Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 18248-18255 [2018-08623]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
18248
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
TABLE 3—LIST OF COLORADO AMEND- implications as specified in Executive
MENTS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
APPROVE
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
Amended Sections in May 26, 2017
safety risks subject to Executive Order
Submittal Proposed for Approval
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
Regulation Number 3, Part F: VI.A.2 (table);
VI.A.3; VI.A.4; VI.B.2 (table); VI.B.3;
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
VI.B.4; VI.D; VI.E.
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
VII. Incorporation by Reference
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
application of those requirements would
text that includes incorporation by
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
reference. In accordance with
and
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
• Does not provide the EPA with the
proposing to incorporate by reference
discretionary authority to address, as
the amendments described in section
appropriate, disproportionate human
VI. The EPA has made, and will
health or environmental effects, using
continue to make, these materials
practicable and legally permissible
generally available through
methods, under Executive Order 12898
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Region 8 Office (please contact the
In addition, the SIP is not proposed to
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
apply on any Indian reservation land or
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
in any other area where the EPA or an
preamble for more information).
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Reviews
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
substantial direct costs on tribal
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
Act and applicable federal regulations.
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
Environmental protection, Air
provided that they meet the criteria of
pollution control, Incorporation by
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
meeting federal requirements and does
Sulfur oxides.
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
that reason, this proposed action:
Dated: April 16, 2018.
• Is not a significant regulatory action
Debra Thomas,
subject to review by the Office of
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
Management and Budget under
[FR Doc. 2018–08622 Filed 4–25–18; 8:45 am]
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
AGENCY
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
40 CFR Part 52
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0406; FRL–9976–
56—Region 8]
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Approval and Promulgation of Air
• Is certified as not having a
Quality Implementation Plans; North
significant economic impact on a
Dakota; Regional Haze State
substantial number of small entities
Implementation Plan
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
• Does not contain any unfunded
Agency (EPA).
mandate or significantly or uniquely
ACTION: Proposed rule.
affect small governments, as described
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
requirements for Craig Unit 1 and
Nucla, respectively.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
certain portions of a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to
address regional haze submitted by the
Governor of North Dakota on March 3,
2010, along with SIP Supplement No. 1
submitted on July 27, 2010, SIP
Amendment No. 1 submitted on July 28,
2011 and SIP Supplement No. 2
submitted on January 2, 2013
(collectively, ‘‘the Regional Haze SIP’’).
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the nitrogen oxides (NOX) Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination for Coal Creek Station
included in SIP Supplement No. 2. Coal
Creek Station is owned and operated by
Great River Energy (GRE) and is located
near Underwood, North Dakota. This
Regional Haze SIP was submitted to
address the requirements of the Clean
Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) and our
rules that require states to develop and
implement air quality protection plans
to reduce visibility impairment in
mandatory Class I areas caused by
emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide
geographic area (also referred to as the
‘‘regional haze program’’). States are
required to assure reasonable progress
toward the national goal of achieving
natural visibility conditions in Class I
areas. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
SUMMARY:
Written comments must be
received on or before May 29, 2018.
DATES:
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2010–0406 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to the
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information,
the disclosure of which 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, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aaron Worstell, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6073,
worstell.aaron@epa.gov.
I. Background
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
In CAA section 169A, added in the
1977 Amendments to the Act, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes ‘‘as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ 1 On
December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated
regulations to address visibility
impairment in Class I areas that is
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources,
otherwise known as reasonably
attributable visibility impairment.2
These regulations represented the first
phase in addressing visibility
impairment. The EPA deferred action on
regional haze that emanates from a
variety of sources until monitoring,
modeling, and scientific knowledge
about the relationships between
pollutants and visibility impairment
were improved.
Congress added section 169B to the
CAA in 1990 to address regional haze
issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999.3
The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised
the existing visibility regulations to
integrate provisions addressing regional
1 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). 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). In accordance
with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list
of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979).
The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas
which they consider to have visibility as an
important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply
only to ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each
mandatory Class I Federal area is the responsibility
of a ‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this section,
we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
2 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) (codified at 40
CFR part 51, subpart P).
