 for approval into the
Nebraska SIP. The following is an
evaluation of that submission. See the
Technical Support Document (TSD) for
this proposal for a more comprehensive
technical analysis.
A. Public Notice
EPA is proposing to find that the State
of Nebraska has met the requirements of
the CAA which require that the State
adopt a SIP after reasonable notice and
public hearing. EPA also believes that
the State has met the specific procedural
requirements for SIP revisions
promulgated at 40 CFR part 51, subpart
F and appendix V. The State met these
requirements by publishing notices of
the public hearing, an opportunity for a
public hearing, and at least a thirty-day
public comment period by prominent
advertisement, and Nebraska, in
accordance with its laws, submitted the
revisions on July 13, 2011, to EPA for
approval. Specific information on
Nebraska’s rulemaking, regional haze
SIP development and public
information process is included in
Chapter 3, and Appendix 3, of the State
of Nebraska’s regional haze SIP, which
is included in the docket of this
proposed rulemaking.
B. Affected Class I Areas
Although there are no Class I areas
within the State of Nebraska, the State
is still required to identify those Class
I areas which may be affected by
emissions from Nebraska sources.
Nebraska participated in the planning
efforts of CENRAP, an RPO including
nine States—Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma,
Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12775
Arkansas, and Louisiana. CENRAP and
its contractors provided air quality
modeling to the States to help them
determine whether sources located
within the State can be reasonably
expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in Class I areas.
The modeling conducted relied on
baseline year (2002) and future planning
year (2018) emissions inventories that
were prepared with participation from
each of the CENRAP States. The
modeling was based on PM Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) for
the Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with extensions (CAMx) photochemical
model.
According to the PSAT modeling,
contributions from Nebraska sources for
the worst 20 percent days were highest
at the South Dakota Class I areas. For
the 2002 baseline year, Nebraska
sources were projected to contribute
7.81 percent of visibility impairment at
Badlands, and 7 percent at Wind Cave.
In 2018, the projected contribution was
reduced to 5.89 percent and 5.24
percent, respectively. However, it is
critical to note that the 2018 projections
were developed assuming presumptive
levels of SO2 control on Nebraska BART
sources, which ultimately the State did
not require. For that reason, it is likely
that Nebraska sources will have a
somewhat larger contribution to 2018
visibility impairment than what the
modeling predicted.
Nebraska’s contribution to all other
Class I areas was considerably less, and
in no case greater than 1.9 percent in
2002 according to the PSAT modeling.10
C. Baseline and Natural Visibility
Conditions
States that host Class I areas are
required to estimate the baseline,
natural and current visibility conditions
of those Class I areas. Nebraska does not
host a Class I area, therefore, it is not
required to estimate these metrics.
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
The RHR requires States and tribes to
establish a RPG for each Class I area
within the State. Nebraska does not
have a Class I area within the State and
therefore is not required to establish a
RPG. States hosting Class I areas are
required to establish RPGs, and to make
assessments regarding whether emission
10 Other Class I areas examined include Great
Sand Dunes National Park and Rocky Mountain
National Park in Colorado; Boundary Waters
Wilderness Area and Voyagers National Park in
Minnesota; Guadalupe Mountains National Park
and Big Bend National Park in Texas; Wichita
Mountains Wilderness Area in Oklahoma; HerculesGlades Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness
Area in Missouri; and Caney Creek Wilderness Area
and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area in Arkansas.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12776
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
reductions are needed from sources in
Nebraska in order to meet their RPG.
Specific State goals and Nebraska’s
effect on meeting them are described in
further detail in the LTS consultation
section, below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Long-Term Strategy
States must submit a long-term
strategy that addresses regional haze
visibility impairment for each Class I
area within it and for each Class I area
located outside it which may be affected
by emissions from it. The long-term
strategy must include enforceable
emissions limitations, compliance
schedules, and other measures as
necessary to achieve the reasonable
progress goals established by States
having Class I areas.
Nebraska’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 until 2018. As described
elsewhere in this notice, the changes in
point, area, and mobile source
emissions over the first implementation
period (through 2018) were taken into
account by CENRAP and the State in
developing the emission inventory for
2018. Specifically, Nebraska considered
the following Federal and State control
measures when developing its LTS:
• CAIR. Although the State of
Nebraska was not included in the CAIR
rulemaking, the rule was a major
component in the underlying
assumptions used to determine source
apportionment because of the
reductions expected in neighboring
States.
• Federal mobile source standards
• Tier 2 vehicle standards and low
sulfur fuel requirements
• Locomotive and marine engine
standards
• Small spark-ignition engine
standards
• National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) standards
• Nebraska’s Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) construction
permitting program. Nebraska notes that
the visibility protection provisions of
PSD found at 40 CFR 52.21(o) have been
incorporated into Title 129—Nebraska
Air Quality Regulations at Chapter 19.
Section 40 CFR 52.21(p) requires
notification and consultation with FLMs
of Class I areas which may be affected
by emissions from a new source; these
requirements under have been
incorporated by reference into Title 129
in Chapter 19.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
Nebraska has fugitive dust regulations
in Nebraska Title 129—Chapter 32,
which includes a provision applicable
to construction activities. The rule
requires the use of reasonable measures
such as paving, cleaning, application of
water, planting and maintenance of
ground cover, and/or application of
dust-free surfactants to prevent dust
from becoming airborne such that it
remains visible beyond the property
boundary. Nebraska estimates that
construction activities are not expected
to cause a significant impact to
visibility, and did not require any
additional measures to mitigate the
impacts of construction activities for
purposes of visibility improvement.
Nebraska also has regulations that
address smoke management for
agricultural and forestry management
burns. Title 129—Chapter 30 is a ban on
open burning with some direct
exceptions that include agriculture
operations, parks management, and fires
set for training purposes. Other types of
exceptions are subject to approval by
the NDEQ and the local fire authority.
For purposes of forestry or land
management, such burning is allowed
provided it is conducted by a limited set
of organizations approved by NDEQ.
Nebraska contends that, based on the
minimal impacts on nearby Class I areas
from burning, a more stringent smoke
management plan is not needed for
purposes of visibility protection at this
time.
The above programs are fully
enforceable, provide for the mitigation
of new source impacts through new
source permitting programs, and reflect
appropriate consideration of current
programs and prospective changes in
emissions. Enforceability of Nebraska’s
BART control measures are more fully
described below in section III.F.
a. Consultation on Other States’ RPGs
Where Nebraska has emissions that
are reasonably anticipated to contribute
to visibility impairment in any Class I
area located in another State or States,
it must consult with the other State(s) in
order to develop coordinated emission
management strategies. If Nebraska
causes or contributes to impairment in
a Class I area, it must demonstrate that
it has included in its SIP all measures
necessary to obtain its share of the
emission reductions needed to meet the
progress goal for the area.
As mentioned previously, Nebraska
participated in the CENRAP planning
process, which provided the primary
venue for State consultation and
coordination on emission management
strategies. Nebraska also asserts that it
notified the States of South Dakota,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Oklahoma, Missouri and Colorado while
its draft BART permits were open for
public comment, proposing only control
for NOX at the three BART units in the
State. It should be noted that although
Nebraska participated as a member State
in CENRAP, the greatest impacts from
Nebraska sources occur in a Western
Regional Area Partnership (WRAP)
State—South Dakota.
South Dakota
Nebraska asserts that sources in the
State have a ‘‘minimal’’ visibility impact
on all Class I areas, and points out in its
SIP that no State asked Nebraska for
specific emission reductions in order to
meet its RPGs. We disagree with the
characterization of Nebraska’s
contribution as minimal, as sourcespecific CALPUFF modeling shows a
significant visibility impact from GGS
on the South Dakota Class I areas.11 12
Furthermore, we note that South
Dakota’s reasonable progress goals,
which are proposed for approval by EPA
at the time of this writing, achieve less
visibility improvement than the uniform
rate of progress for the first
implementation period. The reasonable
progress goals for the 20 percent worst
days fall short of the uniform rate of
progress by 1.28 dv for Badlands and
1.34 dv at Wind Cave.13 The modeling
used to estimate achievement of these
goals assumed that the presumptive
level of SO2 BART controls would be
installed on Nebraska sources. Nebraska
did not go on to require BART-level
controls, therefore, South Dakota may be
even further away from meeting its
RPGs than what the modeling predicted.
As described in detail in section III. F.
d. of this notice, we propose to
disapprove Nebraska’s SO2 BART
determination for GGS. We also propose
to disapprove Nebraska’s LTS insofar as
it relied on this deficient BART
determination. These issues are
addressed through reliance on the
Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for SO2 emissions from the GGS
units.
Colorado
In comment letters dated January 21,
2011, and June 23, 2009, the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) notes that
according to source-specific CALPUFF
modeling, GGS has an impact of greater
than one deciview on Rocky Mountain
11 GGS’s maximum visibility impact at Badlands
was 3.12 dv in 2003, and 2.59 dv at Wind Cave in
2002.
12 Source-specific CALPUFF modeling for
Nebraska City Station and Gerald Gentleman
Station is in appendix 10.5 of the SIP.
13 76 FR 76646 (December 8, 2011).
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
National Park (RMNP). CDPHE
questioned why Nebraska would
propose no SO2 controls for such a large
power plant, and requested that
Nebraska take another look at the cost
assumptions made for Flue Gas
Desulfurization (FGD) controls. They
express that $2,700 per ton for control
of SO2 is reasonable, and that the cost
is likely even lower.
CDPHE commented that it
understands Nebraska’s concerns about
water availability in western Nebraska,
as the State of Colorado is also in an arid
region. They state that all large EGUs in
Colorado have installed (or are in the
process of installing) FGD controls to
reduce SO2 emissions.
CDPHE goes on to note that the most
recent WRAP modeling, which used the
CMAQ model, predicts that RMNP is far
short of its uniform rate of progress.
CDPHE asked that Nebraska reconsider
SO2 controls at GGS under the RHR to
help Colorado make progress at RMNP.
Nebraska denies this request in their
SIP on the basis that WRAP’s modeling
did not distinguish Nebraska’s impact
from the other CENRAP States.
Nebraska makes the argument that a
wind rose from RMNP indicates that the
wind pattern is rarely from the direction
of Nebraska.
We share Colorado’s concerns about
the SO2 BART determination for GGS,
and as described above, we are
proposing to disapprove this deficient
BART determination and Nebraska’s
LTS insofar as the State relied on it to
meet the LTS requirements. We propose
that these issues will be addressed
through reliance on the Transport Rule
as an alternative to BART for SO2
emissions from the GGS units.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Minnesota
Boundary Waters, Voyageurs, Seney,
and Isle Royale are referred to as the
Northern Midwest Class I areas. As
identified in the document, ‘‘Reasonable
Progress for Class I Areas in the
Northern Midwest—Factor Analysis,’’ 14
the Lake Michigan Air Directors
Consortium (LADCO) identified the
following States contributing to Class I
area visibility impairment in the
LADCO region: Michigan, Minnesota,
and Wisconsin, as well as surrounding
States, such as the Dakotas, Iowa,
Missouri, Illinois, and Indiana.
Nebraska does not significantly
contribute to visibility impairment at
the Minnesota Class I areas according to
PSAT modeling. Through RPO
consultation, Minnesota determined
that no additional emissions reductions
from Nebraska sources were needed to
meet Class I area visibility improvement
goals at this point in time. EPA believes
that this satisfies the requirement for
consultation between these States.
Nebraska’s consultation requirement
with these States was satisfied.
Oklahoma
a. BART-Eligible Sources
As identified in the document titled,
‘‘Oklahoma‘s Wichita Mountains
Wilderness Area Regional Haze
Planning,’’ 15 Oklahoma identified
Nebraska in its area of influence for
NOX. Nebraska was initially invited to
participate in the Oklahoma
consultation process. Nebraska states
that it provided copies of the draft
BART permits to the State of Oklahoma
while on public notice, which only
proposed NOX controls on OPPD and
NPPD. Oklahoma did not provide any
comment, or request additional controls
for the initial planning period. EPA
believes that the consultation
requirement between these States has
been satisfied.
Missouri and Arkansas
Caney Creek, Upper Buffalo, Hercules
Glades, and Mingo are referred to as the
central Class I areas. As identified in the
document, ‘‘Central Class I Areas
Consultation Plan,’’ 16 CENRAP
identified Nebraska in the area of
influence for NOX at the central Class I
areas. The central States determined
whether a State was a major contributor
based on an analysis of four approaches:
trajectories, areas of influence, PSAT,
and Q/d. If a State was found to be a
major contributor in at least 3 of the 4
approaches, the central States
concluded it was appropriate to include
that State as a major contributor.
