Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans, 19333-19347 [2017-08543]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
involves amendments to navigation
regulations and establishment of a safety
zone. Normally such actions are
categorically excluded from further
review under section 2.B.2, and figure
2–1, paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction.
A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration (REC) supporting this
determination is available in the docket
where indicated under the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. We seek any
comments or information that may lead
to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this
proposed rule.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
G. Protest Activities
The Coast Guard respects the First
Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
coordinate protest activities so that your
message can be received without
jeopardizing the safety or security of
people, places, or vessels.
V. Public Participation and Request for
Comments
We view public participation as
essential to effective rulemaking, and
will consider all comments and material
received during the comment period.
Your comment can help shape the
outcome of this rulemaking. If you
submit a comment, please include the
docket number for this rulemaking,
indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment
applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation.
We encourage you to submit
comments through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov. If your material
cannot be submitted using https://
www.regulations.gov, contact the person
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document for
alternate instructions.
We accept anonymous comments. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov and will include
any personal information you have
provided. For more about privacy and
the docket, you may review a Privacy
Act notice regarding the Federal Docket
Management System in the March 24,
2005, issue of the Federal Register (70
FR 15086).
Documents mentioned in this NPRM
as being available in the docket, and all
public comments, will be in our online
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
and can be viewed by following that
Web site’s instructions. Additionally, if
you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
19333
when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan, or an
on-scene representative.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Dated: April 20, 2017.
A.B. Cocanour,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Lake Michigan.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and record keeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to
amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for part 165
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T09–0197 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165. T09–0197 Safety Zone; South
Branch of the Chicago River and the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal, Chicago,
IL, Tough Cup.
(a) Location. All waters of the South
Branch of the Chicago River and the
Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal
between the South Pulaski Road Bridge
and the South Halsted Street Bridge are
designated as a safety zone.
(b) Effective and Enforcement Period.
This rule will be effective from 7:00 a.m.
to 2:00 p.m. on September 30, 2017 and
will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. to 2:00
p.m. on September 30, 2017.
(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with
the general regulations in § 165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or
anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a
designated on-scene representative.
(2) This safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan or a designated on-scene
representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
is any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant or petty officer who has been
designated by the Captain of the Port
Lake Michigan to act on his or her
behalf.
(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter
or operate within the safety zone shall
contact the Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan or an on-scene representative
to obtain permission to do so. The
Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or an
on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16. Vessel
operators given permission to enter or
operate in the safety zone must comply
with all directions given to them by the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
[FR Doc. 2017–08482 Filed 4–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0092; FRL–9961–98–
Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona;
Regional Haze State and Federal
Implementation Plans
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
source-specific revision to the Arizona
state implementation plan (SIP) that
provides an alternative to Best Available
Retrofit Technology (BART) for the
Coronado Generating Station
(‘‘Coronado’’), owned and operated by
the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District. The
EPA proposes to find that the BART
alternative for Coronado would provide
greater reasonable progress toward
natural visibility conditions than BART,
in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s
Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with
this proposed approval, we propose to
withdraw those portions of the federal
implementation plan (FIP) that address
BART for Coronado. We also propose to
codify the removal of those portions of
the Arizona SIP that have either been
superseded by previously approved
revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be
superseded by final approval of the SIP
revision for Coronado.
DATES: Written comments must be
submitted on or before June 12, 2017.
Requests for public hearing must be
received on or before May 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–0092 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
Krishna Viswanathan at
viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be removed or edited
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19334
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
of submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520)
999–7880 or viswanathan.krishna@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. The Coronado SIP Revision
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
B. Docket
For the purpose of this document, we
are giving meaning to certain words or
initials as follows:
• The initials AAC mean or refer to
the Arizona Administrative Code.
• The initials ADEQ mean or refer to
the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.
• The words Arizona and State mean
the State of Arizona.
• The word Coronado refers to the
Coronado Generating Station.
• The initials BART mean or refer to
Best Available Retrofit Technology.
• The initials BOD mean or refer to
boiler operating day.
• The term Class I area refers to a
mandatory Class I Federal area.1
The proposed action relies on
documents, information, and data that
are listed in the index on https://
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0092.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available
(e.g., CBI). Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Office of the Air
Division, AIR–2, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. The EPA requests that you
contact the individual listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
view the hard copy of the docket. You
1 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. When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this
action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal
area.’’
A. Definitions
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
• The initials CAA mean or refer to
the Clean Air Act.
• The initials CBI mean or refer to
Confidential Business Information.
• The words EPA, we, us, or our mean
or refer to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency.
• The initials FIP mean or refer to
federal implementation plan.
• The initials LNB mean or refer to
low-NOX burners.
• The initials MACT mean or refer to
Maximum Available Control
Technology.
• The initials lb/MMBtu mean or refer
to pounds per million British thermal
units.
• The initials NAAQS mean or refer
to National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
• The initials NSPS mean or refer to
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources.
• The initials NOX mean or refer to
nitrogen oxides.
• The initials OFA mean or refer to
over fire air.
• The initials PM mean or refer to
particulate patter, which is inclusive of
PM10 (particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5
(particulate matter less than or equal to
2.5 micrometers).
• The initials SCR mean or refer to
selective catalytic reduction.
• The initials SIP mean or refer to
state implementation plan.
• The initials SO2 mean or refer to
sulfur dioxide.
• The initials SRP mean or refer to
the Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
may view the hard copy of the docket
Monday through Friday, 9–5:00 PDT,
excluding federal holidays.
C. Public Hearings
If anyone contacts the EPA by May 12,
2017 requesting to speak at a public
hearing, the EPA will schedule a public
hearing and announce the hearing in the
Federal Register. Contact Krishna
Viswanathan at (520) 999–7880 or
Viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov to
request a hearing or to find out if a
hearing will be held.
II. Background
A. Summary of Statutory and
Regulatory Requirements
Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in the nation’s
national parks and wilderness areas in
1977 by adding section 169A to the
CAA. 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 which impairment results from
man-made air pollution.’’ 2 It also
directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain larger, often
uncontrolled, older stationary sources in
order to address visibility impacts from
these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states
to revise their SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal, including a
requirement that certain categories of
existing major stationary sources built
between 1962 and 1977 procure, install,
and operate BART controls. These
sources are referred to as ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources.3 In the 1990 CAA
Amendments, Congress amended the
visibility provisions in the CAA to focus
attention on the problem of regional
haze, which is visibility impairment
produced by a multitude of sources and
activities located across a broad
geographic area.4 We promulgated the
initial Regional Haze Rule in 1999 5 and
updated it in 2017.6 The CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule require states to
develop and implement SIPs to ensure
reasonable progress toward improving
visibility in mandatory class I Federal
areas 7 by reducing emissions that cause
2 See
CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
CFR 51.301.
4 See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
5 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
6 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
7 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
3 40
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
or contribute to regional haze.8 Under
the Regional Haze Rule, states are
directed to conduct BART
determinations and establish emissions
limitations for BART-eligible sources
that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area.9 In lieu of requiring
source-specific BART controls, states
also have the flexibility to adopt
alternative measures, as long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable
progress towards natural visibility
conditions than BART (i.e., the
alternative must be ‘‘better than
BART’’).10
In addition to the visibility protection
requirements of the CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule, SIP revisions
concerning regional haze are also
subject to the general requirements of
CAA section 110. In particular, they are
subject to the requirement in CAA
section 110(1) that SIP revisions must
not ‘‘interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress (as defined
in [CAA § 171]), or any other applicable
requirement of [the CAA],’’ as well as
the requirement in CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) that SIPs must include
enforceable emission limits.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
B. History of FIP BART Determination
1. 2011 Arizona Regional Haze SIP and
2012 Arizona Regional Haze FIP
The Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ)
submitted a Regional Haze SIP
(‘‘Arizona Regional Haze SIP’’) to the
EPA on February 28, 2011. The Arizona
Regional Haze SIP included BART
determinations for nitrogen oxides
(NOX), particulate matter less than or
equal to 10 micrometers (PM10), and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Units 1 and 2
at Coronado. In a final rule published on
December 5, 2012, the EPA approved
ADEQ’s BART determinations for PM10
and SO2, but disapproved ADEQ’s
determination for NOX at Coronado.11
We also found that the SIP lacked the
requisite compliance schedules and
requirements for equipment
maintenance and operation, including
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements for BART for all
pollutants. At the same time, we
promulgated a FIP that included a plantwide NOX BART emission limit for
Coronado of 0.065 pounds per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) based
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42
U.S.C. 7472(a).
8 See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
9 40 CFR 51.308(e).
10 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
11 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
on a 30-boiler-operating-day (BOD)
rolling average, which Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power
District (SRP) could meet by adding a
low-load temperature control to its
existing selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) system on Unit 2 and installing an
SCR system including a low-load
temperature control system on Unit 1.
The FIP also included compliance
deadlines and requirements for
equipment maintenance and operation,
including monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting, to ensure the
enforceability of the BART limits for
SO2, PM10, and NOX.
In addition, the FIP included two
requirements that applied to all affected
sources, including Coronado. First, we
promulgated a work practice standard
that requires that pollution control
equipment be designed and capable of
operating properly to minimize
emissions during all expected operating
conditions. Second, we incorporated by
reference into the FIP certain provisions
of the Arizona Adminsitrative Code
(AAC) that establish an affirmative
defense for excess emissions due to
malfunctions. Please refer to the final
rule published on December 5, 2012, for
further information on the BART
determinations and related FIP
requirements.12
2. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay
of Regional Haze FIP
The EPA received a petition from SRP
on February 4, 2013, requesting partial
reconsideration and an administrative
stay of the final rule under section
307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA and section 705
of the Administrative Procedure Act.13
EPA Region 9 sent a letter on April 9,
2013, to representatives of SRP granting
partial reconsideration of the final rule
for the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.14 In
particular, the EPA stated that we were
granting reconsideration of the
compliance methodology for NOX
emissions from Units 1 and 2 at
Coronado and that we would issue a
notice of proposed rulemaking seeking
comment on an alternative compliance
methodology. We also noted that,
because we initially proposed different
NOX emission limits for the two units,
we would seek comment on the
12 Id.
13 Petition of Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District for Partial
Reconsideration and Stay of EPA’s Final Rule:
‘‘Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional
Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans’’
(February 4, 2013).
14 Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Norman
W. Fichthorn and Aaron Flynn, Hunton and
Williams (April 9, 2013).
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19335
appropriate emission limit for each of
the units.
3. FIP Revision for Coronado
In response to the petition from SRP,
we issued a final FIP revision on April
13, 2016, replacing the plant-wide
compliance method with a unit-specific
compliance method for determining
compliance with the BART emission
limits for NOX from Units 1 and 2 at
Coronado (‘‘2016 BART
Reconsideration’’).15 While the plantwide limit for NOX emissions from
Units 1 and 2 was previously
established as 0.065 lb/MMBtu, through
this FIP revision we set a unit-specific
limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and
0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, to be met by
December 5, 2017. We also revised the
work practice standard that applied to
Coronado and removed the affirmative
defense for malfunctions that was
included in the FIP for Coronado.
4. Arizona Regional Haze SIP Revision
for Coronado Generating Station
On December 15, 2016, ADEQ
submitted a revision to the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP (‘‘Coronado SIP
Revision’’) that provides an alternative
to BART for Coronado (‘‘Coronado
BART Alternative’’).16 The Coronado
SIP Revision is the subject of this
proposal.
III. The Coronado SIP Revision
A. Summary of the Coronado SIP
Revision
The Coronado SIP Revision and BART
Alternative consists of an interim
operating strategy (‘‘Interim Strategy’’),
which would be in effect from
December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025,
and a final operating strategy (‘‘Final
Strategy’’), which would take effect on
January 1, 2026. The requirements
associated with the Interim and Final
Strategies are shown in Table 1 and
summarized briefly below.
1. Final Strategy
The Final Strategy in the Coronado
SIP Revision requires installation of
SCR on Unit 1 (‘‘SCR Option’’) or the
15 81
FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).
from Timothy S. Franquist, Director Air
Quality Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Action
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9 (December
15, 2016). The Coronado SIP Revision includes both
the original version of the revision (dated July 19,
2016) that was proposed by ADEQ for public
comment, and an addendum (‘‘Addendum’’ dated
November 10, 2016), in addition to various
supporting materials. The Addendum documents
changes to the Coronado BART Alternative since
ADEQ’s July 19, 2016 proposal. Unless otherwise
specified, references in this document to the
Coronado SIP Revision include both of these
documents, as well as the other materials included
in ADEQ’s submittal.
16 Letter
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19336
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
permanent cessation of operation of
Unit 1 (‘‘Shutdown Option’’) no later
than December 31, 2025. SRP is
required to notify ADEQ and the EPA of
its selection by December 31, 2022. The
Final Strategy includes two additional
features: A SO2 emission limit of 0.060
lb/MMBtu, calculated on a 30–BOD
rolling average, which applies to Unit 2
(as well as Unit 1 if it continues
operating), and an annual plant-wide
SO2 emissions cap of either 1,970 tons
per year (tpy) if both units continue
operating or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts
down.
2. Interim Strategy
The Interim Strategy includes three
different operating options (designated
IS2, IS3, and IS4), each of which
requires a period of seasonal
curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for
Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and
implement one of the three options,
based on the NOX emissions
performance of Unit 1 and the SO2
emissions performance of Units 1 and 2
in that year. In particular, by October 21
of each year, SRP must notify ADEQ and
the EPA of its chosen option for that
calendar year (and for January of the
following year) and demonstrate that its
NOX and SO2 emissions for that year (up
to the date of the notification) have not
already exceeded the limits associated
with that option.17 SRP then must
comply with those limits for the
remainder of the year (and for January
of the following year) and curtail
operation of Unit 1 for the time period
required under that option.18 In
addition, under each option, the facility
must comply with an annual plant-wide
SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tpy effective
in each year beginning in 2018.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF CORONADO BART ALTERNATIVE COMPARED WITH 2014 BASELINE AND BART CONTROL
STRATEGY
Control strategy
Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu)
(30–BOD average)
NOX
Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu)
(30–BOD average)
SO2
NOX
Annual plantwide SO2 cap
(tpy)
SO2
2014 Baseline a .......................
BART Control Strategy b .........
Interim Strategy: c
IS2 ...................................
IS3 ...................................
0.320
0.065
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
N/A
N/A
0.320
0.320
0.060
0.050
0.080
0.080
0.060
0.050
1,970
1,970
IS4 ...................................
0.310
0.060
0.080
0.060
1,970
Interim Strategy Timeline .......
Unit 1 curtailment period
N/A
N/A
October 21–January 31
November 21–January
20
November 21–January
20
Notification date: October 21 of each year
Operates December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025
Final Strategy:
SCR Installation ...............
Shutdown .........................
0.065
N/A
0.060
N/A
Final Strategy Timeline ...........
0.080
0.080
0.060
0.060
1,970
1,080
N/A
N/A
Notification date: December 31, 2022
Shutdown or install & operate SCR: December 31, 2025
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
a This scenario reflects the requirements of a 2008 consent decree (CD) between the United States and SRP, which include new wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) and Low NOX burners (LNB) with over fire air (OFA) on both units, and SCR on Unit 2. See United States v. Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Civil Action No. 2:08–cv–1479–JAT (D. Ariz.) (August 12, 2008).
b 2016 EPA BART Reconsideration for NO and 2010 ADEQ BART for SO .
X
2
c See Addendum, Page 3, Table 1.
ADEQ incorporated the revised
emission limits, as well as associated
compliance deadlines and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements, as a permit revision to
Coronado’s existing Operating Permit,
which was submitted as part of the
Coronado SIP Revision (‘‘Coronado
Permit Revision’’).19
The Coronado SIP Revision also
includes ADEQ’s determination that the
Coronado BART Alternative is ‘‘better
than BART,’’ based on a demonstration
that it fulfills the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2) for a BART alternative.