3 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) (amending 40 CFR
part 51, subpart P).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
haze and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for regional
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA’s
visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300–51.309. The EPA revised
the RHR on January 10, 2017.4
The CAA requires each state to
develop a SIP to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility.5 Regional haze SIPs must
assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. A
state must submit its SIP and SIP
revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the
EPA and citizens under the CAA; that
is, the SIP is federally enforceable. If a
state fails to make a required SIP
submittal, or if we find that a state’s
required submittal is incomplete or not
approvable, then we must promulgate a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to fill
this regulatory gap, unless the state
corrects the deficiency.6
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs the
EPA to require 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 and the RHR
require states’ implementation plans to
contain such measures as may be
necessary to make reasonable progress
toward the natural visibility goal,
including a requirement that certain
categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977
procure, install, and operate the ‘‘Best
Available Retrofit Technology’’ as
determined by the states. Under the
RHR, states are directed to conduct
BART determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published
the Guidelines for BART Determinations
under the Regional Haze Rule (the
‘‘BART Guidelines’’) to assist states in
determining which sources should be
subject to the BART requirements and
the appropriate emission limits for each
covered source.7 The process of
establishing BART emission limitations
follows three steps: First, identify the
sources that meet the definition of
4 82
FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B, 42 U.S.C.
7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a).
6 CAA section 110(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
7 70 FR 39104; 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
5 CAA
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18249
‘‘BART-eligible source’’ set forth in 40
CFR 51.301; 8 second, determine which
of these sources ‘‘emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any impairment
of visibility in any such area’’ (a source
which fits this description is ‘‘subject to
BART’’); and third, for each source
subject to BART, identify the best
available type and level of control for
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(1)
of the CAA requires that states must
consider the following five factors in
making BART determinations: (1) The
costs of compliance; (2) the energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts
of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source;
(4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of
improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from
the use of such technology. States must
address all visibility-impairing
pollutants emitted by a source in the
BART determination process. The most
significant visibility impairing
pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
NOX, and particulate matter (PM).
A SIP addressing regional haze must
include source-specific BART emission
limits and compliance schedules for
each source subject to BART. 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’’).9 Once a state has made a BART
determination, the BART controls must
be installed and operated as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than 5 years after the date of the EPA’s
approval of the final SIP.10 In addition
to what is required by the RHR, general
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP
include all regulatory requirements
related to monitoring, recordkeeping
and reporting for the BART emission
limitations. See CAA section 110(a); 40
CFR part 51, subpart K.
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, as
mentioned previously, each regional
haze SIP must contain measures as
necessary to make reasonable progress
8 BART-eligible sources are those sources that
have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a
visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in
operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in
existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations
fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
9 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
10 CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(iv).
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
18250
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
towards the national visibility goals. As
part of determining what measures are
necessary to make reasonable progress,
the SIP must first identify
anthropogenic sources of visibility
impairment that are to be considered in
developing the long-term strategy for
addressing visibility impairment.11
States must then consider the four
statutory reasonable progress factors in
selecting control measures for inclusion
in the long-term strategy—the costs of
compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful
life of potentially affected sources.12
Finally, the SIP must establish
reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for
each Class I area within the state for the
plan implementation period (or
‘‘planning period’’), based on the
measures included in the long-term
strategy. If an RPG provides for a slower
rate of improvement in visibility than
the rate needed to attain the national
goal by 2064, the SIP must demonstrate,
based on the four reasonable progress
factors, why the rate to attain the
national goal by 2064 is not reasonable
and the RPG is reasonable.13
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP
revision.14 States must provide FLMs an
opportunity for in-person consultation
at least 60 days before holding any
public hearing on the SIP. This
consultation must include the
opportunity for the FLMs to discuss
their assessment of impairment of
visibility in any Class I area and to offer
recommendations on the development
of the RPGs and on the development
and implementation of strategies to
address visibility impairment. Further, a
state must include in its SIP a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
Finally, a SIP must provide procedures
for continuing consultation between the
state and FLMs regarding the
implementation of the state’s visibility
protection program, including
development and review of SIP
revisions, 5-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs
having the potential to contribute to
impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
11 40
CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
CAA section 169A(g)(1), 42 U.S.C.
7491(g)(1) (defining the reasonable progress factors);
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
13 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
14 40 CFR 51.308(i).