Nebraska was found to be a contributor
based upon the area of influence only,
therefore it was excluded as a major
contributing State to visibility
impairment in Class I areas in Missouri
and Arkansas. EPA believes that
15 Appendix
14 Appendix
VerDate Mar<15>2010
11.1 of the SIP
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
16 Appendix
Jkt 226001
12777
PO 00000
Frm 00030
11.3 of the SIP.
11.2 of the SIP.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology
States must submit an
implementation plan containing
emission limitations representing BART
and schedules for compliance with
BART for each BART-eligible source
that may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility in any Class I area.
States must identify all BART-eligible
sources in their SIP. Sources are subject
to BART if: One or more emissions units
at the facility belong to one of the
twenty-six BART source categories 17;
the unit did not operate before August
7, 1962, but was in existence on August
7, 1977; and the unit has the potential
to emit 250 tons per year or more of any
visibility-impairing pollutant, which
Nebraska determined to be SO2, NOX,
and PM.
The BART Guidelines direct States to
exercise judgment in deciding whether
VOCs and ammonia (NH3) impair
visibility in their Class I area(s). 70 FR
391160. CENRAP performed analyses
which demonstrated that anthropogenic
emissions of VOC and NH3 do not
significantly impair visibility in the
CENRAP region. Therefore, Nebraska
did not consider NH3 among visibilityimpairing pollutants and did not further
evaluate NH3 and VOC emissions
sources for potential controls under
BART or reasonable progress.
Nebraska used its database to identify
facilities with emission units in one or
more of the twenty six BART categories.
Nebraska then conducted a survey to
identify units within these source
categories with potential emissions of
250 tons per year or more for any
visibility-impairing pollutant from any
unit that was in existence on August 7,
1977, and began operation after August
7, 1962. The sources identified by
Nebraska are listed in Table 1. More
detailed information regarding each
facility’s BART-eligible units may be
found in Appendix 10.2 of the SIP.
EPA proposes to find that Nebraska
adequately identified all BART-eligible
sources within the State.
17 BART
guidelines, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y.
.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12778
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—FACILITIES WITH BART-ELIGIBLE UNITS IN NEBRASKA
Source category
Facility
Fossil-fuel fired steam electric
plants of more than 250 million
BTU per hour heat input.
Portland cement plant .....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Chemical process plant; fossil-fuel
boilers; hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and
nitric acid plant.
NPPD Gerald
Gentlemen
Station.
OPPD Nebraska
City.
OPPD North
Omaha Station.
NPPD Sheldon
Station.
CW Burdick Generating Station.
Lon D. Wright
Power Plant.
Don Henry
Power Center.
North Denver
Station.
Ash Grove Cement.
Beatrice Nitrogen
Plant.
b. BART-Subject Sources
Nebraska then screened out some
BART-eligible sources from being
subject to BART on the basis that they
do not cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in a Class I area. Nebraska
selected a contribution threshold of 0.5
deciviews based on the 98th percentile
of daily modeled visibility impact over
an annual period because it is consistent
with the Guidelines, no BART-eligible
sources are near Class I areas, and there
are no significant clusters of BARTeligible sources in the State. Nebraska
required the owner of each BARTeligible source to conduct dispersion
modeling using the CALPUFF model
and submit the results to Nebraska.18
The CALPUFF modeling protocol is
included in Appendix 10.3 of the SIP.
Nebraska identified eight sources with
impacts less than 0.5 deciviews, and
were therefore determined not to be
BART-subject: Beatrice Nitrogen Plant;
Ash Grove Cement; Don Henry Power
Center; Lon D. Wright Power Plant; CW
Burdick Generating Station; North
Denver Station; NPPD Sheldon Station;
and OPPD North Omaha Station.
Two facilities had impacts greater
than 0.5 deciviews, and were therefore
determined to be BART-subject: OPPD
NCS Station Unit 1 and NPPD GGS
Units 1 and 2. EPA proposes to find that
Nebraska adequately determined which
sources in the State were subject to
BART.
18 One
exception—Nebraska conducted modeling
for the Lon D. Wright Power Plant.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
Number of
emission units
identified by
date
Location
PM
SO2
NOX
Sutherland .........
2
4,460
46,200
79,200
Nebraska City ....
1
43,792
19,040
45,696
Omaha ...............
2
910
14,420
34,283
Hallam ................
2
908
6,020
15,100
Grand Island ......
2
997
1,923
10,304
Fremont .............
2
97
3,784
3,035
Hastings .............
1
19
1,360
780
Hastings .............
1
14
426
853
Louisville ............
7
528
2,373
3,182
Beatrice ..............
18
48
924
5
c. Particulate Matter (PM) Evaluation
Nebraska used source-specific
CALPUFF modeling to examine the
relative contribution of PM, NOX, and
SO2 emissions to visibility impairment.
For NCS Unit 1, direct PM emissions
only accounted for 0.32 percent of
impairment in the most impaired year,
2001, at the closest Class I area,
Hercules Glades. Nebraska concluded
that direct PM emissions from NCS do
not significantly contribute to visibility
impairment, and therefore, a full five
factor BART analysis for PM was not
needed.
For GGS Units 1 and 2, direct PM
emissions only accounted for 0.69
percent of impairment on the most
impaired year, 2003, at the closest Class
I area, Badlands. Nebraska concluded
that direct PM emissions from GGS do
not significantly contribute to visibility
impairment, and therefore, a full five
factor BART analysis for PM was not
needed.
EPA agrees with these conclusions.
d. BART Determination for Omaha
Public Power District (OPPD) Nebraska
City Station (NCS) Unit 1
Nebraska and EPA have reached
different conclusions as to whether NCS
Unit 1 is located at a power plant with
a generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts (MW), or not. If NCS falls
within this category of sources, then the
BART Guidelines must be followed in
determining BART limits and the
presumptive limits in the Guidelines
would apply. See CAA section 169A(b).
PO 00000
Potential to emit
(date-eligible units, tons per year)
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
In September 2008, Nebraska asked EPA
for clarification on whether recently
permitted units, such as NCS Unit 2,
should be included in the total plant
capacity for purposes of applying
presumptive BART. In a response dated
November 7, 2008, we indicated it is
reasonable to interpret the RHR to mean
that if the plant capacity is greater than
750 MW at the time the BART
determination is made by the State (i.e.,
at the time the State places the BART
determination on public notice), then
the power plant is a facility ‘‘having a
total generating capacity in excess of
750 [MW]’’ and any unit at the plant
greater than 200 MW is subject to
presumptive BART.
The groundbreaking for construction
of NCS Unit 2 was September 13, 2005.
Nebraska put the NCS Unit 1 BART
permit on public notice on December
12, 2008. Unit 2 was operational on May
1, 2009.19 Nebraska concluded that
because NCS Unit 2 was not operational
at the time of the BART determination
for Unit 1, its capacity did not count
towards the 750 MW threshold, and
therefore, it was not mandatory for
Nebraska to follow 40 CFR 51 Appendix
Y in making the BART determination.
We concede that there is some
question as to whether the NCS Unit 1
is a presumptive unit, requiring use of
the BART Guidelines, or not.
Regardless, Nebraska did proceed
19 https://www.powermag.com/coal/Top-PlantsNebraska-City-Station-Unit-2-Nebraska-CityNebraska_2179_p4.html, accessed February 7, 2012.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
through a basic step-wise analysis of the
costs and visibility impacts of available
controls.
NCS Unit 1 has existing overfire air
(OFA), so in determining BART for NOX
at NCS unit 1, Nebraska considered low
NOX burners (LNB) and selective
catalytic reduction (SCR). Selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) was
determined to be technically infeasible
due to high furnace exit temperatures.
The cost effectiveness of LNB/OFA at a
rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu was $166 per
ton; the cost effectiveness of LNB/OFA
plus SCR at a rate of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu
was $2,611 per ton.
NCS Unit 1 impacts Hercules Glades
in Missouri and Wichita Mountains in
Oklahoma an average of 0.65 dv and
0.46 dv, respectively.20 Installing LNB
with OFA offers an average
improvement of 0.22 dv at Hercules
Glades and 0.12 dv at Wichita
Mountains. The addition of SCR would
provide an additional 0.17 dv of
improvement at Hercules Glades,21 but
because of the high incremental cost of
$8,203 per ton and the level of visibility
improvement, it was not chosen as
BART. Nebraska determined BART for
NOX at NCS unit 1 to be LNB with OFA
at a rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu. EPA agrees
that the State’s determination is
reasonable given the relatively
insignificant additional visibility
improvement associated with SCR for
the additional cost.
For SO2 control at NCS, Nebraska
evaluated both dry and wet FGD.
Nebraska concluded that dry FGD (spray
dryer absorber (SDA)) has lower capital
and operating costs than wet FGD and
can achieve a similar control efficiency;
it thus focused its cost analysis on dry
FGD. We note that Nebraska did not
evaluate Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) as
a potential SO2 control for NCS Unit 1.
Since DSI can generally achieve the
same control efficiency as FGD, we
believe that the State has appropriately
evaluated the level of controls in its
analysis.
The costs per ton for dry FGD were
reasonable both at a rate of 0.15 lbs/
MMBtu ($1,759 per ton) and 0.10 lbs/
MMBtu ($1,636 per ton).22 The visibility
improvement at Hercules Glades from
dry FGD was 0.25 dv and 0.44 dv 23,
20 Our use of the word average in this section
means averaging the 98th percentile impact for each
of the three baseline years, 2001–2003.
21 Improvement from the addition of SCR at
Wichita Mountains was not provided by NDEQ in
the SIP.
22 Nebraska assumed the same cost regardless of
the level of control (0.15 or 0.10 lb/MMBtu);
however, a higher level of control would likely have
a slightly higher cost.
23 Nebraska only provided visibility information
for the most impacted year for the 0.10 lb/MMBtu
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
respectively. The visibility
improvement of adding FGD at a rate of
0.15 lb/MMBtu to the LNB/OFA system
required as BART for NOX is 0.25 dv.24
Nebraska determined that the minimal
visibility improvement from installation
of FGD at NCS Unit 1 did not warrant
the additional cost ($34,770,000 or
$1,759 per ton); therefore, no SO2
controls were proposed as BART for
NCS Unit 1. EPA agrees that the State’s
determination is not unreasonable given
the minimal additional visibility
improvement.
e. BART Determination for Nebraska
Public Power District (NPPD) Gerald
Gentleman Station (GGS) Units 1 and 2
Nebraska evaluated LNB with OFA
and SCR for NOX control at GGS. In
2006, NPPD installed LNB and OFA at
Unit 1, but since this was after the
2001–2003 baseline modeling period, it
was still evaluated in the BART
analysis. SNCR was determined to be
technically infeasible due to high
furnace exit temperatures. LNB with
OFA (at a rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu) had
a cost effectiveness of $198 per ton, and
LNB with OFA and SCR (at a rate of
0.08 lbs/MMBtu) had a cost
effectiveness of $2,297 per ton.
GGS affects six Class I areas greater
than 0.5 dv on average: Badlands and
Wind Cave in South Dakota; Wichita
Mountains in Oklahoma; Rocky
Mountain in Colorado; and Hercules
Glades and Mingo in Missouri. GGS has
a cumulative baseline impact on these
six Class I areas of 8.86 dv.
LNB plus OFA offers an improvement
at Badlands (the closest and most
affected Class I area) of 0.66 dv, and
1.94 dv cumulatively. The addition of
SCR offers an incremental improvement
of 0.49 dv at Badlands, and 1.27 dv
cumulatively. Nebraska concluded that
based on the relatively low incremental
visibility improvement of adding SCR to
the LNB/OFA system for the additional
cost ($5,445 incremental cost per ton),
requiring SCR as BART was not
warranted. NOX BART for GGS was
determined to be the installation of
LNB/OFA with an emission limitation
of 0.23 lbs NOX/MMBtu, averaged
across the two units. EPA agrees that the
State’s NOX BART determination for
GGS is reasonable.
Nebraska evaluated wet and dry FGD
and Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) for SO2
controls at GGS. All control options
were evaluated at the presumptive rate
rate; therefore, this improvement is maximum, not
average.
24 Nebraska did not provide modeling
information for FGD at a rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu
combined with LNB/OFA, so that level of control
cannot be fully evaluated.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12779
of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. The cost
effectiveness for dry and wet FGD was
nearly identical at $2,726 per ton and
$2,724 per ton, respectively; the cost
effectiveness of DSI was $2,058 per ton.
All of these controls were determined
by Nebraska to be reasonable on a cost
per ton basis.