More information regarding ADEQ’s
analysis is set forth below, along with
the EPA’s evaluation of the analysis.
The Regional Haze Rule requires that
a SIP revision establishing a BART
alternative include three elements,
which are listed below. We have
evaluated the Coronado BART
Alternative with respect to each of the
following elements:
• A demonstration that the emissions
trading program or other alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable
progress than would have resulted from
the installation and operation of BART
at all sources subject to BART in the
State and covered by the alternative
program.20
• A requirement that all necessary
emissions reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze.21
• A demonstration that the emissions
reductions resulting from the alternative
measure will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures
17 See Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B,
Permit No. 64169 as amended by Significant
Revision to operating permit No. 63088 (December
14, 2016), Attachment E, condition D.1.
18 As indicated in Table 1, the first curtailment
and last curtailment periods would be shorter than
the periods in between. Under all three interim
strategies, the first curtailment period would begin
December 5, 2017. Under all three interim
strategies, the last curtailment period would end
December 31, 2025.
19 Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit
No. 64169 as amended by Significant Revision to
operating permit No. 63088 (December 14, 2016).
The provisions implementing the BART Alternative
are incorporated in Attachment E to the permit.
Attachment E will become effective under State law
on the date of the EPA’s final action to approve
Attachment E into the Arizona SIP and rescind the
provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that
apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E, section I.A.
20 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
21 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:08 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
B. The EPA’s Evaluation of the
Coronado BART Alternative.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19337
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.22
1. Demonstration that the alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable
progress.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i),
ADEQ must demonstrate that the
alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would have
resulted from the installation and
operation of BART at all sources subject
to BART in the State and covered by the
alternative program. For a sourcespecific BART alternative, the critical
elements of this demonstration are:
• An analysis of BART and associated
emission reductions 23
• an analysis of projected emissions
reductions achievable through the
BART alternative 24
• a determination that the alternative
achieves greater reasonable progress
than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART 25
We summarize ADEQ’s submittal
with respect to each of these elements
and provide our evaluation of the
submittal below.
a. Analysis of BART and Associated
Emission Reductions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C),
the SIP must include an analysis of
BART and associated emission
reductions at Units 1 and 2. As noted
above, ADEQ’s BART analyses and
determinations for Units 1 and 2 were
included in the Arizona Regional Haze
SIP. We approved ADEQ’s BART
determinations for PM10 and SO2, but
disapproved ADEQ’s BART
determination for NOX and conducted
our own BART analysis and
determination for NOX BART in the
Arizona Regional Haze FIP. We later
revised the NOX emission limits for
Units 1 and 2 in the 2016 BART
Reconsideration.26
In the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ
compared the BART Alternative both to
ADEQ’s original BART determinations
and to the EPA’s BART determinations
in the 2016 BART Reconsideration. For
purposes of our evaluation, we consider
BART for Coronado to consist of a
combination of (1) ADEQ’s BART
determinations for PM10 and SO2, which
were approved into the applicable SIP,
and (2) the EPA’s BART determination
for NOX in the 2016 BART
Reconsideration (collectively the
‘‘Coronado BART Control Strategy’’).
The emission limits comprising the
Coronado BART Control Strategy are
summarized in Table 2.
TABLE 2—CORONADO BART CONTROL STRATEGY EMISSION LIMITS
Emission limits
(lb/MMBtu, averaged over a 30 boiler-operatingdays)
Unit
PM10
NOX
Unit 1 ...........................................................................................................................................
Unit 2 ...........................................................................................................................................
In the Technical Support Document
(TSD) included with the Coronado SIP
Revision,27 ADEQ calculated estimated
annual emission reductions achievable
with BART by comparing expected
annual emissions under the Coronado
BART Control Strategy with 2014
emissions (‘‘2014 Baseline’’).28 The
results of these calculations are
summarized in Table 3. As BART for
PM10 and SO2 reflected existing
controls, no emissions reductions of
0.065
0.080
SO2
0.030
0.030
0.080
0.080
PM10 and SO2 are expected to result
from BART, but significant reductions
of NOX are expected to result from
implementation of BART.
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH CORONADO BART CONTROL STRATEGY
[tpy]
Operating strategies
NOX
2014 Baseline Emissions ................................................................................
Coronado BART Control Strategy Emissions ..................................................
Emission Reductions .......................................................................................
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
We propose to find that ADEQ has
met the requirement for an analysis of
BART and associated emission
reductions achievable at Coronado
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). We
note that the Regional Haze Rule does
not specify what baseline year should be
used for calculating emission reductions
22 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
24 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
25 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
26 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).
27 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016),
Appendix A, ‘‘Technical Support Document for
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan Revision
for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating
Station.’’
23 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
SO2
6,506
2,410
4,096
PM10
2,651
2,651
0
Total
994
994
0
10,151
6,055
4,096
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).29
However, because the purpose of
calculating emission reductions
achievable with BART is to compare
these reductions to those achievable
through the BART alternative,30 it is
important that a consistent baseline be
used for both sets of calculations. In this
instance, Arizona used the 2014
Baseline for both purposes, so we find
that its approach was reasonable.
28 Id. section 4. As noted above, the 2014 Baseline
emissions reflects the requirements of the 2008 CD
between the United States and SRP, including new
FGD and LNB with OFA on both units, and SCR
on Unit 2.
29 As explained below, the baseline date for
regional haze SIPs is 2002 and, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv), the emissions reductions resulting
from the alternative measure must be surplus to
those reductions required as of 2002. However, this
provision does not determine what baseline should
be used for purposes of calculating emission
reductions achievable under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
30 See, e.g., 71 FR 60612, 60615 (October 13,
2006)(‘‘Today’s final rule revises section
51.308(e)(2) to make clear that the emissions
reductions that could be achieved through
implementation of the BART provisions at section
51.308(e)(1) serve as the benchmark against which
States can compare an alternative program.’’)
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19338
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
b. Analysis of Projected Emissions
Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
In the Coronado SIP Revision TSD,
ADEQ calculated emissions reductions
achievable under the Interim Strategy by
comparing estimated annual emissions
under the Interim Strategy with 2014
Baseline emissions. In the Addendum to
the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ also
provided a summary of estimated
annual emissions under the Final
Strategy compared to 2014 Baseline
emissions. The resulting emission
reductions are shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH CORONADO BART ALTERNATIVE a
Operating strategies
NOX
Interim Strategy 2 (IS2) b
2014 Baseline Emissions .........................................................................
Interim Strategy IS2 Emissions ................................................................
Emission Reductions ................................................................................
Interim Strategy 3 (IS3)
2014 Baseline Emissions .........................................................................
Interim Strategy IS3 Emissions ................................................................
Emission Reductions ................................................................................
Interim Strategy 4 (IS4)
2014 Baseline Emissions .........................................................................
Interim Strategy IS4 Emissions ................................................................
Emission Reductions ................................................................................
Final Strategy (SCR Option) c
2014 Baseline Emissions .........................................................................
Final Strategy—SCR Option .....................................................................
Emission Reductions ................................................................................
Final Strategy (Shutdown Option) d
2014 Baseline Emissions .........................................................................
Final Strategy—Shutdown Option ............................................................
Emission Reductions ................................................................................
SO2
PM
Total
6,506
5,053
1,453
2,651
2002
649
994
858
136
10,151
7913
2,238
6,506
5,667
839
2,651
1,526
1,125
994
915
79
10,151
8,108
2,043
6,506
5,533
973
2,651
1,831
820
994
915
79
10,151
8,279
1,872
6,506
2,410
4,096
2,651
1,970
681
994
994
0
10,151
5,374
4,777
6,506
1,366
5,140
2,651
1,080
1,571
994
512
482
10,151
2,958
7,193
a ADEQ assumed all scenarios would have the same average heat input rate and same percentage of the annualized utilization factor without
curtailment. For the interim strategies, ADEQ adjusted the utilization factors to reflect the corresponding amount of Unit 1 curtailment required for
each option. Since these are adjustments to the annual utilization rate for each year, they account for interim strategies that cross calendar
years.
b Detailed emission calculations for the 2014 Baseline and Interim Strategy can be found in Tables 2, 3, and 4 of the Coronado Regional Haze
SIP TSD (July 19, 2016).
c See, Coronado SIP Revision Addendum, Table 2 (November 19, 2016).
d Id.
We propose to find that ADEQ has
met the requirement for an analysis of
the projected emissions reductions
achievable through the alternative
measure under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(D). As explained in the
previous section, Arizona appropriately
used the 2014 Baseline for calculating
emissions reductions achievable with
the Coronado BART Strategy and
emissions reductions achievable with
the Coronado BART Alternative.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
c. Determination That the Alternative
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than Would Be Achieved Through the
Installation and Operation of BART
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
the State must provide a determination
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise
based on the clear weight of evidence
that the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. Two
different tests for determining whether
the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART are
outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). If the
distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under
BART, and the alternative measure
results in greater emission reductions,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
then the alternative measure may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress. If the distribution of emissions
is significantly different, then the State
must conduct dispersion modeling to
determine differences in visibility
between BART and the trading program
for each impacted Class I area for the
worst and best 20 percent days. The
modeling would demonstrate ‘‘greater
reasonable progress’’ if both of the
following two criteria are met: (1)
Visibility does not decline in any Class
I area; and (2) there is an overall
improvement in visibility, determined
by comparing the average differences
between BART and the alternative over
all affected Class I areas. This modeling
test is sometimes referred to as the
‘‘two-prong test.’’
In the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ
separately analyzed the three options
under the Interim Strategy and the Final
Strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).31
31 ADEQ also included a ‘‘Supplemental Analysis
of IMPROVE Monitoring Data’’ that it considered
relevant to the determination of whether the
Coronado BART Alternative is better than BART.
See Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016) pages 9–
10. However, because the State made a
demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), rather
than a ‘‘clear weight of evidence’’ demonstration
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
i. BART Alternative Interim Strategy
ADEQ determined that the Interim
Strategy will not necessarily achieve
greater emissions reductions than the
BART Control Strategy because, while
each option under the Interim Strategy
will result in greater reductions in SO2
and PM10 than the BART Control
Strategy, each option will also result in
higher NOX emissions. Therefore, ADEQ
relied on the results of air quality
modeling (using the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions
(‘‘CAMx’’) model) performed by SRP’s
contractor, Ramboll Environ, to
demonstrate that the Interim Strategy
would result in ‘‘greater reasonable
progress’’ under the two-prong test in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3).32 CAMx has a
scientifically current treatment of
chemistry to simulate the
transformation of emissions into
visibility-impairing particles of species
such as ammonium nitrate and
ammonium sulfate, and is often
employed in large-scale modeling when
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), these monitoring
data are not directly relevant and we have not
considered them in our evaluation of the SIP.
32 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), pages
6–8.
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
many sources of pollution and/or long
transport distances are involved.
Photochemical grid models like CAMx
include all emissions sources and have
realistic representations of formation,
transport, and removal processes of the
particulate matter that causes visibility
degradation.
The Coronado modeling followed a
modeling protocol 33 that was reviewed
by the EPA. The starting point for the
modeling was modeling done as part of
the Western Regional Air Partnership’s
West-side Jumpstart Air Quality
Modeling Study (‘‘WestJump’’), which
used a 2008 meteorology and emissions
base case, and covered the entire
western United States.34 For the
Coronado modeling work, Ramboll
Environ reduced the modeling domain
to an area within 300 kilometers of the
facility and carried out a new model
performance evaluation. The initial and
boundary conditions for this domain
were taken from WestJump modeling of
sources for the entire western United
States. For the two-prong test, an
existing projected 2020 emissions
database was used to estimate emissions
of sources in Arizona (other than
Coronado) and New Mexico. The 2020
emissions case is likely to be more
representative of air quality conditions
when the Coronado BART Control
Strategy is implemented than the 2008
database. In the 2020 modeling, the
19339
Coronado emissions were set to
appropriate levels for the 2014 Baseline,
the Coronado BART Control Strategy,
and the various Interim Strategy
options, as shown in Table 5. Emission
factors for Coronado for the modeling
are identical to the emissions limits for
the Coronado BART Alternative
described in Table 1, except that the
Interim Strategy in the Coronado SIP
revision includes a more stringent SO2
emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu for
IS2 compared to the modeled value of
0.070 lb/MMBtu. In addition, the
modeling does not reflect the plant-wide
SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tpy included
in the Coronado SIP revision.
TABLE 5—EMISSION FACTORS FOR SO2 AND NOX AND CURTAILMENT PERIODS USED TO MODEL THE 2014 BASELINE,
CORONADO BART CONTROL STRATEGY, AND INTERIM STRATEGY AT CORONADO
Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu)
Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu)
Unit 1
curtailment period
Control strategy
SO2
NOX
NOX
SO2
2014 Baseline .....................................................
Coronado BART Control Strategy ......................
Interim Strategy:
IS2 ...............................................................
IS3 ...............................................................
0.320
0.065
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.080
0.320
0.320
b 0.070
0.080
0.080
b 0.070
0.050
IS4 ...............................................................
0.310
0.060
0.080
0.060
0.050
N/A
N/A
October 21–January 31
November 21–January
20
November 21–January
20
a As
noted above, this scenario reflects 2008 CD controls, which include new wet FGD and LNB with OFA on both units, and SCR on Unit 2.
these emission factors were used for modeling, the final SIP submission adopted a lower SO2 emission limit for IS2 for both Units 1
and 2 of 0.060 lb/MMBtu.
b Although
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
The CAMx-modeled concentrations
for sulfate, nitrate, and other chemical
species were tracked for Coronado using
the CAMx Particulate Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT)
Probing Tool, so that the concentrations
and visibility impacts due to Coronado
could be separated out from those due
to the total of all modeled sources.
PSAT provides air quality contributions
from the emissions of Coronado in a
single step and avoids the extra work
needed in the simple subtraction
approach, which would require
additional modeling runs (with and
without Coronado emissions) and a
subtraction step to estimate the air
quality contributions of Coronado
emissions.
Ramboll Environ computed visibility
impairment due to Coronado using the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
equation,35 following a procedure
recommended by the Federal Land
Managers.36 Ramboll Environ then
subtracted the deciview (dv) 37 visibility
impairment due to natural background
concentrations from the deciview
impairment due to the sum of Coronado
and natural background concentrations.
This difference gives the visibility
impact or ‘‘delta deciviews’’ solely due
to Coronado. Thus, although the CAMx
modeled concentrations realistically
reflect the interactions of all sources, the
Coronado visibility impacts were
assessed relative to natural conditions,
similar to the procedure followed in
BART assessments.38
For the first prong of the modeling
test, Ramboll Environ computed the
difference between the delta deciviews
for each Interim Strategy option and the
delta deciviews for the 2014 Baseline for
each Class I area. Ramboll Environ then
averaged these differences over the best
20 percent of days, the worst 20 percent
of days, and for the full year. The results
are shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Based
on these results, ADEQ concluded that
that the Interim Strategy will result in
improved visibility at all affected Class
I areas compared with baseline
conditions on the worst and best 20
percent of days and therefore meets the
first prong of the modeling test in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3).
33 ‘‘Draft Modeling Plan for Conducting Betterthan-BART Analysis for the Coronado Generating
Station using a Photochemical Grid Model—
Revision#1’’, 06–35855A, Prepared for Salt River
Project, Ramboll Environ US Corporation (August
2015).
34 https://www.wrapair2.org/
WestJumpAQMS.aspx.
35 IMPROVE refers to a monitoring network and
also to the equation used to convert monitored
concentrations to visbility impacts. ‘‘Revised
IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light
Extinction from Particle Speciation Data’’,
IMPROVE technical subcommittee for algorithm
review, January 2006, https://
vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/gray-literature/.