12 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the
North Dakota Regional Haze SIP
The Governor of North Dakota
originally submitted a Regional Haze
SIP to the EPA on March 3, 2010,
followed by SIP Supplement No. 1
submitted on July 27, 2010, and SIP
Amendment No. 1 submitted on July 28,
2011. The EPA initially acted on North
Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP on April 6,
2012.15 Among other things, the
Regional Haze SIP included a BART
emission limit for NOX for Units 1 and
2 at Coal Creek Station of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu averaged across the two units
(on a 30-day rolling average) 16,
represented by modified and additional
separated overfire air (SOFA), closecoupled overfire air (COFA), and low
NOX burners (LNB) (collectively
referred to as LNC3+).17 When
considering the next most stringent
control option, selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR; in addition to the
existing LNC3), North Dakota took into
account the potential for ammonia from
the SNCR to contaminate the fly ash,
which is a marketable product sold by
GRE. Ultimately, the State concluded
that ‘‘[b]ecause of the potential for lost
sales of fly ash, the negative
environmental effects of having to
dispose of the fly ash instead of
recycling it into concrete, and the very
small amount of visibility improvement
from the use of SNCR, this option is
rejected as BART.’’ 18 The State’s
Regional Haze SIP was submitted to
meet the requirements of the regional
haze program for the first planning
period of 2008 through 2018.
During our previous review of North
Dakota’s NOX BART analysis for Coal
Creek Station in 2012, the EPA
identified an error in the costs
associated with lost fly ash sales.19 At
our request, and after submitting the
Regional Haze SIP in 2010, North
Dakota obtained additional supporting
information from GRE for lost fly ash
revenue and for the potential cost of fly
ash ammonia mitigation. The
supporting information included an
updated cost analysis from GRE noting
that the correct sales price for fly ash
was $5/ton instead of $36/ton. The
15 77
FR 20894.
16 Throughout,
30-day rolling average emission
limits are based on boiler operating days.
17 In the 2013 SIP supplement, modified and
additional SOFA, COFA, and LNB are referred to
as LNC3+. Hereinafter in this proposed rule, this
combination of controls will also be referred to as
LNC3+. By contrast, the existing controls, SOFA
(unmodified), COFA, and LNB are referred to as
LNC3.
18 Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D.2, BART
Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and
2, 12/1/2009, p. 20.
19 76 FR 58603; 77 FR 20921.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
updated analysis included corrected fly
ash revenue data and ammonia
mitigation costs. That analysis, dated
June 16, 2011, indicated that the cost
effectiveness for SNCR at Coal Creek
Station Units 1 and 2 would be $2,318/
ton of NOX emissions reductions rather
than the original estimate of $8,551/ton.
Because the State’s cost of compliance
analysis was based upon fundamentally
flawed and greatly inflated cost
estimates regarding lost fly ash revenue,
we concluded that the SIP submittal
failed to properly consider the cost of
compliance in any meaningful sense as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
We also concluded that GRE could
avoid contaminating the fly ash by
proper management of the ammonia
injection rate; and thereby avoid losing
fly ash sales altogether. Therefore, we
disapproved the NOX BART
determination for the Coal Creek
Station.20
In the same action, we promulgated a
FIP that included a NOX BART emission
limit for Units 1 and 2 at the Coal Creek
Station of 0.13 lb/MMBtu averaged
across the two units (30-day rolling
average), which GRE could meet by
installing SNCR plus LNC3+.21 This
emission limit was based on the EPA’s
independent BART analysis, including
the updated costs of compliance.
Subsequently, several petitioners
challenged various aspects of the EPA’s
final rule in the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Pertinent to this proposal, the
State and GRE, the owner of the Coal
Creek Station, challenged the EPA’s
disapproval of the State’s determination
that LNC3+ with an emission limit of
0.17lb/MMBtu averaged across the two
units (30-day rolling average) is BART
for Coal Creek Station. These same
petitioners also challenged the EPA’s
determination that SNCR plus LNC3+
with an emission limit of 0.13lb/MMBtu
averaged across the two units (30-day
rolling average) is BART for the Coal
Creek Station.
On January 2, 2013, North Dakota
submitted Supplement No. 2 to the SIP,
which was primarily intended to correct
20 77
FR 20894 (Apr. 6, 2012).