The visibility improvement from
these controls operated at a rate of 0.15
lbs/MMBtu is significant: an average of
0.86 dv from DSI, and an average of 0.78
dv from FGD at Badlands. The
cumulative improvement is even
greater; FGD control would offer an
improvement of 3.17 dv across the six
Class I areas that GGS affects. Nebraska
only provided visibility information for
DSI at Badlands; therefore, the
cumulative benefit of DSI is unknown.
Nebraska raises water use of wet and
dry FGD as a significant non-air
environmental impact. In its SIP,
Nebraska presents a description of the
over-appropriation of water resources in
the western part of Nebraska, where
GGS is located. The State described that
this over-appropriation means that any
new use of groundwater requires an
offset in water consumption in the same
area. To do this, NPPD would have to
purchase the groundwater rights from
surrounding landowners. Nebraska did
not include the cost of obtaining these
groundwater rights in the original BART
analysis costs; however, in the narrative
portion of the SIP, Nebraska describes
both the costs of obtaining groundwater,
and the loss of agricultural revenue due
to taking land out of agricultural
production. Nebraska concludes that the
cost of obtaining water to operate wet
FGD would add approximately 8.6
percent to the cost of controls. If these
costs were added into the BART
analysis, it would only increase the cost
of control by $234 per ton. This brings
the cost per ton to $2,958, which EPA
believes is still a reasonable cost of
control over both units.25
In the SIP, Nebraska says that it used
a $40,000,000/yr/dv threshold for
determining what would be considered
a reasonable investment for visibility
improvement. They concluded that the
costs of FGD control were reasonable on
a cost per ton basis, but not on a dollars
per deciview basis. Furthermore,
Nebraska sees the water consumption of
FGD controls as significant, and
concludes that because of this unique
situation, FGD controls are
unreasonable for GGS Units 1 and 2.
Nebraska concludes that BART is no
SO2 controls at GGS.
25 EPA is not including any cost of the loss of
agricultural revenue in this estimation.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12780
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
EPA disagrees with this conclusion.
Using Nebraska’s analysis, we agree that
the cost per ton for FGD control is
reasonable, and Nebraska’s analysis
shows significant visibility
improvement, both at Badlands and on
a cumulative basis. We also believe that
Nebraska inappropriately ruled out DSI.
Costs for the control are reasonable at
$2,058 per ton and visibility
improvement at Badlands is significant
at 0.86 dv. Furthermore, DSI does not
consume as much water as does FGD.
Finally, even though the cost of FGD
controls is reasonable, we believe that
the costs of FGD control are
overestimated. This is described in
detail in the TSD to this notice. EPA
conducted an independent review of the
cost information presented by Nebraska
in its BART analysis for dry scrubbers.
We found several errors and deviations
from EPA’s Cost Control Manual.26 Cost
categories in which we found significant
errors or deviations include:
Engineering Procurement and
Construction; Bond Fees; Escalation;
Contingency; Allowance for Funds Used
During Construction; Capital Recovery
Factor; and Operation and Maintenance.
We also found that Nebraska
incorrectly calculated the SO2 emission
rates. On page 15 of its BART analysis,
NPPD calculates its SO2 emission
baseline based on applying a 24-hour
maximum emission rate of 0.749 lbs/
MMBtu (2001–2003) to a maximum heat
input of 15,175.5 MMBtu/hr, based on
a 100 percent capacity factor. This
results in an emissions baseline of
49,785 tons/year.27 We believe this
calculation does not appropriately
represent GGS’s SO2 emission baseline,
and is in fact too high. We have
downloaded emissions data for GGS
from our Clean Air Markets Web site,28
and using the same emissions data from
the three year averaging period of 2001–
2003, we have calculated the three year
average annual SO2 emissions for units
1 and 2 of the GGS to be 0.565 lbs/
MMBtu.29 Reducing this to a controlled
SO2 emissions level of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu
results in a control efficiency of
approximately 73.5 percent. Applying
this level of control to our adjusted GGS
SO2 emission baseline of 31,513 tons/
year would reduce it to 8,366 tons/yr,
resulting in a reduction of 23,147 tons
of SO2 annually. Applying the same
approximate 80 percent level of
reduction GGS assumes to our adjusted
GGS SO2 emission baseline of 31,513
tons/yr would reduce it to 6,311 tons/
yr, resulting in a reduction of 25,202
tons of SO2 annually.30
However, dry scrubbers are capable of
much greater control efficiencies than
the 80 percent level that GGS assumes.31
Therefore, for the purpose of calculating
the cost effectiveness of dry scrubbers at
the GGS, we also analyzed an SO2
emission limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu,
which results in a scrubber efficiency of
approximately 89.4%. Applying this
level of control to our adjusted GGS
baseline of 31,513 tons/yr would reduce
it to 3,347 tons/yr, resulting in a
reduction of 28,166 tons of SO2
annually. Table 2 summarizes EPA’s
adjustments to the Nebraska cost
estimates for dry FGD control at GGS.
TABLE 2—RANGE OF GGS DRY SCRUBBER COST EFFECTIVENESS
Dry FGD
(original NPPD
BART
analysis)
Dry FGD
EPA’s estimate
49,785
31,513
Uncontrolled Emission Level (lbs/MMBtu) .......................................................
0.749
0.565
Controlled Emission Rate (lbs/MMBtu) ............................................................
Percent Reduction ...........................................................................................
SO2 Emission Reduction (tons) .......................................................................
Total Annualized Cost .....................................................................................
Total Cost Effectiveness ($/ton) ......................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2 Baseline ...................................................................................................
0.15
80%
39,815
$108,535,690
$2,726
In summary, we believe that
Nebraska’s cost analysis includes errors
and deviations from EPA’s Cost Control
Manual that results in the
overestimation of the costs of FGD
controls. In addition, the State did not
do a full evaluation of the potential
visibility benefits from levels of control
that FGD is capable of achieving. We
believe that the cost per ton of SO2
controls ranging from $1,972 (our
analysis) to $2,958 (Nebraska’s analysis,
plus water) is reasonable, and that the
visibility benefits, whether considered
just at Badlands or cumulatively, are
significant. Finally, we believe that the
State improperly rejected DSI as a
potential BART control. Therefore, EPA
proposes to disapprove Nebraska’s
BART determination for SO2 controls at
GGS.
26 EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth
Edition, EPA/452/B–02–001, January 2002.
27 (0.749 lbs/MMBtu) * (15,175 MMBtu/hr) *
(8,760 hrs/yr) * (ton/2,000 lbs) = 49,785 tons/yr.
28 https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/
index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard.
29 See Attachment B to our TSD. Based on adding
the station total pounds of SO2 emissions from
2001–2003 and dividing by the station total heat
input from 2001–2003.
30 (39,815/49,785) * 31,513 = 25,202.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:48 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
f. BART Summary and Enforceability
Each source subject to BART must
install and operate BART as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no
event later than five years after approval
of the SIP revision; and include
monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements to ensure the
BART limits are enforceable. Nebraska
chose to incorporate BART
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.15
73.5%
23,147
$53,469,570
$2,310
0.11
80%
25,202
$54,335,512
$2,156
0.06
89.4%
28,166
$55,543,352
$1,972
requirements into PSD permits issued
pursuant to Title 129 of the Nebraska
Air Quality Regulations, Chapter 19.
These limits will be incorporated into
the facility’s Title V permits after SIP
approval. The permits require that the
limits be met within five years of
approval of Nebraska’s regional haze
SIP. The limits must be met on a thirtyday rolling average basis at all times,
including periods of startup, shutdown
and malfunction. The permits require
the use of a NOX continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) on each unit
to demonstrate compliance with the
BART NOX limits. Each CEMS is
31 Response to Technical Comments for Sections
E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice for the
Oklahoma Regional Haze and Visibility Transport
Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA–
R06–OAR–2010–0190, 12/13/2011, Section II.,
Comments Relating to Our SO2 BART Emission
Limit, and elsewhere.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
required to be operated and certified in
accordance with 40 CFR Part 75.
Recordkeeping and reporting is also
required to be in accordance with 40
CFR Part 75. The PSD permits were
submitted to the EPA for SIP approval
as part of the State’s RH SIP submittal.
The PSD permits are enforceable by the
State, and by EPA. We have reviewed
these requirements and propose to find
them adequate as they relate to the
12781
BART limits we are proposing to
approve.
Table 3 is a summary of the BART
determinations made by Nebraska and
EPA’s proposed action on those
determinations.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF NEBRASKA BART DETERMINATIONS
Facility, units
Pollutant
BART controls determined by the State
OPPD Nebraska City Station, Unit 1
NOX .............
Install low NOX burners with over fired air. Meet presumptive level of
0.23 lbs/MMBtu.
No additional controls. Source currently uses low sulfur coal ....................
Install low NOX Burners with over fired air. Meet presumptive level of
0.23 lbs/MMBtu, averaged over the two units.
No additional controls. Continue to use low sulfur coal ..............................
NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station,
Units 1 and 2.
SO2 ..............
NOX .............
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2 ..............
G. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
Address SO2 BART for GGS and LTS
As discussed above, we propose to
disapprove Nebraska’s BART
determination for GGS. In addition, as
discussed in section III.E. (Long Term
Strategy), we propose to disapprove
Nebraska’s LTS insofar as it relied on
the deficient BART determination for
SO2 at GGS. To address the deficiencies
identified in these proposed
disapprovals, we are also proposing a
FIP.
The RHR allows for use of 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. On
December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to
find that the trading programs in the
Transport Rule would achieve greater
reasonable progress towards the
national goal than would BART in the
States in which the Transport Rule
applies, including Nebraska. 76 FR
82219. EPA also proposed to revise the
RHR to allow States to meet the
requirements of an alternative program
in lieu of BART by participation in the
trading programs under the Transport
Rule. EPA has not taken final action on
that rule.
We are proposing a partial FIP,
relying on the Transport Rule as an
alternative to BART for SO2 emissions
from the GGS units. This limited FIP
would satisfy the SO2 BART
requirement for these units and remedy
the deficiency in Nebraska’s LTS.
We noted that on December 30, 2011,
the D.C. Circuit Court issued an order
addressing the status of the Transport
Rule and CAIR in response to motions
filed by numerous parties seeking a stay
of the Transport Rule pending judicial
review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit
Court stayed the Transport Rule
pending the court’s resolutions of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
petitions for review of that rule in EME
Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11–
1302 and consolidated cases). The court
also indicated that EPA is expected to
continue to administer the CAIR in the
interim until the court rules on the
petitions for review of the Transport
Rule. Under the Regional Haze Rule, an
alternative to BART does not need to be
fully implemented until 2018. As that is
well after we expect the stay to be lifted,
EPA believes it may still rely on the
Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART. Further, our proposed action
would not impact the implementation of
the Transport Rule or otherwise
interfere with the stay.
H. Coordinating Regional Haze and
RAVI
EPA’s visibility regulations direct
States to coordinate their RAVI LTS and
monitoring provisions with those for
regional haze. Under EPA’s RAVI
regulations, the RAVI portion of a State
SIP must address any integral vistas
identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR
51.304. 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 Class I area includes
any integral vista associated with that
area. As mentioned previously,
Nebraska does not have any Class I areas
and the FLMs have not certified any
integral vistas affected by emissions
from Nebraska sources, therefore, the
Nebraska regional haze SIP submittal is
not required to address the two
requirements regarding coordination of
the regional haze SIP with the RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions.
I. Monitoring Strategy
Because it does not host a Class I area,
Nebraska is not required to develop a
monitoring strategy for measuring,
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA’s proposed action
Approval.
Approval.
Approval.
Disapproval.
characterizing, and reporting regional
haze impairment that is representative
of Class I areas within the State.
However, the State is required to
establish procedures by which
monitoring data and other information
is used to determine the contribution of
emissions from within the State to
regional haze impairment at Class I
areas outside of the State.
Compliance with this requirement is
met by participation in the IMPROVE
network.32 Nebraska installed one
IMPROVE protocol sampler at Nebraska
National Forest County near Halsey,
Nebraska in the central part of the State,
and another at Crescent Lake National
Wild Life Refuge in the panhandle of
the State. A third IMPROVE Protocol
sampler in Nebraska is operated
independently in Thurston County, by
the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska; however,
EPA notes that this monitor is no longer
operating.
EPA believes the State’s commitment
to utilize data from these sites, or any
other EPA-approved monitoring
network location, to characterize and
model conditions within the State and
to compare visibility conditions in the
State to visibility impairment at Class I
areas hosted by other States, and
proposes that Nebraska has satisfied the
monitoring requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(4).