36 Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related
Values Work Group (FLAG), Phase I Report—
Revised, National Park Service, 2010
37 The Regional Haze Rule establishes the
deciview as the principal metric for measuring
visibility. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility conditions, from
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility
expressed in deciviews is determined by using air
quality measured or modeled concentrations to
estimate light extinction using the IMPROVE, and
then transforming the value of light extinction to
deciviews using the logarithm function.
38 See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.5
(‘‘Calculate the model results for each receptor as
the change in deciviews compared against natural
visibility conditions.’’)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19340
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6—PRONG 1 TEST—DELTA DECIVIEW DIFFERENCES OF VISIBILITY CONDITIONS BETWEEN BASELINE AND INTERIM
STRATEGY
[Baseline—Interim Strategy]
Average best 20% Days
Average worst 20% Days
Annual average
Class I area
IS2
Bandalier NM ...............................
Bosque .........................................
Chiricahua NM .............................
Chiricahua Wild ............................
Galiuro Wild .................................
Gila Wild .......................................
Grand Canyon NP .......................
Mazatzal Wild ...............................
Mesa Verde NP ...........................
Mount Baldy Wild .........................
Petrified Forest NP ......................
Pine Mountain Wild ......................
Saguro NP ...................................
San Pedro Parks Wild .................
Sierra Ancha a Wild ......................
Superstition Wild ..........................
Sycamore Canyon Wild ...............
IS3
IS4
IS2
IS3
IS4
IS2
0.0021
0.0012
0.0010
0.0011
0.0012
0.0040
0.00002
0.0032
0.0003
0.0072
0.0021
0.0023
0.0004
0.0023
................
0.0058
0.0003
0.0021
0.0016
0.0014
0.0016
0.0016
0.0044
0.0001
0.0025
0.0004
0.0069
0.0021
0.0021
0.0010
0.0022
................
0.0067
0.0008
0.0020
0.0015
0.0012
0.0014
0.0013
0.0040
0.00004
0.0028
0.0004
0.0070
0.0020
0.0023
0.0007
0.0021
................
0.0060
0.0004
0.0043
0.0011
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0003
0.0015
0.0033
0.0027
0.0002
0.0002
0.0040
................
0.0005
0.0006
0.0050
0.0015
0.0004
0.0004
0.0004
0.0007
0.0006
0.0008
0.0015
0.0024
0.0034
0.0007
0.0003
0.0031
................
0.0004
0.0008
0.0043
0.0013
0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0005
0.0004
0.0006
0.0011
0.0017
0.0031
0.0004
0.0002
0.0025
................
0.0003
0.0006
IS3
IS4
0.0017
0.0015
0.0005
0.0006
0.0004
0.0023
0.0009
0.0008
0.0018
0.0039
0.0078
0.0008
0.0004
0.0024
0.0015
0.0012
0.0007
0.0024
0.0023
0.0009
0.0009
0.0007
0.0030
0.0012
0.0010
0.0022
0.0042
0.0080
0.0011
0.0006
0.0032
0.0017
0.0015
0.0013
0.0019
0.0018
0.0007
0.0007
0.0006
0.0025
0.0009
0.0008
0.0017
0.0035
0.0068
0.0009
0.0004
0.0026
0.0014
0.0013
0.0009
a The IMPROVE visibility database has missing data for some key dates, so best and worst 20 percent of days could not be estimated for the
Sierra Ancha area.
TABLE 7—MINIMUM DELTA DECIVIEW DIFFERENCES AMONG AFFECTED CLASS I AREAS BETWEEN INTERIM STRATEGY AND
BASELINE AT CLASS I AREAS (BASELINE—INTERIM STRATEGY) a
Average best 20% days
Average worst 20% days
Annual average
Interim operating strategy
Absolute (dv)
IS2 ............................................................
IS3 ............................................................
IS4 ............................................................
Relative (%)
0.00002
0.00010
0.00004
Absolute (dv)
3.65
11.55
6.06
Relative (%)
0.0001
0.0003
0.0002
Absolute (dv)
7.30
13.67
9.86
Relative (%)
0.0004
0.0006
0.0004
13.75
18.73
15.36
a Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Table 2. The selection of the Class I area with the minimum value (least incremental benefit from the
Alternative Strategy compared to BART) was based on the absolute deciview levels. The relative difference for that Class I area is shown for informational purposes also.
For the second prong of the modeling
test, Ramboll Environ computed the
difference between the delta deciviews
for each Interim Strategy option and the
delta deciviews for the Coronado BART
Control Strategy. Ramboll Environ then
compared the average differences
between the Coronado BART Control
Strategy and the Interim Strategy over
all affected Class I areas to ensure that
there is an overall improvement in
visibility. Based on these modeling
results, as shown in Table 8, ADEQ
concluded that the Interim Strategy also
meets this prong, as these results
indicate that the Interim Strategy would
result in improved visibility, on average,
across all Class I Areas, compared with
the Coronado BART Control Strategy on
the worst and best 20 percent of days.39
TABLE 8—PRONG 2 TEST—DELTA DECIVIEW DIFFERENCES OF VISIBILITY CONDITIONS BETWEEN CORONADO BART
CONTROL STRATEGY AND INTERIM STRATEGY
[BART-Interim Strategy] a
Average best 20% days
Average worst 20% days
Annual average
Class I area
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
IS2
Bandalier NM ................................................................
Bosque ..........................................................................
Chiricahua NM ..............................................................
Chiricahua Wild .............................................................
Galiuro Wild ...................................................................
Gila Wild ........................................................................
Grand Canyon NP .........................................................
Mazatzal Wild ................................................................
Mesa Verde NP .............................................................
Mount Baldy Wild ..........................................................
Petrified Forest NP ........................................................
Pine Mountain Wild .......................................................
Saguro NP .....................................................................
39 Although not required under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), SRP and ADEQ included annual
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
IS3
IS4
IS2
IS3
IS4
IS2
IS3
IS4
0.0009
0.0001
¥0.0011
¥0.0011
0.0003
0.0009
¥0.0001
¥0.0009
0.0001
0.0034
0.0015
¥0.0007
¥0.0003
0.0009
0.0005
¥0.0007
¥0.0006
0.0006
0.0013
¥0.0001
¥0.0015
0.0002
0.0030
0.0015
¥0.0009
0.0003
0.0008
0.0003
¥0.0009
¥0.0009
0.0004
0.0009
¥0.0001
¥0.0012
0.0002
0.0032
0.0013
¥0.0007
0.0000
0.0011
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
¥0.0001
¥0.0001
¥0.0003
¥0.0004
0.0008
¥0.0003
¥0.0004
0.0000
0.0000
0.0018
0.0006
0.0002
0.0003
0.0002
0.0003
0.0000
0.0002
0.0008
¥0.0012
0.0004
0.0004
0.0002
0.0011
0.0004
0.0001
0.0001
0.0000
0.0001
¥0.0001
¥0.0001
0.0003
¥0.0018
0.0000
0.0002
0.0001
¥0.0001
¥0.0003
¥0.0002
¥0.0002
¥0.0001
¥0.0004
0.0003
¥0.0001
0.0011
¥0.0012
0.0018
0.0001
0.0000
0.0005
0.0004
0.0001
0.0002
0.0002
0.0003
0.0007
0.0001
0.0016
¥0.0008
0.0020
0.0003
0.0003
0.0001
¥0.0001
¥0.0001
¥0.0001
0.0000
¥0.0002
0.0004
¥0.0001
0.0010
¥0.0016
0.0008
0.0001
0.0001
average modeling results, which also show a greater
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
improvement in visibility on average across all
affected Class I areas under the Interim Strategy.
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19341
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 8—PRONG 2 TEST—DELTA DECIVIEW DIFFERENCES OF VISIBILITY CONDITIONS BETWEEN CORONADO BART
CONTROL STRATEGY AND INTERIM STRATEGY—Continued
[BART-Interim Strategy] a
Average best 20% days
Average worst 20% days
Annual average
Class I area
IS2
San Pedro Parks Wild ...................................................
Sierra Ancha Wild b .......................................................
Superstition Wild ...........................................................
Sycamore Canyon Wild ................................................
Average ..................................................................
IS3
IS4
IS2
IS3
IS4
IS2
0.0003
................
0.0018
¥0.0013
0.0002
0.0002
................
0.0027
¥0.0008
0.0004
0.0002
................
0.0020
¥0.0012
0.0003
0.0013
................
¥0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0004
................
¥0.0001
0.0003
0.0003
¥0.0002
................
¥0.0003
0.0001
0.00001
¥0.0003
0.0003
0.0003
0.0002
0.0001
IS3
0.0005
0.0005
0.0006
0.0007
0.0005
IS4
¥0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0001
a Coronado
b The
SIP Revision TSD Table 18.
IMPROVE visibility database has missing data for some key dates, so best and worst 20% of days could not be estimated for the Sierra Ancha area.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
We have reviewed the modeling
analysis performed by Ramboll Environ
and submitted by ADEQ and find that
it supports ADEQ’s determination that
the Interim Strategy would achieve
greater reasonable progress than BART
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). In particular,
we have evaluated the Coronado
modeling to confirm that, even though
the numerical differences between the
scenarios under the two-prong test are
small, the results represent real
visibility differences and not just the
result of numerical artifacts or ‘‘noise’’
in the model results. As noted above,
the modeling used the CAMx PSAT
Probing Tool to track concentrations for
sulfate, nitrate, and other chemical
species in order to separate out visibility
impacts due to Coronado from those of
other modeled sources. This PSATbased approach helps to avoids
numerical artifacts in the model results,
as compared to the simple subtraction
approach, and thus provides assurance
that the relatively small numerical
values in the modeled differences
represent real visibility differences.
In response to a request from the EPA,
ADEQ submitted an additional analysis
performed by Ramboll Environ to
demonstrate that the modeled numerical
differences represent real visibility
improvements and are not just
numerical artifacts.40 This analysis
presented spatial plots of the modeled
numerical differences in delta
deciviews, for days on which Coronado
had the highest delta-deciview impacts
at Superstition Wilderness and Mount
Baldy Wilderness, the Class I areas for
which Coronado had the highest delta
deciview impacts on the best and worst
20 percent of days, respectively. There
were plots for deciviews computed
40 Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix D.5
Responsiveness Summary, Appendix A:
Memorandum SRP Submitted to ADEQ Regarding
Numerical Noise Issues Associated with CAMx
Modeling: ‘‘To address the EPA comment regarding
whether the CGS Better-than-BART CAMx analysis
is influenced by numerical ‘noise’, Memorandum
from Lynsey Parker and Ralph Morris, Ramboll
Environ, September 22, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
emission rate for SO2 for both Units 1
and 2 for scenario IS2 and without the
facility-wide SO2 emissions cap that
was included in the final SIP revision.
When these restrictions on SO2
emissions are considered, they will
result in additional improvements in
visibility under the Interim Strategy, as
compared with the modeling results.
Finally, we note that 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) does not specify a
minimum delta deciview difference
between the modeled scenarios that
must be achieved in order for a BART
alternative to be deemed to achieve
greater reasonable progress than BART.
Rather, it allows for a straight numerical
test, regardless of the magnitude of the
computed differences. Accordingly,
given that the modeling results
submitted by ADEQ show that the
Interim Strategy will result in improved
visibility at all affected Class I areas
compared with 2014 Baseline Emissions
(prong 1) and will result in improved
visibility, on average, across all Class I
areas, compared with the Coronado
BART Control Strategy (prong 2), we
propose to find that ADEQ has
demonstrated that the Interim Strategy
will achieve greater reasonable progress
than BART under the two-prong
modeling test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
using all pollutant species, with
separate plots for sulfate and nitrate
individually, the chemical products of
SO2 and NOX precursor emissions,
respectively. The plots display
differences for each grid square of the
modeling domain, color-coded by the
magnitude of the delta deciview
difference. If the differences between
the modeled control scenarios were
merely numerical artifacts or ‘‘noise,’’
they would manifest as random dots of
different colors on these plots. Instead,
the plots show smoothly changing areas
of color, as would be expected in the
real atmosphere as conditions vary
continuously over the area. In most
cases there is a clearly distuiguishable
‘‘plume’’ from Coronado, representing
the improvement from the Interim
Strategy relative to the Coronado BART
Control Strategy at locations where
Coronado has an impact.
The only plot that shows numerical
noise is for a day when an Interim
Strategy option and the Coronado BART
Control Strategy had the same
emissions. For such days, modeled
differences would be expected to be
zero, except for the effect of numerical
noise. This one plot shows some
random variation in color in some
locations, and also shows that the range
of variation is very small, one millionth
(10¥6) of a deciview or less, which
suggests that the maximum numerical
artifact is approximately 10¥6 dv. The
smallest deciview difference seen in the
prong 2 test was 0.00001 (10¥5) dv,41
which is ten times as large as the
estimated 10¥6 dv maximum numerical
artifact. This analysis provides
additional evidence that the two test
prong results are not just the result of
model ‘‘noise,’’ but rather indicate
actual visibility improvement under the
Interim Strategy compared to the
Coronado BART Control Strategy and no
degradation relative to Baseline.
We also note that the modeling
demonstration was done with a higher
ii. BART Alternative Final Strategy
With respect to the Final Strategy,
ADEQ did not conduct modeling but
did provide a summary of expected
emissions under the Final Strategy, as
compared with the Coronado BART
Control Strategy, as shown in Table 9.
ADEQ explained that emissions of NOX
and PM10 would be equivalent under
the SCR Option and the Coronado BART
Control Strategy, but emissions of SO2
would be lower under the Final Strategy
than under the Coronado BART Control
Strategy. 42 The Shutdown Option
would result in greater emission
reductions for all three visibilityimpairing pollutants (i.e., SO2, NOX,
41 See Table 8, average across all Class I areas for
average worst 20% days under IS4.
42 Addendum to the Coronado SIP Revision, page
5, section 3.1.2.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19342
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
and PM) compared with the Coronado
BART Control Strategy.
TABLE 9—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FOR NOX, PM, AND SO2 UNDER THE CORONADO BART CONTROL STRATEGY AND THE
FINAL STRATEGY
SO2
Scenario
Coronado BART Control
Strategy.
Final Strategy—SCR .......
Final Strategy—Shutdown
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
a annual
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
2
1
2
1
2
Annual
emissions
(tpy)
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
NOX
Combined
emissions of
unit 1 and
unit 2
(tpy)
1,285
1,366
964
1,025
0
1,025
Annual
emissions
(tpy)
2,651
a 1,970
a 1,080
PM
Combined
emissions of
unit 1 and
unit 2
(tpy)
1,044
1,366
1,044
1,366
0
1,366
2,410
2,410
1,366
Annual
emissions
(tpy)
482
512
482
512
0
512
Combined
emissions of
unit 1 and
unit 2
(tpy)
994
994
512
emission cap.
The emission reductions associated
with the Final Strategy will occur after
2018, which, as explained below, is the
deadline for achieving all necessary
emissions reduction under a BART
alternative. Therefore, the Final Strategy
by itself clearly would not meet the
requirements for a BART alternative.
Nevertheless, in order to ensure that the
Coronado BART Alternative as a whole
will result in greater reasonable progress
than BART, we have considered
whether the Final Strategy, once it is
implemented, will provide for ongoing
visibility improvement, as compared
with the BART Control Strategy. In
particular, we have evaluated whether
the Final Strategy meets both criteria of
the greater-emissions-reduction test
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), i.e., that the
distribution of emissions under the
alternative measure is not substantially
different than under BART and that the
alternative measure results in greater
emission reductions than BART.
Because all emissions under both the
Coronado BART Control Strategy and
the Final Strategy are from Coronado, it
is clear that the distribution of
emissions is not substantially different
under the two strategies. Furthermore,
because both the SCR Option and the
Shutdown Option would provide for an
aggregate reduction in visibilityimpairing pollutants and no increases in
any single pollutant, as compared with
the Coronado BART Control Strategy,
we conclude that the Final Strategy will
result in greater emission reductions
than the Coronado BART Control
Strategy. Therefore, we propose to find
that implementation of the Final
Strategy will ensure that the Coronado
BART Alternative will continue to
achieve greater reasonable progress than
the BART Control Strategy after 2025.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
In summary, we propose to find that
ADEQ has demonstrated that the
Interim Strategy will achieve greater
reasonable progress than the Coronado
BART Control Strategy through 2025
and that the Final Strategy will ensure
greater reasonable progress after 2025.
Therefore, we propose to find that
ADEQ properly determined under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) that the Coronado
BART Alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would be
achieved through the installation and
operation of BART at Coronado.
2. Requirement that all necessary
emission reductions take place during
period of first long-term strategy.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii),
the State must ensure that all necessary
emission reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze, i.e., by December 31,
2018. The Regional Haze Rule further
provides that, to meet this requirement,
the State must provide a detailed
description of the alternative measure,
including schedules for
implementation, the emission
reductions required by the program, all
necessary administrative and technical
procedures for implementing the
program, rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures
for enforcement.43
As noted above, the Coronado SIP
Revision incorporates the Coronado
Permit Revision, which includes
conditions implementing both the
Interim and Final Strategies. In addition
to the emission limitations for NOX,
PM10, and SO2 listed in Table 1 above,
the Coronado Permit Revision includes
compliance dates, operation and
maintenance requirements, and
43 40
PO 00000
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements.
The compliance date for the Interim
Strategy in the Coronado Permit
Revision is December 5, 2017.
Accordingly, the Coronado SIP Revision
ensures that all emission reductions
associated with the Interim Strategy will
occur by December 31, 2018 and, as
explained before, those emissions
reductions by themselves are sufficient
to ensure greater reasonable progress
under the two-prong modeling test
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). While the
compliance dates for the Final Strategy
in the Coronado Permit Revision are
later than December 31, 2018, the Final
Strategy and its associated emission
reductions are not necessary to
demonstrate that the Coronado BART
Alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress than BART during
the period of the first long-term strategy.
Rather, as stated before, the Final
Strategy and its associated emissions
reductions will ensure that the
Coronado BART Alternative will
continue to achieve greater reasonable
progress than the BART Control Strategy
after 2025. Therefore, we propose to
find that the Coronado SIP Revision will
ensure that all necessary emission
reductions take place during the period
of the first long-term strategy and
therefore meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
3. Demonstration that emissions
reductions from alternative measure
will be surplus.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv),
the SIP must demonstrate that the
emissions reductions resulting from the
alternative measure will be surplus to
those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the
SIP. The baseline date for regional haze
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
SIPs is 2002.44 As noted by ADEQ, all
of the emission reductions required by
the Coronado BART Alternative are
surplus to reductions resulting from
measures applicable to Coronado as of
2002.45 Therefore, we propose to find
that the Coronado BART Alternative
complies with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
In sum, we propose to find that the
Coronado BART Alternative meets all of
the applicable requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2).
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of Other
Applicable Requirements
1. Enforceable Emission Limits
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
SIPs to include enforceable emissions
limitations as necessary or appropriate
to meet the applicable requirements of
the CAA. In order to be considered
enforceable, emission limits must
include associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements. In addition, the CAA and
the EPA’s implementing regulations
expressly require SIPs to include
regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for applicable emissions
limitations.46 We have reviewed the
Coronado Permit Revision and found
that it includes the appropriate NOX,
SO2, and PM10 emission limits for the
BART Alternative, as well as the
associated monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.47
Therefore, we propose to find that the
Coronado SIP Revision meets the
requirements of the CAA and the EPA’s
implementing regulations for
enforceable emission limitations.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
2. Non-Interference With Applicable
Requirements
The CAA requires that any revision to
an implementation plan shall not be
approved by the Administrator if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (RFP) or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA.48 The EPA has
promulgated health-based standards,
44 See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and
Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory
SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
Programs, November 8, 2002. https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/
20021118_wegman_2002_base_year_emission_sip_
planning.pdf.
45 Id., page 9, section 2.3.5.
46 See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR
51.212(c).
47 The spreadsheet titled ‘‘FIP Requirement
comparison.xlsx’’ in the docket for this action
compares the requirements for Coronado in the
Arizona Regional Haze FIP and the parallel
requirements in the Coronado Permit Revision.
48 CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
known as the national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS), for six
common pollutants: PM, ozone, carbon
monoxide (CO), SO2, nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), and lead (Pb). Using a process
that considers air quality data and other
factors, the EPA designates an area as
‘‘nonattainment’’ if the area does not
meet the NAAQS or contributes to
violations of a NAAQS in a nearby area.
RFP, as defined in section 171 of the
CAA, is related to attainment of the
NAAQS and means annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant
air pollutant(s) for the purpose of
ensuring timely attainment of the
applicable NAAQS.
The Coronado SIP Revision includes
a demonstration of ‘‘non-interference’’
under CAA section 110(l).49 In
particular, ADEQ considered whether
the Coronado SIP Revision would
interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment or
RFP, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. A summary of
ADEQ’s analysis and our evaluation of
that analysis follows.
a. Demonstration of Non-Interference
With NAAQS Attainment and RFP
Requirements
ADEQ noted that Coronado is located
near St. Johns, Arizona in Apache
County, which is designated as ‘‘in
attainment,’’ ‘‘unclassifiable/
attainment,’’ or ‘‘unclassifiable’’ for the
following NAAQS: CO, Pb, NO2, ozone
(2008 NAAQS), PM2.5 (1997, 2006, and
2012 NAAQS), PM10, and SO2 (1971
NAAQS). ADEQ also noted that it has
recommended an attainment/
unclassifiable designation for this area
for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, but the area
has not yet been designated. The state
has also recommended an attainment/
unclassifiable designation as part of the
ongoing designations process for the
2015 ozone NAAQS, but the area does
not have a final designation.50 ADEQ’s
demonstration of non-interference with
attainment focused on the NAAQS for
PM2.5, PM10, SO2, NO2, and ozone
because ambient levels of these
pollutants are affected by emissions of
PM10, SO2, and/or NOX, which are the
pollutants of concern from Coronado.
With repect to the PM2.5 and PM10
NAAQS, ADEQ noted that the
curtailment periods under the Interim
Strategy would result in additional
49 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016) pages
10–15 and Addendum pages 6–7.
50 Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Table 5,
page 12. ADEQ has also recommended that Apache
County be designated as attainment/unclassifiable
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See Letter from Douglas
Ducey, Arizona, to Alexis Strauss, EPA (September
27, 2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19343
PM2.5 and PM10 reductions beyond those
currently required in the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP. With respect to the
Final Strategy, ADEQ explained that,
while the Shutdown Option would
significantly reduce facility-wide PM
emissions compared to the Coronado
BART Control Strategy, the SCR Option
would result in increases in emissions
of sulfuric acid mist (H2SO4) and thus
emissions of PM10 and primary PM2.5
once the SCR is installed. Nonetheless,
citing the TSD for the Coronado Permit
Revision, ADEQ explained that ‘‘the
dispersion modeling analysis indicates
that these emissions increases will
comply with the NAAQS for PM10 and
PM2.5’’ and that ‘‘both options would
achieve significant emission reductions
of SO2 and NOX . . . , which is an
effective strategy for reducing secondary
PM2.5 formation.’’ Given that no
nonattainment or maintenance SIPs rely
on emission reductions at Coronado to
ensure continued attainment of the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS, ADEQ
concluded that the Coronado BART
Alternative will not result in any
interference with attainment or
maintenance of the PM10 and PM2.5
NAAQS or with RFP requirements for
these NAAQS.
We concur with ADEQ’s
demonstration of non-interference with
the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS attainment,
maintenance, and RFP requirements.
The area where Coronado is located is
designated unclassifiable/attainment or
unclassifiable for each of the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS, so there are no
nonattainment or maintenance SIPs or
FIPs that rely on emission reductions at
Coronado to ensure attainment of the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the
Interim Strategy and the Shutdown
Option of the Final Strategy, the
Coronado BART Alternative will result
in greater reductions of PM10 and PM2.5
than would otherwise be required under
the applicable implementation plan for
Arizona (including both the PM10
emission limits for Coronado in the
approved Arizona Regional Haze SIP
and the associated monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP). While the SCR Option under
the Final Strategy would allow for a
small increase (compared to existing SIP
and FIP requirements) in emissions of
PM10 and primary PM2.5 when the SCR
is installed, we find that ADEQ has
demonstrated that these increases will
not result in any interference with
attainment or maintenance of the PM10
and PM2.5 NAAQS or with RFP
requirements for these NAAQS.
With respect to the SO2 NAAQS,
ADEQ determined that all options under
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
19344
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
the Interim Strategy and the Final
Strategy would result in SO2 emissions
that are equal to or lower than allowed
under the Arizona Regional Haze SIP.
Given that no nonattainment or
maintenance SIPs rely on emission
reductions at Coronado to ensure
continued attainment of the SO2
NAAQS, ADEQ concluded that the
Coronado BART Alternative will not
result in any interference with
attainment or maintenance of the SO2
NAAQS or with RFP requirements.
We concur with ADEQ’s
demonstration of non-interference with
the SO2 NAAQS attainment,
maintenance, and RFP requirements.
The area where Coronado is located has
not yet been designated under the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, so there are no
nonattainment or maintenance SIPs or
FIPs that rely on emission reductions at
Coronado to ensure attainment of the
SO2 NAAQS. Furthermore, during both
the Interim Strategy and the Final
Strategy, implementation of the
Coronado BART Alternative will result
in greater SO2 reductions than would
otherwise be required under the
applicable implementation plan for
Arizona (including both the SO2
emission limits for Coronado in the
approved Arizona Regional Haze SIP
and the associated monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements in the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP). Therefore, it is clear that the
implementation of the Coronado BART
Alternative will not result in any
interference with attainment or
maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS or with
RFP requirements for the SO2 NAAQS.
With respect to the NO2 and ozone
NAAQS, ADEQ noted that both the
Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy
would require additional NOX
reductions beyond those required in the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP, but that the
Interim Strategy would require fewer
NOX reductions than the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP. Nonetheless, ADEQ
explained that Apache County does not
rely on the Arizona Regional Haze FIP
to ensure continued attainment of the
NO2 and ozone NAAQS or to meet any
RFP requirements and that facility-wide
emissions of NOX at Coronado will
continue to be reduced under the
Coronado BART Alternative compared
to current levels. Therefore, ADEQ
concluded that the BART Alternative
will not result in any interference with
attainment or maintenance of the NO2 or
ozone NAAQS or with RFP
requirements for these NAAQS.
We concur with ADEQ’s
demonstration of non-interference with
the NO2 and ozone NAAQS attainment,
maintenance, and RFP requirements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Coronado is located in an area that is
designated unclassifiable/attainment for
the NO2 NAAQS and the 2008 ozone
NAAQS and has not yet been designated
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, so there are
no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs
or FIPs that rely on emission limitations
at Coronado to satisfy any attainment or
RFP requirements for ozone or NO2.
Acordingly, while the Coronado SIP
Revision requires fewer NOX reductions
than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP
between December 5, 2017 and
December 31, 2025, these additional
reductions are not necessary for
purposes of attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS or for RFP.
In summary, because the Coronado
SIP Revision will require equivalent or
lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2
for all future years, compared to the
emission levels currently allowed under
the applicable implementation plan
(including both the Arizona Regional
Haze SIP and the Arizona Regional Haze
FIP), in an area that is designated in
attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or
unclassifiable, or has not yet been
designated for all NAAQS, we propose
to find that the Coronado SIP Revision
would not interfere with any applicable
requirements concerning attainment or
RFP.
b. Demonstration of Non-Interference
With Other CAA Requirements
ADEQ explained that the following
‘‘other applicable requirements’’ are
potentially relevant to the Coronado SIP
Revision:
• Regional Haze under sections 169A
and 169B of the CAA
• Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)
• Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) for Air Toxics
• New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
With respect to PSD, ADEQ referred
to the TSD for the Coronado Permit
Revision,51 which provides ADEQ’s best
available control technology
determination for H2SO4, PM10, and
PM2.5, as well as NAAQS and PSD
increment modeling for PM10 and PM2.5.
We concur with ADEQ that the
documentation for the Coronado Permit
Revision establishes that the Coronado
SIP Revision would not interefere with
the PSD requirements of the CAA.
Furthermore, implementation of the
Coronado BART Alternative would not
affect compliance with the applicable
MACT or NSPS requirements.
Therefore, we propose to find that the
Coronado SIP Revision would not
interfere with these requirements.
With respect to Regional Haze
requirements, ADEQ noted that during
implementation of both the Interim
Strategy and the Final Strategy, the
Coronado BART Alternative will result
in greater reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions than the
Coronado BART Control Strategy. For
the reasons explained above, we agree
that ADEQ has demonstrated that the
Coronado BART Alternative would
result in greater reasonable progress
than the Coronado BART Control
Strategy. Therefore, we propose to find
that the Coronado SIP Revision would
not interfere with the visibility
protection requirements of the CAA.
Finally, although not expressly
addressed by the State in its submittal,
we have considered whether the
curtailment requirements under the
Interim Strategy in the Coronado SIP
Revision would interefere with the
requirements of CAA section 123
concerning dispersion techniques.
Section 123 provides that the degree of
emission limitation required by a SIP
may not be affected by ‘‘any other
dispersion technique,’’ which is defined
to include ‘‘intermittent or
supplemental control of air pollutants
varying with atmospheric
conditions.’’ 52 The EPA’s implementing
regulations for CAA section 123 define
‘‘intermittent control system’’ as ‘‘a
dispersion technique which varies the
rate at which pollutants are emitted to
the atmosphere according to
meteorological conditions and/or
ambient concentrations of the pollutant,
in order to prevent ground-level
concentrations in excess of applicable
ambient air quality standards.’’ 53 The
curtailment periods in the Interim
Strategy do not allow for varied
emission rates according to
meteorological conditions and/or
ambient concentrations of the pollutant.
Rather, the curtailment period for each
year is selected based on recent and
expected emission control performance,
regardless of meteorological conditions
and ambient pollutant concentrations.
In addition, the curtailment periods are
not intended to prevent violations of
ambient air quality standards.
Therefore, we propose to find the
curtailment requirements comply with
CAA Section 123.
In summary, we propose to find that
that the Coronado SIP Revision would
not interfere with any applicable
requirements of the CAA.
52 42
51 Coronado
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Permit Revision, Appendix C.
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53 40
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
U.S.C. 7423(a) and (b).
CFR 51.100(nn).
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
For the reasons described above, the
EPA proposes to approve the Coronado
SIP Revision into the Arizona SIP.
Because this approval would fill the gap
in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by
the EPA’s prior partial disapproval with
respect to Coronado, we also propose to
withdraw the provisions of the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP that apply to
Coronado. Finally, we are proposing
revisions to 40 CFR part 52 to codify the
removal of those portions of the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP that have either been
superseded by previously approved
revisions to the Arizona SIP or would be
superseded by final approval of the
Coronado SIP Revision.
V. Environmental Justice
Considerations
As explained above, the Coronado SIP
Revision will result in reduced
emissions of both SO2 and PM10
compared to the existing Arizona
Regional Haze SIP and FIP
requirements. While the Coronado SIP
Revision will result in fewer NOX
reductions than the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP would have required between
2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX
emissions remain at or below current
levels until 2025, after which it will
require NOX emissions reductions
equivalent to or greater than would have
been required under the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP. Furthermore,
Coronado is located in area that is
designated attainment, unclassifiable/
attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not
yet been designated for each of the
current NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA
believes that this action will not have
potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income, or
indigenous populations.