J. Emissions Inventory
States are required to develop 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 with available data,
and future projected emissions.
As mentioned previously, Nebraska
worked with CENRAP and its
32 https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12782
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
contractors to develop statewide
emission inventories for 2002 and 2018.
Detailed methodologies are documented
in appendices 8.3 and 9.1 of the SIP.
The 2018 emissions inventory was
developed by projecting 2002 emissions
and applying reductions expected from
Federal and State regulations affecting
the emissions of the visibility-impairing
pollutants NOX, PM, SO2, and VOCs.
The 2002 emissions were grown to year
2018 primarily using the Economic
Growth Analysis System (EGAS6),
MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission modeling
software, and the Integrated Planning
Model (IPM) version 2.93 for EGUs. The
2018 emissions for EGUs were based on
simulations of the IPM that took into the
account the effects of CAIR on
emissions.
At the time modeling was conducted,
BART decisions had not been made by
many States, including Oklahoma and
Nebraska. Presumptive levels of BART
control were assumed in projections of
2018 emissions. The 2018 Nebraska
inventory was then updated to account
for Nebraska’s BART decisions,
specifically, no SO2 controls on the two
BART-subject EGUs in the State.
EPA believes the 2002 and 2018
statewide emissions inventories and the
State’s method for developing the 2018
emissions inventory for Nebraska meets
the requirements of the RHR. Nebraska
has also committed to update inventory
periodically, therefore, we propose that
Nebraska has met the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
K. Federal Land Manager (FLM)
Consultation
States are required to provide the
FLMs an opportunity for consultation,
in person and at least sixty days prior
to holding any public hearing on the SIP
(or its revision). Consultations should
include the opportunity for the FLMs to
discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area; and
recommendations on the development
of the RPG and on the development and
implementation of strategies to address
visibility impairment.
Nebraska provided several
opportunities for the FLMs to comment
on Nebraska’s regional haze plan.
Nebraska asserts that it sent the draft
BART permits for NPPD and OPPD to
the FLMs in mid-2008, and again prior
to public notice. Nebraska provided the
FLMs with a draft of the Nebraska
regional haze SIP on November 16,
2010, and received formal comments
from the National Park Service (NPS),
the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), and the US Forest Service
(USFS) in January 2011.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
In developing any SIP (or plan
revision), States must include a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs. The
FLM comments and Nebraska’s
responses are provided in appendix 3 of
the SIP, and are summarized in the TSD
for this rulemaking.
The main FLM comments centered on
concerns that the modeling done by the
RPOs assumed a presumptive level of
control on Nebraska BART sources, but
Nebraska did not go on to require that
level of control, and in fact, required no
control for SO2.
The FLMs also commented that DSI
should be evaluated for SO2 control and
SNCR for NOX control at NCS Unit 1;
they disagree with Nebraska’s decision
to not require FGD and SCR, as both
controls have a reasonable cost. They
strongly disagree with the BART
determinations for GGS, pointing out
that the visibility impact of these units
is significant at more than just the
closest Class I area (Badlands), and
question several aspects of the cost
estimation, such as escalation,
contingencies, allowance for funds
during construction, overestimation of
direct annual costs.
The USFWS did some interagency
consultation regarding water availability
as a reason not to require FGD controls.
The USFWS Air Branch asked the
USFWS’s Nebraska Field Office to
review Nebraska’s draft regional haze
SIP and comment on the merits of the
arguments on water and endangered
species protection. While the Nebraska
Field Office agrees that Nebraska’s
arguments have some merit, they say
that the information provided by
Nebraska represents a worst-case
scenario, and concludes that the water
availability concerns do not
automatically negate the opportunity to
make improvements in air quality.
Finally, regional haze SIPs must
provide procedures for continuing
consultation between the State and
FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR
51.308, including development and
review of SIP revisions and five-year
progress reports, and on the
implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
Nebraska has committed to continuing
to coordinate and consult with the
FLMs during the development of future
progress reports and plan revisions, as
well as during the implementation of
programs having the potential to
contribute to visibility impairment in
the mandatory Class I Federal areas. We
propose that Nebraska has satisfied the
FLM consultation requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(i).
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year
Progress Report
Nebraska acknowledged the
requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)–(h)
to submit periodic progress reports and
regional haze SIP revisions, with the
first report due by July 31, 2018, and
revisions due every ten years thereafter.
Nebraska committed to meeting this
requirement.
Nebraska also acknowledged the
requirement to submit periodic reports
evaluating progress towards the
reasonable progress goals established for
each mandatory Class I area. Nebraska
committed to complete the first fiveyear progress report by December 31,
2016. The report will evaluate the
progress made towards the reasonable
progress goal for each mandatory Class
I area located outside Nebraska, which
may be affected by emissions from
within Nebraska. Using the findings of
this first report, Nebraska committed to
determining whether the adequacy of
the plan is sufficient and taking
appropriate action to revise the SIP as
needed. We propose to find that
Nebraska has satisfied the requirements
to submit periodic SIP revisions and
progress reports as required by 40 CFR
51.308(f)–(h).
IV. Proposed Actions
We propose to partially approve and
partially disapprove Nebraska’s regional
haze SIP submitted on July 13, 2011. We
propose to disapprove the SO2 BART
determinations for Units 1 and 2 of GGS
because they do not comply with our
regulations and guidance. We are also
proposing to disapprove Nebraska’s
long-term strategy insofar as it relied on
the deficient SO2 BART determination
at GGS. We propose a FIP relying on the
Transport Rule as an alternative to
BART for SO2 emissions from GGS to
address these issues.
We propose to approve all other
portions of the Nebraska RH SIP. We
note that all controls required as part of
Nebraska’s BART determinations, not
included as part of our proposed FIP,
must be operational within five years
from the effective date of our final rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866
(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and is
therefore not subject to review under the
Executive Order.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act, Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
OMB must approve all ‘‘collections of
information’’ by EPA. The Act defines
‘‘collection of information’’ as a
requirement for ‘‘answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping
requirements imposed on ten or more
persons * * *.’’ 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A).
The Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply to this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of today’s proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed action on small
entities, I certify that this proposed
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. The proposed
partial approval of the SIP, if finalized,
merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and imposes no
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. Moreover, due to
the nature of the Federal-State
relationship under the CAA, preparation
of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The CAA
forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds.
Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed
into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must
prepare a budgetary impact statement to
accompany any proposed or final rule
that includes a Federal mandate that
may result in estimated costs to State,
local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate; or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more (adjusted to
inflation). Under section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves
the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a
plan for informing and advising any
small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by
the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval
action proposed does not include a
Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs of $100 million or more
to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action
proposes to approve pre-existing
requirements under State or local law,
and imposes no new requirements.
Accordingly, no additional costs to
State, local, or tribal governments, or to
the private sector, result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by State and local officials
in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not
required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local
governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation. EPA also may not issue a
regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State
law unless the Agency consults with
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12783
State and local officials early in the
process of developing the proposed
regulation.
This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves State rules
implementing a Federal standard, and
does not impose any new mandates on
State or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply
to this action. In the spirit of Executive
Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications
between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits
comment on this proposed rule from
State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ This proposed rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA
specifically solicits additional comment
on this proposed rule from tribal
officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that:
(1) Is determined to be economically
significant as defined under Executive
Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that
we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria,
the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of
the planned rule on children, and
explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives
considered by the Agency. This rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not involve decisions
intended to mitigate environmental
health or safety risks.
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
12784
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 42 / Friday, March 2, 2012 / Proposed Rules
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001) because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. To comply with NTTAA,
EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary
consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing
programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that VCS are inapplicable to
this action. Today’s action does not
require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.
Alternatives to Source-Specific Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Determinations, Limited SIP
Disapprovals, and Federal
Implementation Plans’’ (December 30,
2011).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Lifeline and Link Up Reform and
Modernization, Advancing Broadband
Availability Through Digital Literacy
Training
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Visibility, Interstate transport of
pollution, Regional haze, Best available
control technology.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994), establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
We have determined that this
proposed rule, if finalized, will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it proposes to approve Stateadopted emission limits for all affected
populations without having any
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on any population, including any
minority or low-income population.
This proposed rule does not impose any
new mandates, because EGUs in
Nebraska are subject to the requirements
of the Transport Rule independently of
this proposed action. See 76 FR 82219,
for an analysis of the implications of
Executive Order 12898 in relation to
EPA’s proposed rule, ‘‘Regional Haze:
Revisions to Provisions Governing
Subpart CC—Nebraska
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:18 Mar 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Sections 52.1430–52.1434 remain
reserved.
3. Section 52.1435 is revised to read
as follows:
§ 52.1435
Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A
of the Clean Air Act are not met because
the plan does not include approvable
measures for meeting the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for
protection of visibility in mandatory
Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology
for SO2 at Nebraska Public Power
District, Gerald Gentleman Units 1 and
2. The requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)
with respect to emissions of SO2 from
Nebraska Public Power District, Gerald
Gentleman Units 1 and 2 are satisfied by
§ 52.1429.
[FR Doc. 2012–4991 Filed 3–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket Nos. 11–42, 03–109, 12–23, and
CC Docket No. 96–45; FCC 12–11]
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks further focused
comment on a number of issues related
to the Lifeline program, including
establishing an eligibility database,
advancing broadband availability
through digital literacy training, limiting
section 251 resale of Lifeline-supported
services, establishing a permanent
support amount for voice service
support, reforming Lifeline and Link Up
support on Tribal lands, adding Women,
Infants and Children (WIC) to the list of
qualifying programs for Lifeline,
establishing eligibility for homeless
veterans, determining whether ETCs
should be required to apply the Lifeline
discount on all of their voice and data
packages, examining whether the
Commission should further clarify the
own facilities requirement, determining
whether ILECs should have the ability
to opt out of the Lifeline program as
well as whether the record retention
requirement should be lengthened from
three years to ten years.
DATES: Comments are due April 2, 2012
reply comments are due May 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket Nos. 11–42,
03–109, 12–23, and CC Docket No. 96–
45; FCC 12–11, by any of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MRP1.SGM
02MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 42 (Friday, March 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12770-12784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4991]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0158; FRL-9639-6]
Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Nebraska; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit Technology
Determination
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
a revision to the Nebraska State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by
the State of Nebraska through the Nebraska Department of Environmental
Quality (NDEQ) on July 13, 2011 that addresses regional haze for the
first implementation period. This 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''). States are
required to ensure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is
proposing to approve a portion of this SIP revision as meeting certain
requirements of the regional haze program and to partially approve and
partially disapprove those portions addressing the requirements for
best available retrofit technology (BART) and the long-term strategy
(LTS). EPA is proposing a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) relying on
the Transport Rule to satisfy BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
at one source to address these issues.
DATES: Comments. Written comments must be received via the methods
given in the Instructions for Comment Submittal section on or before
April 2, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Instructions for Comment Submittal. Submit your comments,
identified by Docket No. EPA-R07-OAR-2012-0158, by one of the following
methods:
1. Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: wolfersberger.chris@epa.gov.
3. Mail: Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air Planning and Development
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901 N. 5th
Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101.
4. Hand or Courier Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; attention:
Chrissy Wolfersberger. Such deliveries are accepted only between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. weekdays, excluding Federal holidays.
Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
5. Fax: (913) 551-7864 (please alert the individual listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are faxing comments).
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means we will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
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, we recommend 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 we cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, we 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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901
N. 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Chrissy Wolfersberger, Air
Planning and Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 7, 901 N. 5th Street Kansas City, Kansas 66101, or by telephone
at (913) 551-7864.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze
II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility
Conditions
C. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
E. Long Term Strategy
F. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable
Visibility Impairment Long-Term Strategy
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
[[Page 12771]]
H. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers
III. Our Analysis of Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP
A. Public Notice
B. Affected Class I Areas
C. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
E. Long-Term Strategy
a. Consultation on Other States' RPGs
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology
a. BART-Eligible Sources
b. BART-Subject Sources
c. Particulate Matter (PM) Evaluation
d. BART Determination for Omaha Public Power District (OPPD)
Nebraska City Station (NCS) Unit 1
e. BART Determination for Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD)
Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS) Units 1 and 2
f. BART Summary and Enforceability
G. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) To Address SO2
BART for GGS and LTS
H. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI
I. Monitoring Strategy
J. Emissions Inventory
K. Federal Land Manager (FLM) Consultation
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress Report
IV. Proposed Actions
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for EPA's proposed actions?