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the state permit provisions described in
the proposed amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below. The EPA has
made, and will continue to make, this
document available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and in
hard copy at U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, AIR–2, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA,
94105–3901.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Additional information about these
statutes and Executive Orders can be
found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule
applies to only a single facility and is
therefore not a rule of general
applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
PRA. This rule applies to only a single
facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping
and reporting provisions do not
constitute a ‘‘collection of information’’
as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and
5 CFR 1320.3(c).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This action will not
impose any requirements on small
entities. Firms primarily engaged in the
generation, transmission, and/or
distribution of electric energy for sale
are small if, including affiliates, the total
electric output for the preceding fiscal
year did not exceed 4 million megawatt
hours. The owner of facility affected by
this rule, SRP, exceeds this threshold.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on any Indian tribes, on
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19345
the relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply
to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks that the EPA has reason to
believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ‘‘covered
regulatory action’’ in section 2–202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve
technical standards. The EPA is not
revising any technical standards or
imposing any new technical standards
in this action.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does
not have disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, lowincome populations, and/or indigenous
peoples, as specified in Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The documentation for this decision is
contained in section V above.
K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
the EPA proposes to determine that this
action is subject to the provisions of
section 307(d). Section 307(d)
establishes procedural requirements
specific to certain rulemaking actions
under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA
section 307(d)(1)(B), the withdrawal of
the provisions of the Arizona Regional
Haze FIP that apply to Coronado is
subject to the requirements of CAA
section 307(d), as it constitutes a
revision to a FIP under CAA section
110(c). Furthermore, CAA section
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
19346
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
307(d)(1)(V) provides that the
provisions of section 307(d) apply to
‘‘such other actions as the Administrator
may determine.’’ The EPA proposes that
the provisions of 307(d) apply to the
EPA’s action on the Coronado SIP
revision.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 20, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by:
a. Adding in paragraph (d), under the
table heading ‘‘EPA-Approved Source-
■
■
Specific Requirements’’ an entry for
‘‘Coronado Generating Station’’ after the
entry for ‘‘Cholla Power Plant;’’
■ b. Adding in paragraph (e), under the
table heading ‘‘Table 1–EPA-Approved
Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures’’ an entry for ‘‘Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision to the
Arizona Regional Haze Plan for the Salt
River Project Coronado Generating
Station, excluding Appendix B’’ after
the entry for ‘‘Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision to the
Arizona Regional Haze Plan for Arizona
Public Service Cholla Generating
Station’’.
The additions read as follows:
§ 52.120
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
Name of source
Order/permit No.
Effective date
EPA approval date
Explanation
*
[Insert date of publication of final rule],
[insert Federal
Register citation of
final rule].
*
Permit issued by Arizona Department of
Environmental
Quality. Submitted
on December 15,
2016.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
*
Coronado Generating
Station.
*
*
*
*
Permit #64169 (as amended by Significant December 14, 2016 ...
Revision #63088) Cover Page and Attachment ‘‘E’’: BART Alternatives.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES
[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] 1
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area or
title/subject
Name of SIP provision
State submittal
date
EPA approval
date
Explanation
The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans)
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision
to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for the
Salt River Project Coronado Generating
Station, excluding Appendix B.
*
*
*
*
*
Source-Specific .......... December 15, 2016 ...
*
*
*
[Insert date of publication of final rule],
[Insert Federal
Register citation of
final rule].
*
*
*
BART Alternative for
Coronado Generating Station adopted December 14,
2016.
*
1 Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (excluding Part D Elements and
Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:06 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 80 / Thursday, April 27, 2017 / Proposed Rules
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.145 is amended by:
a. Removing and reserving paragraph
(e)(1).
■ b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii)
through (vi).
■ c. Removing and reserving paragraph
(f).
■
■
[FR Doc. 2017–08543 Filed 4–26–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and 02–123; DA 17–
76]
Structure and Practices of the Video
Relay Services Program
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau (Bureau or
CGB) seeks comment on the scope of
application of the technical standard for
user equipment and software used with
video relay service (VRS) and the extent
to which such a rule is necessary and
appropriate for functionally equivalent
communication.
SUMMARY:
Comments are due June 12, 2017.
Reply Comments are due July 11, 2017.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and
03–123, by any of the following
methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), through
the Commission’s Web site https://
apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the Web
site for submitting comments. For ECFS
filers, in completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal service mailing
address, and CG Docket Nos. 10–51 and
03–123.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
nlaroche on DSK30NT082PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:38 Apr 26, 2017
Jkt 241001
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bob
Aldrich, Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau (202) 418–0996, email
Robert.Aldrich@fcc.gov, or Eliot
Greenwald, Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, (202)
418–2235, email Eliot.Greenwald@
fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant
to 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested
parties may file comments on or before
the dates indicated in the DATES section.
Comments may be filed using the
Commission’s ECFS. See Electronic
Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
This is a summary of document DA
17–76, Structure and Practices of the
Video Relay Service Program;
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, document DA 17–76,
adopted on January 17, 2017 and
released on January 17, 2017, in CG
Docket Nos. 10–51 and 03–123. The
Report and Order, DA 17–76, is
published elsewhere in this issue. The
full text of document DA 17–76 will be
available for public inspection and
copying via ECFS, and during regular
business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. This proceeding
shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
47 CFR 1.1200 et seq. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
19347
any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with 47 CFR
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (844) 432–2272
(videophone), or (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 Analysis
Document DA 17–76 does not contain
proposed information collection(s)
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In
addition, therefore, it does not contain
any new or modified information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,
pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public
Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
E:\FR\FM\27APP1.SGM
27APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 80 (Thursday, April 27, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19333-19347]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-08543]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092; FRL-9961-98-Region 9]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a source-specific revision to the Arizona state implementation
plan (SIP) that provides an alternative to Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) for the Coronado Generating Station (``Coronado''),
owned and operated by the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement
and Power District. The EPA proposes to find that the BART alternative
for Coronado would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART, in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule. In conjunction with
this proposed approval, we propose to withdraw those portions of the
federal implementation plan (FIP) that address BART for Coronado. We
also propose to codify the removal of those portions of the Arizona SIP
that have either been superseded by previously approved revisions to
the Arizona SIP or would be superseded by final approval of the SIP
revision for Coronado.
DATES: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 12, 2017.
Requests for public hearing must be received on or before May 12, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-0092 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to Krishna
Viswanathan at viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from
Regulations.gov. For either manner
[[Page 19334]]
of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX,
Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 999-7880 or
viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. General Information
II. Background
III. The Coronado SIP Revision
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information
A. Definitions
For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
The initials AAC mean or refer to the Arizona
Administrative Code.
The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality.
The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona.
The word Coronado refers to the Coronado Generating
Station.
The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
The initials BOD mean or refer to boiler operating day.
The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I
Federal area.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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. When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action,
we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The initials CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act.
The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business
Information.
The words EPA, we, us, or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
The initials FIP mean or refer to federal implementation
plan.
The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX
burners.
The initials MACT mean or refer to Maximum Available
Control Technology.
The initials lb/MMBtu mean or refer to pounds per million
British thermal units.
The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
The initials NSPS mean or refer to Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources.
The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air.
The initials PM mean or refer to particulate patter, which
is inclusive of PM10 (particulate matter less than or equal
to 10 micrometers) and PM2.5 (particulate matter less than
or equal to 2.5 micrometers).
The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic
reduction.
The initials SIP mean or refer to state implementation
plan.
The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
The initials SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District.
B. Docket
The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that
are listed in the index on https://www.regulations.gov under docket
number EPA-R09-OAR-2017-0092. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI). Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in
hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available
either electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Planning Office of the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. The EPA requests that 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, 9-5:00 PDT, excluding federal
holidays.
C. Public Hearings
If anyone contacts the EPA by May 12, 2017 requesting to speak at a
public hearing, the EPA will schedule a public hearing and announce the
hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Krishna Viswanathan at (520)
999-7880 or Viswanathan.krishna@epa.gov to request a hearing or to find
out if a hearing will be held.
II. Background
A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the
nation's national parks and wilderness areas in 1977 by adding section
169A to the CAA. 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 which
impairment results from man-made air pollution.'' \2\ It also directs
states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger,
often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states to revise their SIPs to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
towards the national visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between
1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate BART controls. These
sources are referred to as ``BART-eligible'' sources.\3\ In the 1990
CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the CAA
to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility
impairment produced by a multitude of sources and activities located
across a broad geographic area.\4\ We promulgated the initial Regional
Haze Rule in 1999 \5\ and updated it in 2017.\6\ The CAA and the
Regional Haze Rule require states to develop and implement SIPs to
ensure reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory
class I Federal areas \7\ by reducing emissions that cause
[[Page 19335]]
or contribute to regional haze.\8\ Under the Regional Haze Rule, states
are directed to conduct BART determinations and establish emissions
limitations for BART-eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.\9\ In
lieu of requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt alternative measures, as long as the alternative
provides greater reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions than BART (i.e., the alternative must be ``better than
BART'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
\3\ 40 CFR 51.301.
\4\ See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492.
\5\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999).
\6\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
\7\ 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. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
\8\ See generally 40 CFR 51.308.
\9\ 40 CFR 51.308(e).
\10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the visibility protection requirements of the CAA
and the Regional Haze Rule, SIP revisions concerning regional haze are
also subject to the general requirements of CAA section 110. In
particular, they are subject to the requirement in CAA section 110(1)
that SIP revisions must not ``interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
[CAA Sec. 171]), or any other applicable requirement of [the CAA],''
as well as the requirement in CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) that SIPs must
include enforceable emission limits.
B. History of FIP BART Determination
1. 2011 Arizona Regional Haze SIP and 2012 Arizona Regional Haze FIP
The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a
Regional Haze SIP (``Arizona Regional Haze SIP'') to the EPA on
February 28, 2011. The Arizona Regional Haze SIP included BART
determinations for nitrogen oxides (NOX), particulate matter
less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) for Units 1 and 2 at Coronado. In a final rule
published on December 5, 2012, the EPA approved ADEQ's BART
determinations for PM10 and SO2, but disapproved
ADEQ's determination for NOX at Coronado.\11\ We also found
that the SIP lacked the requisite compliance schedules and requirements
for equipment maintenance and operation, including monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for BART for all pollutants.
At the same time, we promulgated a FIP that included a plant-wide
NOX BART emission limit for Coronado of 0.065 pounds per
million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) based on a 30-boiler-
operating-day (BOD) rolling average, which Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) could meet by adding
a low-load temperature control to its existing selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) system on Unit 2 and installing an SCR system including
a low-load temperature control system on Unit 1. The FIP also included
compliance deadlines and requirements for equipment maintenance and
operation, including monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting, to
ensure the enforceability of the BART limits for SO2,
PM10, and NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 77 FR 72512 (December 5, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the FIP included two requirements that applied to all
affected sources, including Coronado. First, we promulgated a work
practice standard that requires that pollution control equipment be
designed and capable of operating properly to minimize emissions during
all expected operating conditions. Second, we incorporated by reference
into the FIP certain provisions of the Arizona Adminsitrative Code
(AAC) that establish an affirmative defense for excess emissions due to
malfunctions. Please refer to the final rule published on December 5,
2012, for further information on the BART determinations and related
FIP requirements.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay of Regional Haze FIP
The EPA received a petition from SRP on February 4, 2013,
requesting partial reconsideration and an administrative stay of the
final rule under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA and section 705 of the
Administrative Procedure Act.\13\ EPA Region 9 sent a letter on April
9, 2013, to representatives of SRP granting partial reconsideration of
the final rule for the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.\14\ In particular,
the EPA stated that we were granting reconsideration of the compliance
methodology for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 at Coronado
and that we would issue a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment
on an alternative compliance methodology. We also noted that, because
we initially proposed different NOX emission limits for the
two units, we would seek comment on the appropriate emission limit for
each of the units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Petition of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and
Power District for Partial Reconsideration and Stay of EPA's Final
Rule: ``Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and Federal
Implementation Plans'' (February 4, 2013).
\14\ Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Norman W. Fichthorn
and Aaron Flynn, Hunton and Williams (April 9, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. FIP Revision for Coronado
In response to the petition from SRP, we issued a final FIP
revision on April 13, 2016, replacing the plant-wide compliance method
with a unit-specific compliance method for determining compliance with
the BART emission limits for NOX from Units 1 and 2 at
Coronado (``2016 BART Reconsideration'').\15\ While the plant-wide
limit for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 was previously
established as 0.065 lb/MMBtu, through this FIP revision we set a unit-
specific limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit
2, to be met by December 5, 2017. We also revised the work practice
standard that applied to Coronado and removed the affirmative defense
for malfunctions that was included in the FIP for Coronado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Arizona Regional Haze SIP Revision for Coronado Generating Station
On December 15, 2016, ADEQ submitted a revision to the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP (``Coronado SIP Revision'') that provides an
alternative to BART for Coronado (``Coronado BART Alternative'').\16\
The Coronado SIP Revision is the subject of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Letter from Timothy S. Franquist, Director Air Quality
Division, ADEQ, to Alexis Strauss, Action Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 9 (December 15, 2016). The Coronado SIP Revision includes
both the original version of the revision (dated July 19, 2016) that
was proposed by ADEQ for public comment, and an addendum
(``Addendum'' dated November 10, 2016), in addition to various
supporting materials. The Addendum documents changes to the Coronado
BART Alternative since ADEQ's July 19, 2016 proposal. Unless
otherwise specified, references in this document to the Coronado SIP
Revision include both of these documents, as well as the other
materials included in ADEQ's submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. The Coronado SIP Revision
A. Summary of the Coronado SIP Revision
The Coronado SIP Revision and BART Alternative consists of an
interim operating strategy (``Interim Strategy''), which would be in
effect from December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025, and a final
operating strategy (``Final Strategy''), which would take effect on
January 1, 2026. The requirements associated with the Interim and Final
Strategies are shown in Table 1 and summarized briefly below.
1. Final Strategy
The Final Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision requires
installation of SCR on Unit 1 (``SCR Option'') or the
[[Page 19336]]
permanent cessation of operation of Unit 1 (``Shutdown Option'') no
later than December 31, 2025. SRP is required to notify ADEQ and the
EPA of its selection by December 31, 2022. The Final Strategy includes
two additional features: A SO2 emission limit of 0.060 lb/
MMBtu, calculated on a 30-BOD rolling average, which applies to Unit 2
(as well as Unit 1 if it continues operating), and an annual plant-wide
SO2 emissions cap of either 1,970 tons per year (tpy) if
both units continue operating or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts down.
2. Interim Strategy
The Interim Strategy includes three different operating options
(designated IS2, IS3, and IS4), each of which requires a period of
seasonal curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for Unit 1. Each year,
SRP must select and implement one of the three options, based on the
NOX emissions performance of Unit 1 and the SO2
emissions performance of Units 1 and 2 in that year. In particular, by
October 21 of each year, SRP must notify ADEQ and the EPA of its chosen
option for that calendar year (and for January of the following year)
and demonstrate that its NOX and SO2 emissions
for that year (up to the date of the notification) have not already
exceeded the limits associated with that option.\17\ SRP then must
comply with those limits for the remainder of the year (and for January
of the following year) and curtail operation of Unit 1 for the time
period required under that option.\18\ In addition, under each option,
the facility must comply with an annual plant-wide SO2
emissions cap of 1,970 tpy effective in each year beginning in 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. 64169 as
amended by Significant Revision to operating permit No. 63088
(December 14, 2016), Attachment E, condition D.1.
\18\ As indicated in Table 1, the first curtailment and last
curtailment periods would be shorter than the periods in between.
Under all three interim strategies, the first curtailment period
would begin December 5, 2017. Under all three interim strategies,
the last curtailment period would end December 31, 2025.