A. The Regional Haze Problem
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 fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g.,
sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust)
and their precursors (e.g., SO2, nitrogen oxides
(NOX), and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Fine particle precursors react in
the atmosphere to form PM2.5 (e.g., sulfates, nitrates,
organic carbon, elemental carbon, and soil dust), which also impair
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.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eutrophication is defined as excessive richness of nutrients
in a lake or other body of water, frequently due to runoff from the
land, which causes a dense growth of plant life and death of animal
life from lack of oxygen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, 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 \2\ in many Class I areas
(i.e., national parks and 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or
miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \3\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' CAA Sec. 169A(a)(1).
The terms ``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment''
are defined in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and
atmospheric discoloration. CAA Sec. 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. We
deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of
sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the
relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were
improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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 a ``Federal Land Manager'' (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 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 (RHR) revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate into the regulations provisions addressing RH
impairment and established 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 elements of the
regional haze requirements are summarized in section II. 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 the first implementation plan addressing visibility impairment
no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
C. 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. As noted above, pollution affecting the air
quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even
hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to address effectively 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 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 developed 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 PM and other pollutants that cause haze.
The State of Nebraska participated in the planning efforts of the
Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP), which is affiliated
with the
[[Page 12772]]
Central States Air Resource Agencies (CENSARA). CENRAP is an
organization of States, tribes, Federal agencies and other interested
parties that identifies visibility issues and develops strategies to
address them. CENRAP is one of the five RPOs across the U.S. and
includes the States and tribal areas of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma,
Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, and Louisiana. States were
also required by 40 CFR 51.308(i) to coordinate with FLMs during the
development of the State's strategies to address haze. FLMs include the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
National Park Service.
II. What are the requirements for regional haze SIPs?
The following is a summary and basic explanation of the regulations
covered under the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for a complete listing of the
regulations under which this SIP was evaluated.
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
CAA sections 110(l) and 110(a)(2) require revisions to a SIP to be
adopted by a State after reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA has
promulgated specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions in 40
CFR Part 51, subpart F. These requirements include publication of
notices by prominent advertisement in the relevant geographic area of a
public hearing on proposed revisions, at least a 30-day public comment
period, and the opportunity for a public hearing, and that the State,
in accordance with its laws, submit the revision to the EPA for
approval. Specific information on Nebraska's rulemaking, regional haze
SIP development and public information process is included in Chapter
3, and Appendix 3, of the State of Nebraska regional haze SIP, which is
included in the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
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 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 RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. See 70 FR 39104. 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 expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light
extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a
logarithmic function. The deciview is a more useful measure for
tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself
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 RHR 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 anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic
emissions that cause haze. The national goal is a return to natural
conditions, i.e., anthropogenic 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 RHR requires States to determine
the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20
percent least impaired (``best'') and 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/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf,
(hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural Visibility
Guidance''); and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional
Haze Rule, (EPA-454/B-03-004, September 2003, 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.
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 RPGs (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 70 FR
3915; see also 64 FR 35714. The RHR 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 RPGs, 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.
[[Page 12773]]
States have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, but are
required to consider the following factors established in section 169A
of the CAA and in our RHR 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 RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable
Class I area. States have considerable flexibility in how they take
these factors into consideration, as noted in our reasonable progress
guidance.\6\ In setting the RPGs, States must also consider the rate of
progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064
(referred to hereafter as the ``uniform rate of progress'' or the
``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. In setting
RPGs, 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 Class I State's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the
Regional Haze Program, June 1, 2007, memorandum from William L.
Wehrum, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA
Regional Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States without Class I areas are required to submit regional haze
SIPs to address their contribution to visibility impairment. As per the
previous discussion in this proposed rulemaking, the ability of the
long range transport of pollutants to affect visibility conditions in
areas makes it imperative that each State evaluate how emissions from
within its borders affect visibility impairment in Class I areas in
other States.
D. Best Available Retrofit Technology
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 greater than 250 tons or
more 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 \7\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ``best available retrofit technology'' as determined by the State
or us in the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c) of the
CAA. Under the RHR, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject
to BART are listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We promulgated regulations addressing regional haze in 1999, 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P.\8\ These
regulations require all States to submit implementation plans that,
among other measures, contain either emission limits representing BART
for certain sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative
measures that provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR
51.308(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA, 291 F.3d 1 (DC Cir.
2002), the U.S Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
issued a ruling vacating and remanding the BART provisions of the
regional haze rule. In 2005, we issued BART guidelines to address
the court's ruling in that case. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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.
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;\9\ second, States determine whether 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 appropriate
type and the level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7,
1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. States should use their best judgment in determining whether
volatile organic compounds (VOC) or ammonia 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 dv
(70 FR 39161).
In their SIPs, States must identify potential BART sources,
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document their
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
[[Page 12774]]
source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
States are free to determine the weight and significance to be assigned
to each factor. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii).
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. See CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In
addition to what is required by the RHR, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART
controls on the source. See CAA section 110(a).
As noted above, the RHR 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. Under regulations issued in 2005
revising the regional haze program, EPA made just such a demonstration
for the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR). See 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005). EPA's regulations provide that States participating in the CAIR
cap-and trade program under 40 CFR Part 96 pursuant to an EPA-approved
CAIR SIP or which remain subject to the CAIR FIP in 40 CFR Part 97 need
not require affected BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs) to
install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions of SO2 and
NOX. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). Because CAIR did not address
direct emissions of PM, States were still required to conduct a BART
analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant.
Challenges to CAIR, however, resulted in the remand of the rule to EPA.
See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). EPA issued a
new rule in 2011 to address the interstate transport of NOX
and SO2 in the eastern United States. See 76 FR 48208
(August 8, 2011) (``the Transport Rule,'' also known as the Cross-State
Air Pollution Rule). On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that
the trading programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater
reasonable progress towards the national goal than would BART in the
States in which the Transport Rule applies. 76 FR 82219. Based on this
proposed finding, EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to allow States
to substitute participation in the trading programs under the Transport
Rule for source-specific BART. EPA has not taken final action on that
rule. Also on December 30, 2011, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia issued an order addressing the status of the
Transport Rule and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous
parties seeking a stay of the Transport Rule pending judicial review.
In that order, the DC Circuit stayed the Transport Rule pending the
court's resolutions of the petitions for review of that rule in EME
Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The
court also indicated that EPA is expected to continue to administer the
CAIR in the interim until the court rules on the petitions for review
of the Transport Rule.
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 ten to fifteen year
strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the
RHR requires that States include a 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 any
applicable RPGs. 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 located in
another State, the RHR requires the impacted State to coordinate with
the contributing States in order to develop coordinated emissions
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the
contributing State must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided
forums 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; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of
construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for
compliance to achieve the RPG; (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; (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 Long-Term Strategy
As part of the RHR, EPA 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 in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b)
and (c). The State must revise its plan to provide for review and
revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze on
or before this date. It must also submit the first such coordinated LTS
with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, and periodic
progress reports evaluating progress toward RPGs, 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 be submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision and report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment.
G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP Requirements
Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of
visibility impairment that is representative of all Class I 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 Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (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
[[Page 12775]]
it must be reviewed every five (5) years. The monitoring strategy must
also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is
not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.
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 haze visibility impairment at
Class I areas both within and outside the State;
For a State with no mandatory Class I areas, procedures
for using monitoring data and other information to determine the
contribution of emissions from within the State to regional haze
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other States;
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,
along with a commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial
implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every
ten 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), as noted above. 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
The RHR requires that States consult with other States and 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 sixty 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 RPGs 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 Analysis of Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP
The State of Nebraska submitted a regional haze SIP revision to EPA
on July 13, 2011 for approval into the Nebraska SIP. The following is
an evaluation of that submission. See the Technical Support Document
(TSD) for this proposal for a more comprehensive technical analysis.
A. Public Notice
EPA is proposing to find that the State of Nebraska has met the
requirements of the CAA which require that the State adopt a SIP after
reasonable notice and public hearing. EPA also believes that the State
has met the specific procedural requirements for SIP revisions
promulgated at 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and appendix V. The State met
these requirements by publishing notices of the public hearing, an
opportunity for a public hearing, and at least a thirty-day public
comment period by prominent advertisement, and Nebraska, in accordance
with its laws, submitted the revisions on July 13, 2011, to EPA for
approval. Specific information on Nebraska's rulemaking, regional haze
SIP development and public information process is included in Chapter
3, and Appendix 3, of the State of Nebraska's regional haze SIP, which
is included in the docket of this proposed rulemaking.
B. Affected Class I Areas
Although there are no Class I areas within the State of Nebraska,
the State is still required to identify those Class I areas which may
be affected by emissions from Nebraska sources. Nebraska participated
in the planning efforts of CENRAP, an RPO including nine States--
Nebraska, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas,
and Louisiana. CENRAP and its contractors provided air quality modeling
to the States to help them determine whether sources located within the
State can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to visibility
impairment in Class I areas. The modeling conducted relied on baseline
year (2002) and future planning year (2018) emissions inventories that
were prepared with participation from each of the CENRAP States. The
modeling was based on PM Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) for the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with extensions (CAMx) photochemical
model.
According to the PSAT modeling, contributions from Nebraska sources
for the worst 20 percent days were highest at the South Dakota Class I
areas. For the 2002 baseline year, Nebraska sources were projected to
contribute 7.81 percent of visibility impairment at Badlands, and 7
percent at Wind Cave. In 2018, the projected contribution was reduced
to 5.89 percent and 5.24 percent, respectively. However, it is critical
to note that the 2018 projections were developed assuming presumptive
levels of SO2 control on Nebraska BART sources, which
ultimately the State did not require. For that reason, it is likely
that Nebraska sources will have a somewhat larger contribution to 2018
visibility impairment than what the modeling predicted.
Nebraska's contribution to all other Class I areas was considerably
less, and in no case greater than 1.9 percent in 2002 according to the
PSAT modeling.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Other Class I areas examined include Great Sand Dunes
National Park and Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado; Boundary
Waters Wilderness Area and Voyagers National Park in Minnesota;
Guadalupe Mountains National Park and Big Bend National Park in
Texas; Wichita Mountains Wilderness Area in Oklahoma; Hercules-
Glades Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness Area in Missouri; and
Caney Creek Wilderness Area and Upper Buffalo Wilderness Area in
Arkansas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Baseline and Natural Visibility Conditions
States that host Class I areas are required to estimate the
baseline, natural and current visibility conditions of those Class I
areas. Nebraska does not host a Class I area, therefore, it is not
required to estimate these metrics.
D. Reasonable Progress Goals
The RHR requires States and tribes to establish a RPG for each
Class I area within the State. Nebraska does not have a Class I area
within the State and therefore is not required to establish a RPG.
States hosting Class I areas are required to establish RPGs, and to
make assessments regarding whether emission
[[Page 12776]]
reductions are needed from sources in Nebraska in order to meet their
RPG. Specific State goals and Nebraska's effect on meeting them are
described in further detail in the LTS consultation section, below.
E. Long-Term Strategy
States must submit a long-term strategy that addresses regional
haze visibility impairment for each Class I area within it and for each
Class I area located outside it which may be affected by emissions from
it. The long-term strategy must include enforceable emissions
limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to
achieve the reasonable progress goals established by States having
Class I areas.
Nebraska'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 until 2018. As
described elsewhere in this notice, the changes in point, area, and
mobile source emissions over the first implementation period (through
2018) were taken into account by CENRAP and the State in developing the
emission inventory for 2018. Specifically, Nebraska considered the
following Federal and State control measures when developing its LTS:
CAIR. Although the State of Nebraska was not included in
the CAIR rulemaking, the rule was a major component in the underlying
assumptions used to determine source apportionment because of the
reductions expected in neighboring States.
Federal mobile source standards
Tier 2 vehicle standards and low sulfur fuel requirements
Locomotive and marine engine standards
Small spark-ignition engine standards
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards
Nebraska's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
construction permitting program. Nebraska notes that the visibility
protection provisions of PSD found at 40 CFR 52.21(o) have been
incorporated into Title 129--Nebraska Air Quality Regulations at
Chapter 19. Section 40 CFR 52.21(p) requires notification and
consultation with FLMs of Class I areas which may be affected by
emissions from a new source; these requirements under have been
incorporated by reference into Title 129 in Chapter 19.
Nebraska has fugitive dust regulations in Nebraska Title 129--
Chapter 32, which includes a provision applicable to construction
activities. The rule requires the use of reasonable measures such as
paving, cleaning, application of water, planting and maintenance of
ground cover, and/or application of dust-free surfactants to prevent
dust from becoming airborne such that it remains visible beyond the
property boundary. Nebraska estimates that construction activities are
not expected to cause a significant impact to visibility, and did not
require any additional measures to mitigate the impacts of construction
activities for purposes of visibility improvement.