Table 1--Summary of Coronado BART Alternative Compared With 2014 Baseline and BART Control Strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu) (30-BOD Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu) (30-BOD
average) average) Annual plant-
Control strategy ---------------------------------------------------------------- wide SO2 cap Unit 1 curtailment period
NOX SO2 NOX SO2 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Baseline \a\................. 0.320 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A N/A
BART Control Strategy \b\......... 0.065 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A N/A
Interim Strategy: \c\
IS2........................... 0.320 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 October 21-January 31
IS3........................... 0.320 0.050 0.080 0.050 1,970 November 21-January 20
IS4........................... 0.310 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 November 21-January 20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Strategy Timeline......... Notification date: October 21 of each year
Operates December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Strategy:
SCR Installation.............. 0.065 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 N/A
Shutdown...................... N/A N/A 0.080 0.060 1,080 N/A
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Strategy Timeline........... Notification date: December 31, 2022
Shutdown or install & operate SCR: December 31, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ This scenario reflects the requirements of a 2008 consent decree (CD) between the United States and SRP, which include new wet flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) and Low NOX burners (LNB) with over fire air (OFA) on both units, and SCR on Unit 2. See United States v. Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-1479-JAT (D. Ariz.) (August 12, 2008).
\b\ 2016 EPA BART Reconsideration for NOX and 2010 ADEQ BART for SO2.
\c\ See Addendum, Page 3, Table 1.
ADEQ incorporated the revised emission limits, as well as
associated compliance deadlines and monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements, as a permit revision to Coronado's existing
Operating Permit, which was submitted as part of the Coronado SIP
Revision (``Coronado Permit Revision'').\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix B, Permit No. 64169 as
amended by Significant Revision to operating permit No. 63088
(December 14, 2016). The provisions implementing the BART
Alternative are incorporated in Attachment E to the permit.
Attachment E will become effective under State law on the date of
the EPA's final action to approve Attachment E into the Arizona SIP
and rescind the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that
apply to Coronado. Id. Attachment E, section I.A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coronado SIP Revision also includes ADEQ's determination that
the Coronado BART Alternative is ``better than BART,'' based on a
demonstration that it fulfills the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)
for a BART alternative. More information regarding ADEQ's analysis is
set forth below, along with the EPA's evaluation of the analysis.
B. The EPA's Evaluation of the Coronado BART Alternative.
The Regional Haze Rule requires that a SIP revision establishing a
BART alternative include three elements, which are listed below. We
have evaluated the Coronado BART Alternative with respect to each of
the following elements:
A demonstration that the emissions trading program or
other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than
would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative
program.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take
place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional
haze.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting
from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions
resulting from measures
[[Page 19337]]
adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the
SIP.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Demonstration that the alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), ADEQ must demonstrate that the
alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than would
have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the State and covered by the alternative
program. For a source-specific BART alternative, the critical elements
of this demonstration are:
An analysis of BART and associated emission reductions
\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
an analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable
through the BART alternative \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a determination that the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).
We summarize ADEQ's submittal with respect to each of these
elements and provide our evaluation of the submittal below.
a. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the SIP must include an
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions at Units 1 and 2.
As noted above, ADEQ's BART analyses and determinations for Units 1 and
2 were included in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. We approved ADEQ's
BART determinations for PM10 and SO2, but
disapproved ADEQ's BART determination for NOX and conducted
our own BART analysis and determination for NOX BART in the
Arizona Regional Haze FIP. We later revised the NOX emission
limits for Units 1 and 2 in the 2016 BART Reconsideration.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ compared the BART Alternative
both to ADEQ's original BART determinations and to the EPA's BART
determinations in the 2016 BART Reconsideration. For purposes of our
evaluation, we consider BART for Coronado to consist of a combination
of (1) ADEQ's BART determinations for PM10 and
SO2, which were approved into the applicable SIP, and (2)
the EPA's BART determination for NOX in the 2016 BART
Reconsideration (collectively the ``Coronado BART Control Strategy'').
The emission limits comprising the Coronado BART Control Strategy are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2--Coronado BART Control Strategy Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limits (lb/MMBtu, averaged over a 30
boiler-operating-days)
Unit -----------------------------------------------
NOX PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1.......................................................... 0.065 0.030 0.080
Unit 2.......................................................... 0.080 0.030 0.080
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Technical Support Document (TSD) included with the Coronado
SIP Revision,\27\ ADEQ calculated estimated annual emission reductions
achievable with BART by comparing expected annual emissions under the
Coronado BART Control Strategy with 2014 emissions (``2014
Baseline'').\28\ The results of these calculations are summarized in
Table 3. As BART for PM10 and SO2 reflected
existing controls, no emissions reductions of PM10 and
SO2 are expected to result from BART, but significant
reductions of NOX are expected to result from implementation
of BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Appendix A,
``Technical Support Document for Regional Haze State Implementation
Plan Revision for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating
Station.''
\28\ Id. section 4. As noted above, the 2014 Baseline emissions
reflects the requirements of the 2008 CD between the United States
and SRP, including new FGD and LNB with OFA on both units, and SCR
on Unit 2.
Table 3--Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With Coronado BART Control Strategy
[tpy]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating strategies NOX SO2 PM10 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Baseline Emissions......................... 6,506 2,651 994 10,151
Coronado BART Control Strategy Emissions........ 2,410 2,651 994 6,055
Emission Reductions............................. 4,096 0 0 4,096
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions achievable at
Coronado under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). We note that the Regional
Haze Rule does not specify what baseline year should be used for
calculating emission reductions under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).\29\
However, because the purpose of calculating emission reductions
achievable with BART is to compare these reductions to those achievable
through the BART alternative,\30\ it is important that a consistent
baseline be used for both sets of calculations. In this instance,
Arizona used the 2014 Baseline for both purposes, so we find that its
approach was reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ As explained below, the baseline date for regional haze
SIPs is 2002 and, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the emissions
reductions resulting from the alternative measure must be surplus to
those reductions required as of 2002. However, this provision does
not determine what baseline should be used for purposes of
calculating emission reductions achievable under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
\30\ See, e.g., 71 FR 60612, 60615 (October 13, 2006)(``Today's
final rule revises section 51.308(e)(2) to make clear that the
emissions reductions that could be achieved through implementation
of the BART provisions at section 51.308(e)(1) serve as the
benchmark against which States can compare an alternative
program.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19338]]
b. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
In the Coronado SIP Revision TSD, ADEQ calculated emissions
reductions achievable under the Interim Strategy by comparing estimated
annual emissions under the Interim Strategy with 2014 Baseline
emissions. In the Addendum to the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ also
provided a summary of estimated annual emissions under the Final
Strategy compared to 2014 Baseline emissions. The resulting emission
reductions are shown in Table 4.
Table 4--Summary of Emission Reductions Achievable With Coronado BART Alternative a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating strategies NOX SO2 PM Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Strategy 2 (IS2) \b\
2014 Baseline Emissions..................... 6,506 2,651 994 10,151
Interim Strategy IS2 Emissions.............. 5,053 2002 858 7913
Emission Reductions......................... 1,453 649 136 2,238
Interim Strategy 3 (IS3)
2014 Baseline Emissions..................... 6,506 2,651 994 10,151
Interim Strategy IS3 Emissions.............. 5,667 1,526 915 8,108
Emission Reductions......................... 839 1,125 79 2,043
Interim Strategy 4 (IS4)
2014 Baseline Emissions..................... 6,506 2,651 994 10,151
Interim Strategy IS4 Emissions.............. 5,533 1,831 915 8,279
Emission Reductions......................... 973 820 79 1,872
Final Strategy (SCR Option) \c\
2014 Baseline Emissions..................... 6,506 2,651 994 10,151
Final Strategy--SCR Option.................. 2,410 1,970 994 5,374
Emission Reductions......................... 4,096 681 0 4,777
Final Strategy (Shutdown Option) \d\
2014 Baseline Emissions..................... 6,506 2,651 994 10,151
Final Strategy--Shutdown Option............. 1,366 1,080 512 2,958
Emission Reductions......................... 5,140 1,571 482 7,193
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ ADEQ assumed all scenarios would have the same average heat input rate and same percentage of the annualized
utilization factor without curtailment. For the interim strategies, ADEQ adjusted the utilization factors to
reflect the corresponding amount of Unit 1 curtailment required for each option. Since these are adjustments
to the annual utilization rate for each year, they account for interim strategies that cross calendar years.
\b\ Detailed emission calculations for the 2014 Baseline and Interim Strategy can be found in Tables 2, 3, and 4
of the Coronado Regional Haze SIP TSD (July 19, 2016).
\c\ See, Coronado SIP Revision Addendum, Table 2 (November 19, 2016).
\d\ Id.
We propose to find that ADEQ has met the requirement for an
analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the
alternative measure under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D). As explained in
the previous section, Arizona appropriately used the 2014 Baseline for
calculating emissions reductions achievable with the Coronado BART
Strategy and emissions reductions achievable with the Coronado BART
Alternative.
c. Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation and Operation
of BART
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the State must provide a
determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the clear
weight of evidence that the alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART. Two different tests for determining whether the
alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART are outlined
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). If the distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure
results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure
may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the
distribution of emissions is significantly different, then the State
must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility
between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area for
the worst and best 20 percent days. The modeling would demonstrate
``greater reasonable progress'' if both of the following two criteria
are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2)
there is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing
the average differences between BART and the alternative over all
affected Class I areas. This modeling test is sometimes referred to as
the ``two-prong test.''
In the Coronado SIP Revision, ADEQ separately analyzed the three
options under the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ ADEQ also included a ``Supplemental Analysis of IMPROVE
Monitoring Data'' that it considered relevant to the determination
of whether the Coronado BART Alternative is better than BART. See
Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016) pages 9-10. However, because
the State made a demonstration under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), rather
than a ``clear weight of evidence'' demonstration under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), these monitoring data are not directly relevant
and we have not considered them in our evaluation of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i. BART Alternative Interim Strategy
ADEQ determined that the Interim Strategy will not necessarily
achieve greater emissions reductions than the BART Control Strategy
because, while each option under the Interim Strategy will result in
greater reductions in SO2 and PM10 than the BART
Control Strategy, each option will also result in higher NOX
emissions. Therefore, ADEQ relied on the results of air quality
modeling (using the Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions
(``CAMx'') model) performed by SRP's contractor, Ramboll Environ, to
demonstrate that the Interim Strategy would result in ``greater
reasonable progress'' under the two-prong test in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).\32\ CAMx has a scientifically current treatment of
chemistry to simulate the transformation of emissions into visibility-
impairing particles of species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium
sulfate, and is often employed in large-scale modeling when
[[Page 19339]]
many sources of pollution and/or long transport distances are involved.
Photochemical grid models like CAMx include all emissions sources and
have realistic representations of formation, transport, and removal
processes of the particulate matter that causes visibility degradation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), pages 6-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coronado modeling followed a modeling protocol \33\ that was
reviewed by the EPA. The starting point for the modeling was modeling
done as part of the Western Regional Air Partnership's West-side
Jumpstart Air Quality Modeling Study (``WestJump''), which used a 2008
meteorology and emissions base case, and covered the entire western
United States.\34\ For the Coronado modeling work, Ramboll Environ
reduced the modeling domain to an area within 300 kilometers of the
facility and carried out a new model performance evaluation. The
initial and boundary conditions for this domain were taken from
WestJump modeling of sources for the entire western United States. For
the two-prong test, an existing projected 2020 emissions database was
used to estimate emissions of sources in Arizona (other than Coronado)
and New Mexico. The 2020 emissions case is likely to be more
representative of air quality conditions when the Coronado BART Control
Strategy is implemented than the 2008 database. In the 2020 modeling,
the Coronado emissions were set to appropriate levels for the 2014
Baseline, the Coronado BART Control Strategy, and the various Interim
Strategy options, as shown in Table 5. Emission factors for Coronado
for the modeling are identical to the emissions limits for the Coronado
BART Alternative described in Table 1, except that the Interim Strategy
in the Coronado SIP revision includes a more stringent SO2
emission limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu for IS2 compared to the modeled value
of 0.070 lb/MMBtu. In addition, the modeling does not reflect the
plant-wide SO2 emissions cap of 1,970 tpy included in the
Coronado SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ ``Draft Modeling Plan for Conducting Better-than-BART
Analysis for the Coronado Generating Station using a Photochemical
Grid Model--Revision#1'', 06-35855A, Prepared for Salt River
Project, Ramboll Environ US Corporation (August 2015).
\34\ https://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx.
Table 5--Emission Factors for SO2 and NOX and Curtailment Periods Used To Model the 2014 Baseline, Coronado BART Control Strategy, and Interim Strategy
at Coronado
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu) Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu)
Control strategy ---------------------------------------------------------------- Unit 1 curtailment period
NOX SO2 NOX SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014 Baseline............................. 0.320 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A
Coronado BART Control Strategy............ 0.065 0.080 0.080 0.080 N/A
Interim Strategy:
IS2................................... 0.320 \b\ 0.070 0.080 \b\ 0.070 October 21-January 31
IS3................................... 0.320 0.050 0.080 0.050 November 21-January 20
IS4................................... 0.310 0.060 0.080 0.060 November 21-January 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ As noted above, this scenario reflects 2008 CD controls, which include new wet FGD and LNB with OFA on both units, and SCR on Unit 2.
\b\ Although these emission factors were used for modeling, the final SIP submission adopted a lower SO2 emission limit for IS2 for both Units 1 and 2
of 0.060 lb/MMBtu.
The CAMx-modeled concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, and other
chemical species were tracked for Coronado using the CAMx Particulate
Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) Probing Tool, so that the
concentrations and visibility impacts due to Coronado could be
separated out from those due to the total of all modeled sources. PSAT
provides air quality contributions from the emissions of Coronado in a
single step and avoids the extra work needed in the simple subtraction
approach, which would require additional modeling runs (with and
without Coronado emissions) and a subtraction step to estimate the air
quality contributions of Coronado emissions.
Ramboll Environ computed visibility impairment due to Coronado
using the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) equation,\35\ following a procedure recommended by the
Federal Land Managers.\36\ Ramboll Environ then subtracted the deciview
(dv) \37\ visibility impairment due to natural background
concentrations from the deciview impairment due to the sum of Coronado
and natural background concentrations. This difference gives the
visibility impact or ``delta deciviews'' solely due to Coronado. Thus,
although the CAMx modeled concentrations realistically reflect the
interactions of all sources, the Coronado visibility impacts were
assessed relative to natural conditions, similar to the procedure
followed in BART assessments.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ IMPROVE refers to a monitoring network and also to the
equation used to convert monitored concentrations to visbility
impacts. ``Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction
from Particle Speciation Data'', IMPROVE technical subcommittee for
algorithm review, January 2006, https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/gray-literature/.
\36\ Federal Land Managers' Air Quality Related Values Work
Group (FLAG), Phase I Report--Revised, National Park Service, 2010
\37\ The Regional Haze Rule establishes the deciview as the
principal metric for measuring visibility. This visibility metric
expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to
extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is
determined by using air quality measured or modeled concentrations
to estimate light extinction using the IMPROVE, and then
transforming the value of light extinction to deciviews using the
logarithm function.
\38\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y section IV.D.5 (``Calculate
the model results for each receptor as the change in deciviews
compared against natural visibility conditions.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the first prong of the modeling test, Ramboll Environ computed
the difference between the delta deciviews for each Interim Strategy
option and the delta deciviews for the 2014 Baseline for each Class I
area. Ramboll Environ then averaged these differences over the best 20
percent of days, the worst 20 percent of days, and for the full year.