Nebraska also has regulations that address smoke management for
agricultural and forestry management burns. Title 129--Chapter 30 is a
ban on open burning with some direct exceptions that include
agriculture operations, parks management, and fires set for training
purposes. Other types of exceptions are subject to approval by the NDEQ
and the local fire authority. For purposes of forestry or land
management, such burning is allowed provided it is conducted by a
limited set of organizations approved by NDEQ. Nebraska contends that,
based on the minimal impacts on nearby Class I areas from burning, a
more stringent smoke management plan is not needed for purposes of
visibility protection at this time.
The above programs are fully enforceable, provide for the
mitigation of new source impacts through new source permitting
programs, and reflect appropriate consideration of current programs and
prospective changes in emissions. Enforceability of Nebraska's BART
control measures are more fully described below in section III.F.
a. Consultation on Other States' RPGs
Where Nebraska has emissions that are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area located in
another State or States, it must consult with the other State(s) in
order to develop coordinated emission management strategies. If
Nebraska causes or contributes to impairment in a Class I area, it must
demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all measures necessary to
obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the progress
goal for the area.
As mentioned previously, Nebraska participated in the CENRAP
planning process, which provided the primary venue for State
consultation and coordination on emission management strategies.
Nebraska also asserts that it notified the States of South Dakota,
Oklahoma, Missouri and Colorado while its draft BART permits were open
for public comment, proposing only control for NOX at the
three BART units in the State. It should be noted that although
Nebraska participated as a member State in CENRAP, the greatest impacts
from Nebraska sources occur in a Western Regional Area Partnership
(WRAP) State--South Dakota.
South Dakota
Nebraska asserts that sources in the State have a ``minimal''
visibility impact on all Class I areas, and points out in its SIP that
no State asked Nebraska for specific emission reductions in order to
meet its RPGs. We disagree with the characterization of Nebraska's
contribution as minimal, as source-specific CALPUFF modeling shows a
significant visibility impact from GGS on the South Dakota Class I
areas.11 12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GGS's maximum visibility impact at Badlands was 3.12 dv in
2003, and 2.59 dv at Wind Cave in 2002.
\12\ Source-specific CALPUFF modeling for Nebraska City Station
and Gerald Gentleman Station is in appendix 10.5 of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we note that South Dakota's reasonable progress goals,
which are proposed for approval by EPA at the time of this writing,
achieve less visibility improvement than the uniform rate of progress
for the first implementation period. The reasonable progress goals for
the 20 percent worst days fall short of the uniform rate of progress by
1.28 dv for Badlands and 1.34 dv at Wind Cave.\13\ The modeling used to
estimate achievement of these goals assumed that the presumptive level
of SO2 BART controls would be installed on Nebraska sources.
Nebraska did not go on to require BART-level controls, therefore, South
Dakota may be even further away from meeting its RPGs than what the
modeling predicted. As described in detail in section III. F. d. of
this notice, we propose to disapprove Nebraska's SO2 BART
determination for GGS. We also propose to disapprove Nebraska's LTS
insofar as it relied on this deficient BART determination. These issues
are addressed through reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative
to BART for SO2 emissions from the GGS units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 76 FR 76646 (December 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado
In comment letters dated January 21, 2011, and June 23, 2009, the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) notes that
according to source-specific CALPUFF modeling, GGS has an impact of
greater than one deciview on Rocky Mountain
[[Page 12777]]
National Park (RMNP). CDPHE questioned why Nebraska would propose no
SO2 controls for such a large power plant, and requested
that Nebraska take another look at the cost assumptions made for Flue
Gas Desulfurization (FGD) controls. They express that $2,700 per ton
for control of SO2 is reasonable, and that the cost is
likely even lower.
CDPHE commented that it understands Nebraska's concerns about water
availability in western Nebraska, as the State of Colorado is also in
an arid region. They state that all large EGUs in Colorado have
installed (or are in the process of installing) FGD controls to reduce
SO2 emissions.
CDPHE goes on to note that the most recent WRAP modeling, which
used the CMAQ model, predicts that RMNP is far short of its uniform
rate of progress. CDPHE asked that Nebraska reconsider SO2
controls at GGS under the RHR to help Colorado make progress at RMNP.
Nebraska denies this request in their SIP on the basis that WRAP's
modeling did not distinguish Nebraska's impact from the other CENRAP
States. Nebraska makes the argument that a wind rose from RMNP
indicates that the wind pattern is rarely from the direction of
Nebraska.
We share Colorado's concerns about the SO2 BART
determination for GGS, and as described above, we are proposing to
disapprove this deficient BART determination and Nebraska's LTS insofar
as the State relied on it to meet the LTS requirements. We propose that
these issues will be addressed through reliance on the Transport Rule
as an alternative to BART for SO2 emissions from the GGS
units.
Minnesota
Boundary Waters, Voyageurs, Seney, and Isle Royale are referred to
as the Northern Midwest Class I areas. As identified in the document,
``Reasonable Progress for Class I Areas in the Northern Midwest--Factor
Analysis,'' \14\ the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO)
identified the following States contributing to Class I area visibility
impairment in the LADCO region: Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, as
well as surrounding States, such as the Dakotas, Iowa, Missouri,
Illinois, and Indiana. Nebraska does not significantly contribute to
visibility impairment at the Minnesota Class I areas according to PSAT
modeling. Through RPO consultation, Minnesota determined that no
additional emissions reductions from Nebraska sources were needed to
meet Class I area visibility improvement goals at this point in time.
EPA believes that this satisfies the requirement for consultation
between these States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Appendix 11.1 of the SIP
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma
As identified in the document titled, ``Oklahoma`s Wichita
Mountains Wilderness Area Regional Haze Planning,'' \15\ Oklahoma
identified Nebraska in its area of influence for NOX.
Nebraska was initially invited to participate in the Oklahoma
consultation process. Nebraska states that it provided copies of the
draft BART permits to the State of Oklahoma while on public notice,
which only proposed NOX controls on OPPD and NPPD. Oklahoma
did not provide any comment, or request additional controls for the
initial planning period. EPA believes that the consultation requirement
between these States has been satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Appendix 11.3 of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missouri and Arkansas
Caney Creek, Upper Buffalo, Hercules Glades, and Mingo are referred
to as the central Class I areas. As identified in the document,
``Central Class I Areas Consultation Plan,'' \16\ CENRAP identified
Nebraska in the area of influence for NOX at the central
Class I areas. The central States determined whether a State was a
major contributor based on an analysis of four approaches:
trajectories, areas of influence, PSAT, and Q/d. If a State was found
to be a major contributor in at least 3 of the 4 approaches, the
central States concluded it was appropriate to include that State as a
major contributor. Nebraska was found to be a contributor based upon
the area of influence only, therefore it was excluded as a major
contributing State to visibility impairment in Class I areas in
Missouri and Arkansas. EPA believes that Nebraska's consultation
requirement with these States was satisfied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Appendix 11.2 of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Best Available Retrofit Technology
States must submit an implementation plan containing emission
limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART
for each BART-eligible source that may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any Class I
area.
a. BART-Eligible Sources
States must identify all BART-eligible sources in their SIP.
Sources are subject to BART if: One or more emissions units at the
facility belong to one of the twenty-six BART source categories \17\;
the unit did not operate before August 7, 1962, but was in existence on
August 7, 1977; and the unit has the potential to emit 250 tons per
year or more of any visibility-impairing pollutant, which Nebraska
determined to be SO2, NOX, and PM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ BART guidelines, 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix Y. .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BART Guidelines direct States to exercise judgment in deciding
whether VOCs and ammonia (NH3) impair visibility in their
Class I area(s). 70 FR 391160. CENRAP performed analyses which
demonstrated that anthropogenic emissions of VOC and NH3 do
not significantly impair visibility in the CENRAP region. Therefore,
Nebraska did not consider NH3 among visibility-impairing
pollutants and did not further evaluate NH3 and VOC
emissions sources for potential controls under BART or reasonable
progress.
Nebraska used its database to identify facilities with emission
units in one or more of the twenty six BART categories. Nebraska then
conducted a survey to identify units within these source categories
with potential emissions of 250 tons per year or more for any
visibility-impairing pollutant from any unit that was in existence on
August 7, 1977, and began operation after August 7, 1962. The sources
identified by Nebraska are listed in Table 1. More detailed information
regarding each facility's BART-eligible units may be found in Appendix
10.2 of the SIP.
EPA proposes to find that Nebraska adequately identified all BART-
eligible sources within the State.
[[Page 12778]]
Table 1--Facilities With BART-Eligible Units in Nebraska
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Potential to emit (date-eligible units, tons
emission units per year)
Source category Facility Location identified by -----------------------------------------------
date PM NOX SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fossil-fuel fired steam electric NPPD Gerald Gentlemen Sutherland............. 2 4,460 46,200 79,200
plants of more than 250 million BTU Station.
per hour heat input.
OPPD Nebraska City...... Nebraska City.......... 1 43,792 19,040 45,696
OPPD North Omaha Station Omaha.................. 2 910 14,420 34,283
NPPD Sheldon Station.... Hallam................. 2 908 6,020 15,100
CW Burdick Generating Grand Island........... 2 997 1,923 10,304
Station.
Lon D. Wright Power Fremont................ 2 97 3,784 3,035
Plant.
Don Henry Power Center.. Hastings............... 1 19 1,360 780
North Denver Station.... Hastings............... 1 14 426 853
Portland cement plant................ Ash Grove Cement........ Louisville............. 7 528 2,373 3,182
Chemical process plant; fossil-fuel Beatrice Nitrogen Plant. Beatrice............... 18 48 924 5
boilers; hydrofluoric, sulfuric, and
nitric acid plant.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. BART-Subject Sources
Nebraska then screened out some BART-eligible sources from being
subject to BART on the basis that they do not cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Nebraska selected a
contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews based on the 98th percentile of
daily modeled visibility impact over an annual period because it is
consistent with the Guidelines, no BART-eligible sources are near Class
I areas, and there are no significant clusters of BART-eligible sources
in the State. Nebraska required the owner of each BART-eligible source
to conduct dispersion modeling using the CALPUFF model and submit the
results to Nebraska.\18\ The CALPUFF modeling protocol is included in
Appendix 10.3 of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ One exception--Nebraska conducted modeling for the Lon D.
Wright Power Plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska identified eight sources with impacts less than 0.5
deciviews, and were therefore determined not to be BART-subject:
Beatrice Nitrogen Plant; Ash Grove Cement; Don Henry Power Center; Lon
D. Wright Power Plant; CW Burdick Generating Station; North Denver
Station; NPPD Sheldon Station; and OPPD North Omaha Station.
Two facilities had impacts greater than 0.5 deciviews, and were
therefore determined to be BART-subject: OPPD NCS Station Unit 1 and
NPPD GGS Units 1 and 2. EPA proposes to find that Nebraska adequately
determined which sources in the State were subject to BART.
c. Particulate Matter (PM) Evaluation
Nebraska used source-specific CALPUFF modeling to examine the
relative contribution of PM, NOX, and SO2
emissions to visibility impairment.
For NCS Unit 1, direct PM emissions only accounted for 0.32 percent
of impairment in the most impaired year, 2001, at the closest Class I
area, Hercules Glades. Nebraska concluded that direct PM emissions from
NCS do not significantly contribute to visibility impairment, and
therefore, a full five factor BART analysis for PM was not needed.
For GGS Units 1 and 2, direct PM emissions only accounted for 0.69
percent of impairment on the most impaired year, 2003, at the closest
Class I area, Badlands. Nebraska concluded that direct PM emissions
from GGS do not significantly contribute to visibility impairment, and
therefore, a full five factor BART analysis for PM was not needed.
EPA agrees with these conclusions.
d. BART Determination for Omaha Public Power District (OPPD) Nebraska
City Station (NCS) Unit 1
Nebraska and EPA have reached different conclusions as to whether
NCS Unit 1 is located at a power plant with a generating capacity in
excess of 750 megawatts (MW), or not. If NCS falls within this category
of sources, then the BART Guidelines must be followed in determining
BART limits and the presumptive limits in the Guidelines would apply.
See CAA section 169A(b). In September 2008, Nebraska asked EPA for
clarification on whether recently permitted units, such as NCS Unit 2,
should be included in the total plant capacity for purposes of applying
presumptive BART. In a response dated November 7, 2008, we indicated it
is reasonable to interpret the RHR to mean that if the plant capacity
is greater than 750 MW at the time the BART determination is made by
the State (i.e., at the time the State places the BART determination on
public notice), then the power plant is a facility ``having a total
generating capacity in excess of 750 [MW]'' and any unit at the plant
greater than 200 MW is subject to presumptive BART.
The groundbreaking for construction of NCS Unit 2 was September 13,
2005. Nebraska put the NCS Unit 1 BART permit on public notice on
December 12, 2008. Unit 2 was operational on May 1, 2009.\19\ Nebraska
concluded that because NCS Unit 2 was not operational at the time of
the BART determination for Unit 1, its capacity did not count towards
the 750 MW threshold, and therefore, it was not mandatory for Nebraska
to follow 40 CFR 51 Appendix Y in making the BART determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.powermag.com/coal/Top-Plants-Nebraska-City-Station-Unit-2-Nebraska-City-Nebraska_2179_p4.html, accessed
February 7, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We concede that there is some question as to whether the NCS Unit 1
is a presumptive unit, requiring use of the BART Guidelines, or not.
Regardless, Nebraska did proceed
[[Page 12779]]
through a basic step-wise analysis of the costs and visibility impacts
of available controls.
NCS Unit 1 has existing overfire air (OFA), so in determining BART
for NOX at NCS unit 1, Nebraska considered low
NOX burners (LNB) and selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
Selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) was determined to be
technically infeasible due to high furnace exit temperatures. The cost
effectiveness of LNB/OFA at a rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu was $166 per ton;
the cost effectiveness of LNB/OFA plus SCR at a rate of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu
was $2,611 per ton.
NCS Unit 1 impacts Hercules Glades in Missouri and Wichita
Mountains in Oklahoma an average of 0.65 dv and 0.46 dv,
respectively.\20\ Installing LNB with OFA offers an average improvement
of 0.22 dv at Hercules Glades and 0.12 dv at Wichita Mountains. The
addition of SCR would provide an additional 0.17 dv of improvement at
Hercules Glades,\21\ but because of the high incremental cost of $8,203
per ton and the level of visibility improvement, it was not chosen as
BART. Nebraska determined BART for NOX at NCS unit 1 to be
LNB with OFA at a rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu. EPA agrees that the State's
determination is reasonable given the relatively insignificant
additional visibility improvement associated with SCR for the
additional cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Our use of the word average in this section means averaging
the 98th percentile impact for each of the three baseline years,
2001-2003.
\21\ Improvement from the addition of SCR at Wichita Mountains
was not provided by NDEQ in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For SO2 control at NCS, Nebraska evaluated both dry and
wet FGD. Nebraska concluded that dry FGD (spray dryer absorber (SDA))
has lower capital and operating costs than wet FGD and can achieve a
similar control efficiency; it thus focused its cost analysis on dry
FGD. We note that Nebraska did not evaluate Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI)
as a potential SO2 control for NCS Unit 1. Since DSI can
generally achieve the same control efficiency as FGD, we believe that
the State has appropriately evaluated the level of controls in its
analysis.
The costs per ton for dry FGD were reasonable both at a rate of
0.15 lbs/MMBtu ($1,759 per ton) and 0.10 lbs/MMBtu ($1,636 per
ton).\22\ The visibility improvement at Hercules Glades from dry FGD
was 0.25 dv and 0.44 dv \23\, respectively. The visibility improvement
of adding FGD at a rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu to the LNB/OFA system required
as BART for NOX is 0.25 dv.\24\ Nebraska determined that the
minimal visibility improvement from installation of FGD at NCS Unit 1
did not warrant the additional cost ($34,770,000 or $1,759 per ton);
therefore, no SO2 controls were proposed as BART for NCS
Unit 1. EPA agrees that the State's determination is not unreasonable
given the minimal additional visibility improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Nebraska assumed the same cost regardless of the level of
control (0.15 or 0.10 lb/MMBtu); however, a higher level of control
would likely have a slightly higher cost.
\23\ Nebraska only provided visibility information for the most
impacted year for the 0.10 lb/MMBtu rate; therefore, this
improvement is maximum, not average.
\24\ Nebraska did not provide modeling information for FGD at a
rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu combined with LNB/OFA, so that level of
control cannot be fully evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
e. BART Determination for Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) Gerald
Gentleman Station (GGS) Units 1 and 2
Nebraska evaluated LNB with OFA and SCR for NOX control
at GGS. In 2006, NPPD installed LNB and OFA at Unit 1, but since this
was after the 2001-2003 baseline modeling period, it was still
evaluated in the BART analysis. SNCR was determined to be technically
infeasible due to high furnace exit temperatures. LNB with OFA (at a
rate of 0.23 lbs/MMBtu) had a cost effectiveness of $198 per ton, and
LNB with OFA and SCR (at a rate of 0.08 lbs/MMBtu) had a cost
effectiveness of $2,297 per ton.
GGS affects six Class I areas greater than 0.5 dv on average:
Badlands and Wind Cave in South Dakota; Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma;
Rocky Mountain in Colorado; and Hercules Glades and Mingo in Missouri.
GGS has a cumulative baseline impact on these six Class I areas of 8.86
dv.
LNB plus OFA offers an improvement at Badlands (the closest and
most affected Class I area) of 0.66 dv, and 1.94 dv cumulatively. The
addition of SCR offers an incremental improvement of 0.49 dv at
Badlands, and 1.27 dv cumulatively. Nebraska concluded that based on
the relatively low incremental visibility improvement of adding SCR to
the LNB/OFA system for the additional cost ($5,445 incremental cost per
ton), requiring SCR as BART was not warranted. NOX BART for
GGS was determined to be the installation of LNB/OFA with an emission
limitation of 0.23 lbs NOX/MMBtu, averaged across the two
units. EPA agrees that the State's NOX BART determination
for GGS is reasonable.
Nebraska evaluated wet and dry FGD and Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI)
for SO2 controls at GGS. All control options were evaluated
at the presumptive rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu. The cost effectiveness for
dry and wet FGD was nearly identical at $2,726 per ton and $2,724 per
ton, respectively; the cost effectiveness of DSI was $2,058 per ton.
All of these controls were determined by Nebraska to be reasonable on a
cost per ton basis.
The visibility improvement from these controls operated at a rate
of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu is significant: an average of 0.86 dv from DSI, and
an average of 0.78 dv from FGD at Badlands. The cumulative improvement
is even greater; FGD control would offer an improvement of 3.17 dv
across the six Class I areas that GGS affects. Nebraska only provided
visibility information for DSI at Badlands; therefore, the cumulative
benefit of DSI is unknown.
Nebraska raises water use of wet and dry FGD as a significant non-
air environmental impact. In its SIP, Nebraska presents a description
of the over-appropriation of water resources in the western part of
Nebraska, where GGS is located. The State described that this over-
appropriation means that any new use of groundwater requires an offset
in water consumption in the same area. To do this, NPPD would have to
purchase the groundwater rights from surrounding landowners. Nebraska
did not include the cost of obtaining these groundwater rights in the
original BART analysis costs; however, in the narrative portion of the
SIP, Nebraska describes both the costs of obtaining groundwater, and
the loss of agricultural revenue due to taking land out of agricultural
production. Nebraska concludes that the cost of obtaining water to
operate wet FGD would add approximately 8.6 percent to the cost of
controls. If these costs were added into the BART analysis, it would
only increase the cost of control by $234 per ton. This brings the cost
per ton to $2,958, which EPA believes is still a reasonable cost of
control over both units.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ EPA is not including any cost of the loss of agricultural
revenue in this estimation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the SIP, Nebraska says that it used a $40,000,000/yr/dv
threshold for determining what would be considered a reasonable
investment for visibility improvement. They concluded that the costs of
FGD control were reasonable on a cost per ton basis, but not on a
dollars per deciview basis. Furthermore, Nebraska sees the water
consumption of FGD controls as significant, and concludes that because
of this unique situation, FGD controls are unreasonable for GGS Units 1
and 2. Nebraska concludes that BART is no SO2 controls at
GGS.
[[Page 12780]]
EPA disagrees with this conclusion. Using Nebraska's analysis, we
agree that the cost per ton for FGD control is reasonable, and
Nebraska's analysis shows significant visibility improvement, both at
Badlands and on a cumulative basis. We also believe that Nebraska
inappropriately ruled out DSI. Costs for the control are reasonable at
$2,058 per ton and visibility improvement at Badlands is significant at
0.86 dv. Furthermore, DSI does not consume as much water as does FGD.
Finally, even though the cost of FGD controls is reasonable, we
believe that the costs of FGD control are overestimated. This is
described in detail in the TSD to this notice. EPA conducted an
independent review of the cost information presented by Nebraska in its
BART analysis for dry scrubbers. We found several errors and deviations
from EPA's Cost Control Manual.\26\ Cost categories in which we found
significant errors or deviations include: Engineering Procurement and
Construction; Bond Fees; Escalation; Contingency; Allowance for Funds
Used During Construction; Capital Recovery Factor; and Operation and
Maintenance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA/
452/B-02-001, January 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also found that Nebraska incorrectly calculated the
SO2 emission rates. On page 15 of its BART analysis, NPPD
calculates its SO2 emission baseline based on applying a 24-
hour maximum emission rate of 0.749 lbs/MMBtu (2001-2003) to a maximum
heat input of 15,175.5 MMBtu/hr, based on a 100 percent capacity
factor. This results in an emissions baseline of 49,785 tons/year.\27\
We believe this calculation does not appropriately represent GGS's
SO2 emission baseline, and is in fact too high. We have
downloaded emissions data for GGS from our Clean Air Markets Web
site,\28\ and using the same emissions data from the three year
averaging period of 2001-2003, we have calculated the three year
average annual SO2 emissions for units 1 and 2 of the GGS to
be 0.565 lbs/MMBtu.\29\ Reducing this to a controlled SO2
emissions level of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu results in a control efficiency of
approximately 73.5 percent. Applying this level of control to our
adjusted GGS SO2 emission baseline of 31,513 tons/year would
reduce it to 8,366 tons/yr, resulting in a reduction of 23,147 tons of
SO2 annually. Applying the same approximate 80 percent level
of reduction GGS assumes to our adjusted GGS SO2 emission
baseline of 31,513 tons/yr would reduce it to 6,311 tons/yr, resulting
in a reduction of 25,202 tons of SO2 annually.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ (0.749 lbs/MMBtu) * (15,175 MMBtu/hr) * (8,760 hrs/yr) *
(ton/2,000 lbs) = 49,785 tons/yr.
\28\ https://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm?fuseaction=emissions.wizard.
\29\ See Attachment B to our TSD. Based on adding the station
total pounds of SO2 emissions from 2001-2003 and dividing
by the station total heat input from 2001-2003.
\30\ (39,815/49,785) * 31,513 = 25,202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, dry scrubbers are capable of much greater control
efficiencies than the 80 percent level that GGS assumes.\31\ Therefore,
for the purpose of calculating the cost effectiveness of dry scrubbers
at the GGS, we also analyzed an SO2 emission limit of 0.06
lbs/MMBtu, which results in a scrubber efficiency of approximately
89.4%. Applying this level of control to our adjusted GGS baseline of
31,513 tons/yr would reduce it to 3,347 tons/yr, resulting in a
reduction of 28,166 tons of SO2 annually. Table 2 summarizes
EPA's adjustments to the Nebraska cost estimates for dry FGD control at
GGS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Response to Technical Comments for Sections E. through H.
of the Federal Register Notice for the Oklahoma Regional Haze and
Visibility Transport Federal Implementation Plan, Docket No. EPA-
R06-OAR-2010-0190, 12/13/2011, Section II., Comments Relating to Our
SO2 BART Emission Limit, and elsewhere.
Table 2--Range of GGS Dry Scrubber Cost Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dry FGD Dry FGD
(original NPPD EPA's estimate
BART analysis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 Baseline.................................... 49,785 31,513
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uncontrolled Emission Level (lbs/MMBtu)......... 0.749 0.565
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled Emission Rate (lbs/MMBtu)............ 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.06
Percent Reduction............................... 80% 73.5% 80% 89.4%
SO2 Emission Reduction (tons)................... 39,815 23,147 25,202 28,166
Total Annualized Cost........................... $108,535,690 $53,469,570 $54,335,512 $55,543,352
Total Cost Effectiveness ($/ton)................ $2,726 $2,310 $2,156 $1,972
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we believe that Nebraska's cost analysis includes
errors and deviations from EPA's Cost Control Manual that results in
the overestimation of the costs of FGD controls. In addition, the State
did not do a full evaluation of the potential visibility benefits from
levels of control that FGD is capable of achieving. We believe that the
cost per ton of SO2 controls ranging from $1,972 (our
analysis) to $2,958 (Nebraska's analysis, plus water) is reasonable,
and that the visibility benefits, whether considered just at Badlands
or cumulatively, are significant. Finally, we believe that the State
improperly rejected DSI as a potential BART control. Therefore, EPA
proposes to disapprove Nebraska's BART determination for SO2
controls at GGS.
f. BART Summary and Enforceability
Each source subject to BART must install and operate BART as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than five years
after approval of the SIP revision; and include monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure the BART limits are
enforceable. Nebraska chose to incorporate BART requirements into PSD
permits issued pursuant to Title 129 of the Nebraska Air Quality
Regulations, Chapter 19. These limits will be incorporated into the
facility's Title V permits after SIP approval. The permits require that
the limits be met within five years of approval of Nebraska's regional
haze SIP. The limits must be met on a thirty-day rolling average basis
at all times, including periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction.