The results are shown in Table 6 and Table 7. Based on these results,
ADEQ concluded that that the Interim Strategy will result in improved
visibility at all affected Class I areas compared with baseline
conditions on the worst and best 20 percent of days and therefore meets
the first prong of the modeling test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
[[Page 19340]]
Table 6--Prong 1 Test--Delta Deciview Differences of Visibility Conditions Between Baseline and Interim Strategy
[Baseline--Interim Strategy]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average best 20% Days Average worst 20% Days Annual average
Class I area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS2 IS3 IS4 IS2 IS3 IS4 IS2 IS3 IS4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandalier NM......................................... 0.0021 0.0021 0.0020 0.0043 0.0050 0.0043 0.0017 0.0024 0.0019
Bosque............................................... 0.0012 0.0016 0.0015 0.0011 0.0015 0.0013 0.0015 0.0023 0.0018
Chiricahua NM........................................ 0.0010 0.0014 0.0012 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005 0.0009 0.0007
Chiricahua Wild...................................... 0.0011 0.0016 0.0014 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0009 0.0007
Galiuro Wild......................................... 0.0012 0.0016 0.0013 0.0001 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0007 0.0006
Gila Wild............................................ 0.0040 0.0044 0.0040 0.0002 0.0007 0.0005 0.0023 0.0030 0.0025
Grand Canyon NP...................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.00004 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.0009 0.0012 0.0009
Mazatzal Wild........................................ 0.0032 0.0025 0.0028 0.0003 0.0008 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0008
Mesa Verde NP........................................ 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0015 0.0015 0.0011 0.0018 0.0022 0.0017
Mount Baldy Wild..................................... 0.0072 0.0069 0.0070 0.0033 0.0024 0.0017 0.0039 0.0042 0.0035
Petrified Forest NP.................................. 0.0021 0.0021 0.0020 0.0027 0.0034 0.0031 0.0078 0.0080 0.0068
Pine Mountain Wild................................... 0.0023 0.0021 0.0023 0.0002 0.0007 0.0004 0.0008 0.0011 0.0009
Saguro NP............................................ 0.0004 0.0010 0.0007 0.0002 0.0003 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0004
San Pedro Parks Wild................................. 0.0023 0.0022 0.0021 0.0040 0.0031 0.0025 0.0024 0.0032 0.0026
Sierra Ancha \a\ Wild................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.0015 0.0017 0.0014
Superstition Wild.................................... 0.0058 0.0067 0.0060 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0012 0.0015 0.0013
Sycamore Canyon Wild................................. 0.0003 0.0008 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0006 0.0007 0.0013 0.0009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ The IMPROVE visibility database has missing data for some key dates, so best and worst 20 percent of days could not be estimated for the Sierra
Ancha area.
Table 7--Minimum Delta Deciview Differences Among Affected Class I Areas Between Interim Strategy and Baseline at Class I Areas (Baseline--Interim
Strategy) a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average best 20% days Average worst 20% days Annual average
Interim operating strategy -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Absolute (dv) Relative (%) Absolute (dv) Relative (%) Absolute (dv) Relative (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS2..................................................... 0.00002 3.65 0.0001 7.30 0.0004 13.75
IS3..................................................... 0.00010 11.55 0.0003 13.67 0.0006 18.73
IS4..................................................... 0.00004 6.06 0.0002 9.86 0.0004 15.36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Table 2. The selection of the Class I area with the minimum value (least incremental benefit from the
Alternative Strategy compared to BART) was based on the absolute deciview levels. The relative difference for that Class I area is shown for
informational purposes also.
For the second prong of the modeling test, Ramboll Environ computed
the difference between the delta deciviews for each Interim Strategy
option and the delta deciviews for the Coronado BART Control Strategy.
Ramboll Environ then compared the average differences between the
Coronado BART Control Strategy and the Interim Strategy over all
affected Class I areas to ensure that there is an overall improvement
in visibility. Based on these modeling results, as shown in Table 8,
ADEQ concluded that the Interim Strategy also meets this prong, as
these results indicate that the Interim Strategy would result in
improved visibility, on average, across all Class I Areas, compared
with the Coronado BART Control Strategy on the worst and best 20
percent of days.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ Although not required under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), SRP and
ADEQ included annual average modeling results, which also show a
greater improvement in visibility on average across all affected
Class I areas under the Interim Strategy.
Table 8--Prong 2 Test--Delta Deciview Differences of Visibility Conditions Between Coronado BART Control Strategy and Interim Strategy
[BART-Interim Strategy] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average best 20% days Average worst 20% days Annual average
Class I area --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS2 IS3 IS4 IS2 IS3 IS4 IS2 IS3 IS4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bandalier NM......................................... 0.0009 0.0009 0.0008 0.0011 0.0018 0.0011 -0.0001 0.0005 0.0001
Bosque............................................... 0.0001 0.0005 0.0003 0.0001 0.0006 0.0004 -0.0003 0.0004 -0.0001
Chiricahua NM........................................ -0.0011 -0.0007 -0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 -0.0002 0.0001 -0.0001
Chiricahua Wild...................................... -0.0011 -0.0006 -0.0009 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001 -0.0002 0.0002 -0.0001
Galiuro Wild......................................... 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 -0.0001 0.0002 0.0000 -0.0001 0.0002 0.0000
Gila Wild............................................ 0.0009 0.0013 0.0009 -0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 -0.0004 0.0003 -0.0002
Grand Canyon NP...................................... -0.0001 -0.0001 -0.0001 -0.0003 0.0000 -0.0001 0.0003 0.0007 0.0004
Mazatzal Wild........................................ -0.0009 -0.0015 -0.0012 -0.0004 0.0002 -0.0001 -0.0001 0.0001 -0.0001
Mesa Verde NP........................................ 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 0.0008 0.0008 0.0003 0.0011 0.0016 0.0010
Mount Baldy Wild..................................... 0.0034 0.0030 0.0032 -0.0003 -0.0012 -0.0018 -0.0012 -0.0008 -0.0016
Petrified Forest NP.................................. 0.0015 0.0015 0.0013 -0.0004 0.0004 0.0000 0.0018 0.0020 0.0008
Pine Mountain Wild................................... -0.0007 -0.0009 -0.0007 0.0000 0.0004 0.0002 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001
Saguro NP............................................ -0.0003 0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0002 0.0001 0.0000 0.0003 0.0001
[[Page 19341]]
San Pedro Parks Wild................................. 0.0003 0.0002 0.0002 0.0013 0.0004 -0.0002 -0.0003 0.0005 -0.0001
Sierra Ancha Wild \b\................................ ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 0.0003 0.0005 0.0002
Superstition Wild.................................... 0.0018 0.0027 0.0020 -0.0001 -0.0001 -0.0003 0.0003 0.0006 0.0003
Sycamore Canyon Wild................................. -0.0013 -0.0008 -0.0012 0.0001 0.0003 0.0001 0.0002 0.0007 0.0004
Average.......................................... 0.0002 0.0004 0.0003 0.0001 0.0003 0.00001 0.0001 0.0005 0.0001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Coronado SIP Revision TSD Table 18.
\b\ The IMPROVE visibility database has missing data for some key dates, so best and worst 20% of days could not be estimated for the Sierra Ancha area.
We have reviewed the modeling analysis performed by Ramboll Environ
and submitted by ADEQ and find that it supports ADEQ's determination
that the Interim Strategy would achieve greater reasonable progress
than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). In particular, we have evaluated
the Coronado modeling to confirm that, even though the numerical
differences between the scenarios under the two-prong test are small,
the results represent real visibility differences and not just the
result of numerical artifacts or ``noise'' in the model results. As
noted above, the modeling used the CAMx PSAT Probing Tool to track
concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, and other chemical species in
order to separate out visibility impacts due to Coronado from those of
other modeled sources. This PSAT-based approach helps to avoids
numerical artifacts in the model results, as compared to the simple
subtraction approach, and thus provides assurance that the relatively
small numerical values in the modeled differences represent real
visibility differences.
In response to a request from the EPA, ADEQ submitted an additional
analysis performed by Ramboll Environ to demonstrate that the modeled
numerical differences represent real visibility improvements and are
not just numerical artifacts.\40\ This analysis presented spatial plots
of the modeled numerical differences in delta deciviews, for days on
which Coronado had the highest delta-deciview impacts at Superstition
Wilderness and Mount Baldy Wilderness, the Class I areas for which
Coronado had the highest delta deciview impacts on the best and worst
20 percent of days, respectively. There were plots for deciviews
computed using all pollutant species, with separate plots for sulfate
and nitrate individually, the chemical products of SO2 and
NOX precursor emissions, respectively. The plots display
differences for each grid square of the modeling domain, color-coded by
the magnitude of the delta deciview difference. If the differences
between the modeled control scenarios were merely numerical artifacts
or ``noise,'' they would manifest as random dots of different colors on
these plots. Instead, the plots show smoothly changing areas of color,
as would be expected in the real atmosphere as conditions vary
continuously over the area. In most cases there is a clearly
distuiguishable ``plume'' from Coronado, representing the improvement
from the Interim Strategy relative to the Coronado BART Control
Strategy at locations where Coronado has an impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Coronado SIP Revision, Appendix D.5 Responsiveness Summary,
Appendix A: Memorandum SRP Submitted to ADEQ Regarding Numerical
Noise Issues Associated with CAMx Modeling: ``To address the EPA
comment regarding whether the CGS Better-than-BART CAMx analysis is
influenced by numerical `noise', Memorandum from Lynsey Parker and
Ralph Morris, Ramboll Environ, September 22, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only plot that shows numerical noise is for a day when an
Interim Strategy option and the Coronado BART Control Strategy had the
same emissions. For such days, modeled differences would be expected to
be zero, except for the effect of numerical noise. This one plot shows
some random variation in color in some locations, and also shows that
the range of variation is very small, one millionth (10-6)
of a deciview or less, which suggests that the maximum numerical
artifact is approximately 10-6 dv. The smallest deciview
difference seen in the prong 2 test was 0.00001 (10-5)
dv,\41\ which is ten times as large as the estimated 10-6 dv
maximum numerical artifact. This analysis provides additional evidence
that the two test prong results are not just the result of model
``noise,'' but rather indicate actual visibility improvement under the
Interim Strategy compared to the Coronado BART Control Strategy and no
degradation relative to Baseline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See Table 8, average across all Class I areas for average
worst 20% days under IS4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also note that the modeling demonstration was done with a higher
emission rate for SO2 for both Units 1 and 2 for scenario
IS2 and without the facility-wide SO2 emissions cap that was
included in the final SIP revision. When these restrictions on
SO2 emissions are considered, they will result in additional
improvements in visibility under the Interim Strategy, as compared with
the modeling results.
Finally, we note that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) does not specify a
minimum delta deciview difference between the modeled scenarios that
must be achieved in order for a BART alternative to be deemed to
achieve greater reasonable progress than BART. Rather, it allows for a
straight numerical test, regardless of the magnitude of the computed
differences. Accordingly, given that the modeling results submitted by
ADEQ show that the Interim Strategy will result in improved visibility
at all affected Class I areas compared with 2014 Baseline Emissions
(prong 1) and will result in improved visibility, on average, across
all Class I areas, compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy
(prong 2), we propose to find that ADEQ has demonstrated that the
Interim Strategy will achieve greater reasonable progress than BART
under the two-prong modeling test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
ii. BART Alternative Final Strategy
With respect to the Final Strategy, ADEQ did not conduct modeling
but did provide a summary of expected emissions under the Final
Strategy, as compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy, as shown
in Table 9. ADEQ explained that emissions of NOX and
PM10 would be equivalent under the SCR Option and the
Coronado BART Control Strategy, but emissions of SO2 would
be lower under the Final Strategy than under the Coronado BART Control
Strategy. \42\ The Shutdown Option would result in greater emission
reductions for all three visibility-impairing pollutants (i.e.,
SO2, NOX,
[[Page 19342]]
and PM) compared with the Coronado BART Control Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Addendum to the Coronado SIP Revision, page 5, section
3.1.2.
Table 9--Estimated Emissions for NOX, PM, and SO2 Under the Coronado BART Control Strategy and the Final Strategy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Combined Combined
Scenario Unit Annual emissions of Annual emissions of Annual emissions of
emissions unit 1 and emissions unit 1 and emissions unit 1 and
(tpy) unit 2 (tpy) (tpy) unit 2 (tpy) (tpy) unit 2 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coronado BART Control Strategy.... Unit 1.............. 1,285 2,651 1,044 2,410 482 994
Unit 2.............. 1,366 1,366 512
Final Strategy--SCR............... Unit 1.............. 964 \a\ 1,970 1,044 2,410 482 994
Unit 2.............. 1,025 1,366 512
Final Strategy--Shutdown.......... Unit 1.............. 0 \a\ 1,080 0 1,366 0 512
Unit 2.............. 1,025 1,366 512
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ annual emission cap.
The emission reductions associated with the Final Strategy will
occur after 2018, which, as explained below, is the deadline for
achieving all necessary emissions reduction under a BART alternative.
Therefore, the Final Strategy by itself clearly would not meet the
requirements for a BART alternative. Nevertheless, in order to ensure
that the Coronado BART Alternative as a whole will result in greater
reasonable progress than BART, we have considered whether the Final
Strategy, once it is implemented, will provide for ongoing visibility
improvement, as compared with the BART Control Strategy. In particular,
we have evaluated whether the Final Strategy meets both criteria of the
greater-emissions-reduction test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), i.e., that
the distribution of emissions under the alternative measure is not
substantially different than under BART and that the alternative
measure results in greater emission reductions than BART. Because all
emissions under both the Coronado BART Control Strategy and the Final
Strategy are from Coronado, it is clear that the distribution of
emissions is not substantially different under the two strategies.
Furthermore, because both the SCR Option and the Shutdown Option would
provide for an aggregate reduction in visibility-impairing pollutants
and no increases in any single pollutant, as compared with the Coronado
BART Control Strategy, we conclude that the Final Strategy will result
in greater emission reductions than the Coronado BART Control Strategy.
Therefore, we propose to find that implementation of the Final Strategy
will ensure that the Coronado BART Alternative will continue to achieve
greater reasonable progress than the BART Control Strategy after 2025.
In summary, we propose to find that ADEQ has demonstrated that the
Interim Strategy will achieve greater reasonable progress than the
Coronado BART Control Strategy through 2025 and that the Final Strategy
will ensure greater reasonable progress after 2025. Therefore, we
propose to find that ADEQ properly determined under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) that the Coronado BART Alternative will achieve
greater reasonable progress than would be achieved through the
installation and operation of BART at Coronado.
2. Requirement that all necessary emission reductions take place
during period of first long-term strategy.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), the State must ensure that
all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the
first long-term strategy for regional haze, i.e., by December 31, 2018.
The Regional Haze Rule further provides that, to meet this requirement,
the State must provide a detailed description of the alternative
measure, including schedules for implementation, the emission
reductions required by the program, all necessary administrative and
technical procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting
and monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the Coronado SIP Revision incorporates the Coronado
Permit Revision, which includes conditions implementing both the
Interim and Final Strategies. In addition to the emission limitations
for NOX, PM10, and SO2 listed in Table
1 above, the Coronado Permit Revision includes compliance dates,
operation and maintenance requirements, and monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements.
The compliance date for the Interim Strategy in the Coronado Permit
Revision is December 5, 2017. Accordingly, the Coronado SIP Revision
ensures that all emission reductions associated with the Interim
Strategy will occur by December 31, 2018 and, as explained before,
those emissions reductions by themselves are sufficient to ensure
greater reasonable progress under the two-prong modeling test under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3). While the compliance dates for the Final Strategy in
the Coronado Permit Revision are later than December 31, 2018, the
Final Strategy and its associated emission reductions are not necessary
to demonstrate that the Coronado BART Alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress than BART during the period of the first long-term
strategy. Rather, as stated before, the Final Strategy and its
associated emissions reductions will ensure that the Coronado BART
Alternative will continue to achieve greater reasonable progress than
the BART Control Strategy after 2025. Therefore, we propose to find
that the Coronado SIP Revision will ensure that all necessary emission
reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy
and therefore meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
3. Demonstration that emissions reductions from alternative measure
will be surplus.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that
the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The
baseline date for regional haze
[[Page 19343]]
SIPs is 2002.\44\ As noted by ADEQ, all of the emission reductions
required by the Coronado BART Alternative are surplus to reductions
resulting from measures applicable to Coronado as of 2002.\45\
Therefore, we propose to find that the Coronado BART Alternative
complies with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 8, 2002.