The permits require the use of a NOX continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) on each unit to demonstrate compliance with
the BART NOX limits. Each CEMS is
[[Page 12781]]
required to be operated and certified in accordance with 40 CFR Part
75. Recordkeeping and reporting is also required to be in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 75. The PSD permits were submitted to the EPA for SIP
approval as part of the State's RH SIP submittal. The PSD permits are
enforceable by the State, and by EPA. We have reviewed these
requirements and propose to find them adequate as they relate to the
BART limits we are proposing to approve.
Table 3 is a summary of the BART determinations made by Nebraska
and EPA's proposed action on those determinations.
Table 3--Summary of Nebraska BART Determinations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART controls determined
Facility, units Pollutant by the State EPA's proposed action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPPD Nebraska City Station, Unit 1. NOX.................... Install low NOX burners Approval.
with over fired air. Meet
presumptive level of 0.23
lbs/MMBtu.
SO2.................... No additional controls. Approval.
Source currently uses low
sulfur coal.
NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station, NOX.................... Install low NOX Burners Approval.
Units 1 and 2. with over fired air. Meet
presumptive level of 0.23
lbs/MMBtu, averaged over
the two units.
SO2.................... No additional controls. Disapproval.
Continue to use low
sulfur coal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to Address SO2 BART for GGS and
LTS
As discussed above, we propose to disapprove Nebraska's BART
determination for GGS. In addition, as discussed in section III.E.
(Long Term Strategy), we propose to disapprove Nebraska's LTS insofar
as it relied on the deficient BART determination for SO2 at
GGS. To address the deficiencies identified in these proposed
disapprovals, we are also proposing a FIP.
The RHR allows for use of 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. On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading
programs in the Transport Rule would achieve greater reasonable
progress towards the national goal than would BART in the States in
which the Transport Rule applies, including Nebraska. 76 FR 82219. EPA
also proposed to revise the RHR to allow States to meet the
requirements of an alternative program in lieu of BART by participation
in the trading programs under the Transport Rule. EPA has not taken
final action on that rule.
We are proposing a partial FIP, relying on the Transport Rule as an
alternative to BART for SO2 emissions from the GGS units.
This limited FIP would satisfy the SO2 BART requirement for
these units and remedy the deficiency in Nebraska's LTS.
We noted that on December 30, 2011, the D.C. Circuit Court issued
an order addressing the status of the Transport Rule and CAIR in
response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking a stay of the
Transport Rule pending judicial review. In that order, the D.C. Circuit
Court stayed the Transport Rule pending the court's resolutions of the
petitions for review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA
(No. 11-1302 and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA
is expected to continue to administer the CAIR in the interim until the
court rules on the petitions for review of the Transport Rule. Under
the Regional Haze Rule, an alternative to BART does not need to be
fully implemented until 2018. As that is well after we expect the stay
to be lifted, EPA believes it may still rely on the Transport Rule as
an alternative to BART. Further, our proposed action would not impact
the implementation of the Transport Rule or otherwise interfere with
the stay.
H. Coordinating Regional Haze and RAVI
EPA's visibility regulations direct States to coordinate their RAVI
LTS and monitoring provisions with those for regional haze. Under EPA's
RAVI regulations, the RAVI portion of a State SIP must address any
integral vistas identified by FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. 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 Class I area includes any integral vista
associated with that area. As mentioned previously, Nebraska does not
have any Class I areas and the FLMs have not certified any integral
vistas affected by emissions from Nebraska sources, therefore, the
Nebraska regional haze SIP submittal is not required to address the two
requirements regarding coordination of the regional haze SIP with the
RAVI LTS and monitoring provisions.
I. Monitoring Strategy
Because it does not host a Class I area, Nebraska is not required
to develop a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and
reporting regional haze impairment that is representative of Class I
areas within the State. However, the State is required to establish
procedures by which monitoring data and other information is used to
determine the contribution of emissions from within the State to
regional haze impairment at Class I areas outside of the State.
Compliance with this requirement is met by participation in the
IMPROVE network.\32\ Nebraska installed one IMPROVE protocol sampler at
Nebraska National Forest County near Halsey, Nebraska in the central
part of the State, and another at Crescent Lake National Wild Life
Refuge in the panhandle of the State. A third IMPROVE Protocol sampler
in Nebraska is operated independently in Thurston County, by the Omaha
Tribe of Nebraska; however, EPA notes that this monitor is no longer
operating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes the State's commitment to utilize data from these
sites, or any other EPA-approved monitoring network location, to
characterize and model conditions within the State and to compare
visibility conditions in the State to visibility impairment at Class I
areas hosted by other States, and proposes that Nebraska has satisfied
the monitoring requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4).
J. Emissions Inventory
States are required to develop 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 with
available data, and future projected emissions.
As mentioned previously, Nebraska worked with CENRAP and its
[[Page 12782]]
contractors to develop statewide emission inventories for 2002 and
2018. Detailed methodologies are documented in appendices 8.3 and 9.1
of the SIP. The 2018 emissions inventory was developed by projecting
2002 emissions and applying reductions expected from Federal and State
regulations affecting the emissions of the visibility-impairing
pollutants NOX, PM, SO2, and VOCs. The 2002
emissions were grown to year 2018 primarily using the Economic Growth
Analysis System (EGAS6), MOBILE 6.2 vehicle emission modeling software,
and the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) version 2.93 for EGUs. The 2018
emissions for EGUs were based on simulations of the IPM that took into
the account the effects of CAIR on emissions.
At the time modeling was conducted, BART decisions had not been
made by many States, including Oklahoma and Nebraska. Presumptive
levels of BART control were assumed in projections of 2018 emissions.
The 2018 Nebraska inventory was then updated to account for Nebraska's
BART decisions, specifically, no SO2 controls on the two
BART-subject EGUs in the State.
EPA believes the 2002 and 2018 statewide emissions inventories and
the State's method for developing the 2018 emissions inventory for
Nebraska meets the requirements of the RHR. Nebraska has also committed
to update inventory periodically, therefore, we propose that Nebraska
has met the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v).
K. Federal Land Manager (FLM) Consultation
States are required to provide the FLMs an opportunity for
consultation, in person and at least sixty days prior to holding any
public hearing on the SIP (or its revision). Consultations should
include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of
impairment of visibility in any Class I area; and recommendations on
the development of the RPG and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment.
Nebraska provided several opportunities for the FLMs to comment on
Nebraska's regional haze plan. Nebraska asserts that it sent the draft
BART permits for NPPD and OPPD to the FLMs in mid-2008, and again prior
to public notice. Nebraska provided the FLMs with a draft of the
Nebraska regional haze SIP on November 16, 2010, and received formal
comments from the National Park Service (NPS), the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), and the US Forest Service (USFS) in January 2011.
In developing any SIP (or plan revision), States must include a
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. The
FLM comments and Nebraska's responses are provided in appendix 3 of the
SIP, and are summarized in the TSD for this rulemaking.
The main FLM comments centered on concerns that the modeling done
by the RPOs assumed a presumptive level of control on Nebraska BART
sources, but Nebraska did not go on to require that level of control,
and in fact, required no control for SO2.
The FLMs also commented that DSI should be evaluated for
SO2 control and SNCR for NOX control at NCS Unit
1; they disagree with Nebraska's decision to not require FGD and SCR,
as both controls have a reasonable cost. They strongly disagree with
the BART determinations for GGS, pointing out that the visibility
impact of these units is significant at more than just the closest
Class I area (Badlands), and question several aspects of the cost
estimation, such as escalation, contingencies, allowance for funds
during construction, overestimation of direct annual costs.
The USFWS did some interagency consultation regarding water
availability as a reason not to require FGD controls. The USFWS Air
Branch asked the USFWS's Nebraska Field Office to review Nebraska's
draft regional haze SIP and comment on the merits of the arguments on
water and endangered species protection. While the Nebraska Field
Office agrees that Nebraska's arguments have some merit, they say that
the information provided by Nebraska represents a worst-case scenario,
and concludes that the water availability concerns do not automatically
negate the opportunity to make improvements in air quality.
Finally, regional haze SIPs must provide procedures for continuing
consultation between the State and FLMs on the implementation of 40 CFR
51.308, including development and review of SIP revisions and five-year
progress reports, and on the implementation of other programs having
the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I
areas. Nebraska has committed to continuing to coordinate and consult
with the FLMs during the development of future progress reports and
plan revisions, as well as during the implementation of programs having
the potential to contribute to visibility impairment in the mandatory
Class I Federal areas. We propose that Nebraska has satisfied the FLM
consultation requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(i).
L. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five Year Progress Report
Nebraska acknowledged the requirement under 40 CFR 51.308(f)-(h) to
submit periodic progress reports and regional haze SIP revisions, with
the first report due by July 31, 2018, and revisions due every ten
years thereafter. Nebraska committed to meeting this requirement.
Nebraska also acknowledged the requirement to submit periodic
reports evaluating progress towards the reasonable progress goals
established for each mandatory Class I area. Nebraska committed to
complete the first five-year progress report by December 31, 2016. The
report will evaluate the progress made towards the reasonable progress
goal for each mandatory Class I area located outside Nebraska, which
may be affected by emissions from within Nebraska. Using the findings
of this first report, Nebraska committed to determining whether the
adequacy of the plan is sufficient and taking appropriate action to
revise the SIP as needed. We propose to find that Nebraska has
satisfied the requirements to submit periodic SIP revisions and
progress reports as required by 40 CFR 51.308(f)-(h).
IV. Proposed Actions
We propose to partially approve and partially disapprove Nebraska's
regional haze SIP submitted on July 13, 2011. We propose to disapprove
the SO2 BART determinations for Units 1 and 2 of GGS because
they do not comply with our regulations and guidance. We are also
proposing to disapprove Nebraska's long-term strategy insofar as it
relied on the deficient SO2 BART determination at GGS. We
propose a FIP relying on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART
for SO2 emissions from GGS to address these issues.
We propose to approve all other portions of the Nebraska RH SIP. We
note that all controls required as part of Nebraska's BART
determinations, not included as part of our proposed FIP, must be
operational within five years from the effective date of our final
rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive
Order.
[[Page 12783]]
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must approve all
``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines ``collection of
information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * * identical
reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons
* * *.'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). The Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply to this action.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The proposed partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves
State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. Moreover, due to the
nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions
concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427
U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted to inflation).
Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is
consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to
establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that
may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it
merely approves State rules implementing a Federal standard, and does
not impose any new mandates on State or local governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the spirit of
Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. EPA specifically solicits
additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as defined
under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental health
or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This rule is
not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
[[Page 12784]]
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it proposes to
approve State-adopted emission limits for all affected populations
without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule does not impose any new mandates,
because EGUs in Nebraska are subject to the requirements of the
Transport Rule independently of this proposed action. See 76 FR 82219,
for an analysis of the implications of Executive Order 12898 in
relation to EPA's proposed rule, ``Regional Haze: Revisions to
Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals,
and Federal Implementation Plans'' (December 30, 2011).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, Interstate
transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available control
technology.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 15, 2012.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart CC--Nebraska
2. Sections 52.1430-52.1434 remain reserved.
3. Section 52.1435 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1435 Visibility protection.
(a) The requirements of section 169A of the Clean Air Act are not
met because the plan does not include approvable measures for meeting
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) and 51.308(e) for protection of
visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas.
(b) Best Available Retrofit Technology for SO2 at Nebraska Public
Power District, Gerald Gentleman Units 1 and 2. The requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e) with respect to emissions of SO2 from Nebraska
Public Power District, Gerald Gentleman Units 1 and 2 are satisfied by
Sec. 52.1429.
[FR Doc. 2012-4991 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