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20021118_wegman_2002_base_year_emission_sip_planning.pdf.
\45\ Id., page 9, section 2.3.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, we propose to find that the Coronado BART Alternative meets
all of the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
C. The EPA's Evaluation of Other Applicable Requirements
1. Enforceable Emission Limits
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable
emissions limitations as necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of the CAA. In order to be considered
enforceable, emission limits must include associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. In addition, the CAA and the
EPA's implementing regulations expressly require SIPs to include
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for applicable emissions limitations.\46\ We have reviewed
the Coronado Permit Revision and found that it includes the appropriate
NOX, SO2, and PM10 emission limits for
the BART Alternative, as well as the associated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.\47\ Therefore, we propose to
find that the Coronado SIP Revision meets the requirements of the CAA
and the EPA's implementing regulations for enforceable emission
limitations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See, e.g., CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 51.212(c).
\47\ The spreadsheet titled ``FIP Requirement comparison.xlsx''
in the docket for this action compares the requirements for Coronado
in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP and the parallel requirements in
the Coronado Permit Revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Non-Interference With Applicable Requirements
The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall
not be approved by the Administrator if the revision would interfere
with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable
further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the
CAA.\48\ The EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), for six common
pollutants: PM, ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), SO2, nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb). Using a process that considers
air quality data and other factors, the EPA designates an area as
``nonattainment'' if the area does not meet the NAAQS or contributes to
violations of a NAAQS in a nearby area. RFP, as defined in section 171
of the CAA, is related to attainment of the NAAQS and means annual
incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant(s)
for the purpose of ensuring timely attainment of the applicable NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coronado SIP Revision includes a demonstration of ``non-
interference'' under CAA section 110(l).\49\ In particular, ADEQ
considered whether the Coronado SIP Revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment or RFP, or any other
applicable requirement of the CAA. A summary of ADEQ's analysis and our
evaluation of that analysis follows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016) pages 10-15 and
Addendum pages 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Demonstration of Non-Interference With NAAQS Attainment and RFP
Requirements
ADEQ noted that Coronado is located near St. Johns, Arizona in
Apache County, which is designated as ``in attainment,''
``unclassifiable/attainment,'' or ``unclassifiable'' for the following
NAAQS: CO, Pb, NO2, ozone (2008 NAAQS), PM2.5
(1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS), PM10, and SO2 (1971
NAAQS). ADEQ also noted that it has recommended an attainment/
unclassifiable designation for this area for the 2010 SO2
NAAQS, but the area has not yet been designated. The state has also
recommended an attainment/unclassifiable designation as part of the
ongoing designations process for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but the area
does not have a final designation.\50\ ADEQ's demonstration of non-
interference with attainment focused on the NAAQS for PM2.5,
PM10, SO2, NO2, and ozone because
ambient levels of these pollutants are affected by emissions of
PM10, SO2, and/or NOX, which are the
pollutants of concern from Coronado.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Coronado SIP Revision (July 19, 2016), Table 5, page 12.
ADEQ has also recommended that Apache County be designated as
attainment/unclassifiable for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See Letter from
Douglas Ducey, Arizona, to Alexis Strauss, EPA (September 27, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With repect to the PM2.5 and PM10 NAAQS, ADEQ
noted that the curtailment periods under the Interim Strategy would
result in additional PM2.5 and PM10 reductions
beyond those currently required in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. With
respect to the Final Strategy, ADEQ explained that, while the Shutdown
Option would significantly reduce facility-wide PM emissions compared
to the Coronado BART Control Strategy, the SCR Option would result in
increases in emissions of sulfuric acid mist
(H2SO4) and thus emissions of PM10 and
primary PM2.5 once the SCR is installed. Nonetheless, citing
the TSD for the Coronado Permit Revision, ADEQ explained that ``the
dispersion modeling analysis indicates that these emissions increases
will comply with the NAAQS for PM10 and PM2.5''
and that ``both options would achieve significant emission reductions
of SO2 and NOX . . . , which is an effective
strategy for reducing secondary PM2.5 formation.'' Given
that no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs rely on emission reductions
at Coronado to ensure continued attainment of the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS, ADEQ concluded that the Coronado BART
Alternative will not result in any interference with attainment or
maintenance of the PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS or with
RFP requirements for these NAAQS.
We concur with ADEQ's demonstration of non-interference with the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS attainment, maintenance, and
RFP requirements. The area where Coronado is located is designated
unclassifiable/attainment or unclassifiable for each of the
PM10 and PM2.5 NAAQS, so there are no
nonattainment or maintenance SIPs or FIPs that rely on emission
reductions at Coronado to ensure attainment of the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS. Under the Interim Strategy and the Shutdown
Option of the Final Strategy, the Coronado BART Alternative will result
in greater reductions of PM10 and PM2.5 than
would otherwise be required under the applicable implementation plan
for Arizona (including both the PM10 emission limits for
Coronado in the approved Arizona Regional Haze SIP and the associated
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP). While the SCR Option under the Final Strategy would
allow for a small increase (compared to existing SIP and FIP
requirements) in emissions of PM10 and primary
PM2.5 when the SCR is installed, we find that ADEQ has
demonstrated that these increases will not result in any interference
with attainment or maintenance of the PM10 and
PM2.5 NAAQS or with RFP requirements for these NAAQS.
With respect to the SO2 NAAQS, ADEQ determined that all
options under
[[Page 19344]]
the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy would result in
SO2 emissions that are equal to or lower than allowed under
the Arizona Regional Haze SIP. Given that no nonattainment or
maintenance SIPs rely on emission reductions at Coronado to ensure
continued attainment of the SO2 NAAQS, ADEQ concluded that
the Coronado BART Alternative will not result in any interference with
attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS or with RFP
requirements.
We concur with ADEQ's demonstration of non-interference with the
SO2 NAAQS attainment, maintenance, and RFP requirements. The
area where Coronado is located has not yet been designated under the
2010 SO2 NAAQS, so there are no nonattainment or maintenance
SIPs or FIPs that rely on emission reductions at Coronado to ensure
attainment of the SO2 NAAQS. Furthermore, during both the
Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy, implementation of the Coronado
BART Alternative will result in greater SO2 reductions than
would otherwise be required under the applicable implementation plan
for Arizona (including both the SO2 emission limits for
Coronado in the approved Arizona Regional Haze SIP and the associated
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP). Therefore, it is clear that the implementation of
the Coronado BART Alternative will not result in any interference with
attainment or maintenance of the SO2 NAAQS or with RFP
requirements for the SO2 NAAQS.
With respect to the NO2 and ozone NAAQS, ADEQ noted that
both the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy would require
additional NOX reductions beyond those required in the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP, but that the Interim Strategy would require
fewer NOX reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.
Nonetheless, ADEQ explained that Apache County does not rely on the
Arizona Regional Haze FIP to ensure continued attainment of the
NO2 and ozone NAAQS or to meet any RFP requirements and that
facility-wide emissions of NOX at Coronado will continue to
be reduced under the Coronado BART Alternative compared to current
levels. Therefore, ADEQ concluded that the BART Alternative will not
result in any interference with attainment or maintenance of the
NO2 or ozone NAAQS or with RFP requirements for these NAAQS.
We concur with ADEQ's demonstration of non-interference with the
NO2 and ozone NAAQS attainment, maintenance, and RFP
requirements. Coronado is located in an area that is designated
unclassifiable/attainment for the NO2 NAAQS and the 2008
ozone NAAQS and has not yet been designated for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,
so there are no nonattainment or maintenance SIPs or FIPs that rely on
emission limitations at Coronado to satisfy any attainment or RFP
requirements for ozone or NO2. Acordingly, while the
Coronado SIP Revision requires fewer NOX reductions than the
Arizona Regional Haze FIP between December 5, 2017 and December 31,
2025, these additional reductions are not necessary for purposes of
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or for RFP.
In summary, because the Coronado SIP Revision will require
equivalent or lower emissions of NOX, PM and SO2
for all future years, compared to the emission levels currently allowed
under the applicable implementation plan (including both the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP and the Arizona Regional Haze FIP), in an area that
is designated in attainment, unclassifiable/attainment, or
unclassifiable, or has not yet been designated for all NAAQS, we
propose to find that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interfere with
any applicable requirements concerning attainment or RFP.
b. Demonstration of Non-Interference With Other CAA Requirements
ADEQ explained that the following ``other applicable requirements''
are potentially relevant to the Coronado SIP Revision:
Regional Haze under sections 169A and 169B of the CAA
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) for Air Toxics
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
With respect to PSD, ADEQ referred to the TSD for the Coronado
Permit Revision,\51\ which provides ADEQ's best available control
technology determination for H2SO4,
PM10, and PM2.5, as well as NAAQS and PSD
increment modeling for PM10 and PM2.5. We concur
with ADEQ that the documentation for the Coronado Permit Revision
establishes that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interefere with
the PSD requirements of the CAA. Furthermore, implementation of the
Coronado BART Alternative would not affect compliance with the
applicable MACT or NSPS requirements. Therefore, we propose to find
that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interfere with these
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Coronado Permit Revision, Appendix C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to Regional Haze requirements, ADEQ noted that during
implementation of both the Interim Strategy and the Final Strategy, the
Coronado BART Alternative will result in greater reasonable progress
towards natural visibility conditions than the Coronado BART Control
Strategy. For the reasons explained above, we agree that ADEQ has
demonstrated that the Coronado BART Alternative would result in greater
reasonable progress than the Coronado BART Control Strategy. Therefore,
we propose to find that the Coronado SIP Revision would not interfere
with the visibility protection requirements of the CAA.
Finally, although not expressly addressed by the State in its
submittal, we have considered whether the curtailment requirements
under the Interim Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision would
interefere with the requirements of CAA section 123 concerning
dispersion techniques. Section 123 provides that the degree of emission
limitation required by a SIP may not be affected by ``any other
dispersion technique,'' which is defined to include ``intermittent or
supplemental control of air pollutants varying with atmospheric
conditions.'' \52\ The EPA's implementing regulations for CAA section
123 define ``intermittent control system'' as ``a dispersion technique
which varies the rate at which pollutants are emitted to the atmosphere
according to meteorological conditions and/or ambient concentrations of
the pollutant, in order to prevent ground-level concentrations in
excess of applicable ambient air quality standards.'' \53\ The
curtailment periods in the Interim Strategy do not allow for varied
emission rates according to meteorological conditions and/or ambient
concentrations of the pollutant. Rather, the curtailment period for
each year is selected based on recent and expected emission control
performance, regardless of meteorological conditions and ambient
pollutant concentrations. In addition, the curtailment periods are not
intended to prevent violations of ambient air quality standards.
Therefore, we propose to find the curtailment requirements comply with
CAA Section 123.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 42 U.S.C. 7423(a) and (b).
\53\ 40 CFR 51.100(nn).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we propose to find that that the Coronado SIP Revision
would not interfere with any applicable requirements of the CAA.
[[Page 19345]]
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
For the reasons described above, the EPA proposes to approve the
Coronado SIP Revision into the Arizona SIP. Because this approval would
fill the gap in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP left by the EPA's prior
partial disapproval with respect to Coronado, we also propose to
withdraw the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that apply to
Coronado. Finally, we are proposing revisions to 40 CFR part 52 to
codify the removal of those portions of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP
that have either been superseded by previously approved revisions to
the Arizona SIP or would be superseded by final approval of the
Coronado SIP Revision.
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
As explained above, the Coronado SIP Revision will result in
reduced emissions of both SO2 and PM10 compared
to the existing Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP requirements. While
the Coronado SIP Revision will result in fewer NOX
reductions than the Arizona Regional Haze FIP would have required
between 2018 and 2025, it will ensure that NOX emissions
remain at or below current levels until 2025, after which it will
require NOX emissions reductions equivalent to or greater
than would have been required under the Arizona Regional Haze FIP.
Furthermore, Coronado is located in area that is designated attainment,
unclassifiable/attainment, or unclassifiable, or has not yet been
designated for each of the current NAAQS. Therefore, the EPA believes
that this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income,
or indigenous populations.
VI. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the state permit provisions described in the proposed
amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, this document available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA,
94105-3901.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. This rule applies to only a single facility and is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. This rule applies to only a single facility. Therefore, its
recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a ``collection
of information'' as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms
primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution
of electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the
total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4
million megawatt hours. The owner of facility affected by this rule,
SRP, exceeds this threshold.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on
any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. The EPA is
not revising any technical standards or imposing any new technical
standards in this action.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
documentation for this decision is contained in section V above.
K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), the EPA proposes to determine
that this action is subject to the provisions of section 307(d).
Section 307(d) establishes procedural requirements specific to certain
rulemaking actions under the CAA. Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B),
the withdrawal of the provisions of the Arizona Regional Haze FIP that
apply to Coronado is subject to the requirements of CAA section 307(d),
as it constitutes a revision to a FIP under CAA section 110(c).
Furthermore, CAA section
[[Page 19346]]
307(d)(1)(V) provides that the provisions of section 307(d) apply to
``such other actions as the Administrator may determine.'' The EPA
proposes that the provisions of 307(d) apply to the EPA's action on the
Coronado SIP revision.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 20, 2017.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the EPA proposes to
amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by:
0
a. Adding in paragraph (d), under the table heading ``EPA-Approved
Source-Specific Requirements'' an entry for ``Coronado Generating
Station'' after the entry for ``Cholla Power Plant;''
0
b. Adding in paragraph (e), under the table heading ``Table 1-EPA-
Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures'' an entry for
``Arizona State Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional
Haze Plan for the Salt River Project Coronado Generating Station,
excluding Appendix B'' after the entry for ``Arizona State
Implementation Plan Revision to the Arizona Regional Haze Plan for
Arizona Public Service Cholla Generating Station''.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
EPA-Approved Source Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of source Order/permit No. Effective date EPA approval date Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Coronado Generating Station.... Permit #64169 (as December 14, 2016 [Insert date of Permit issued by
amended by publication of Arizona
Significant Revision final rule], Department of
#63088) Cover Page [insert Federal Environmental
and Attachment ``E'': Register Quality.
BART Alternatives. citation of Submitted on
final rule]. December 15,
2016.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
Table 1--EPA-Approved Non-Regulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Measures
[Excluding certain resolutions and statutes, which are listed in tables 2 and 3, respectively] \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
geographic or
Name of SIP provision nonattainment State submittal EPA approval date Explanation
area or title/ date
subject
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Arizona Air Pollution Control Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements (Excluding Part D Elements and Plans)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Arizona State Implementation Source-Specific... December 15, 2016. [Insert date of BART Alternative
Plan Revision to the Arizona publication of for Coronado
Regional Haze Plan for the Salt final rule], Generating
River Project Coronado [Insert Federal Station adopted
Generating Station, excluding Register citation December 14,
Appendix B. of final rule]. 2016.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Table 1 is divided into three parts: Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2) State Implementation Plan Elements
(excluding Part D Elements and Plans), Part D Elements and Plans (other than for the Metropolitan Phoenix or
Tucson Areas), and Part D Elements and Plans for the Metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson Areas.
[[Page 19347]]
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.145 is amended by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1).
0
b. Removing paragraphs (e)(2)(iii) through (vi).
0
c. Removing and reserving paragraph (f).
[FR Doc. 2017-08543 Filed 4-26-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