FIP also included: A reasonable progress
determination and NOX emission limit for Antelope
Valley Station Units 1 and 2 of 0.17 lb/MMBtu that
applies singly to each of these units on a 30 -day
rolling average, and a requirement that the owner/
operator meet the limit as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than July 31, 2018;
monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting
requirements for the Coal Creek Station and
Antelope Valley Station units to ensure compliance
with the emission limitations; RPGs consistent with
the approved SIP emission limits approved and the
final FIP limits; and LTS elements that reflect the
other aspects of the finalized FIP. Please refer to the
EPA’s final FIP rule for further information on the
FIP requirements. 77 FR 20894 (Apr. 6, 2012).
21 The
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
18251
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the error in the costs of compliance for
SNCR plus LNC3+ related to lost fly ash
sales. SIP Supplement No. 2 includes a
revised five-factor BART evaluation for
Coal Creek Station that largely replaces
the five-factor evaluation contained in
the Regional Haze SIP that was
submitted in 2010 and 2011. SIP
Supplement No. 2 affirms the State’s
earlier BART determination of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu averaged across the two units
(30-day rolling average) to be met with
LNC3+. SIP Supplement No. 2 was
submitted after the EPA took final
action on the Regional Haze SIP in 2012,
and is the focus of this proposed rule.
On September 23, 2013, the Eighth
Circuit concluded that the EPA properly
disapproved portions of the State’s
Regional Haze SIP, including the State’s
NOX BART determination for the Coal
Creek Station.22 In particular, the court
ruled that the EPA’s role in reviewing
the State’s SIP was not merely
ministerial, and that the EPA acted
properly in disapproving the State’s
NOX BART determination for the Coal
Creek Station that was based on
erroneous costs of compliance.
However, the court vacated the EPA’s
FIP promulgating an emission limit of
0.13 lb/MMbtu (30-day rolling average),
holding that the EPA had failed to
consider existing pollution control
technology 23 in use at the Coal Creek
Station. More specifically, the court
found that the EPA’s refusal to consider
DryFiningTM as an existing pollution
control because it had been voluntarily
installed after the regional haze baseline
date was arbitrary and capricious.
DryFiningTM is an innovative
technology developed by GRE that
reduces moisture and refines lignite
coal, increasing the efficiency and
performance of the fuel while reducing
emissions.
II. Coal Creek Station—NOX BART
Determination
Coal Creek Station is a mine-mouth
electrical generating plant, consisting
primarily of two steam generators (each
with a 550 MW capacity) and associated
coal and ash handling systems. The
units are identical Combustion
Engineering boilers that tangentially fire
pulverized lignite coal. Since at least
1999, both units have been equipped
with the following combustion controls:
SOFA, COFA, and LNB. These
combustion controls are collectively
referred to as LNC3. In addition,
DryFiningTM was fully installed on both
units by mid-2010.
The State analyzed the impact of Coal
Creek on visibility in Class I areas, and
found that the source was subject to
BART requirements.24
A. North Dakota’s NOX BART
Determination
To address the EPA’s disapproval of
the NOX BART determination for Coal
Creek Station, North Dakota submitted
SIP Supplement No. 2 to the EPA on
January 2, 2013. Because the two Coal
Creek boilers are identical, the State
performed a single BART analysis that
is relevant to both units. The State’s
supplemental evaluation is provided in
Appendix B.2.1 of SIP Supplement No.
2. The supplemental evaluation is
informed by GRE’s refined BART
analysis of April 5, 2012, updated June
6, 2012, and found in Appendix C.2.1 of
SIP Supplement No. 2.
The State considered only LNC3+,
SNCR (with existing LNC3), and SNCR
plus LNC3+ as technically feasible
control options. Both the State and the
EPA have previously determined that
selective catalytic reduction and low
temperature oxidation are not required
as BART.25 In addition, because the
State found that ammonia slip from
SNCR has the potential to negatively
impact fly ash sales, it evaluated three
different scenarios for the SNCR and
SNCR plus LNC3+ control options: 0%
lost fly ash sales, 30% lost fly ash sales,
and 100% lost fly ash sales. The State
determined a control effectiveness for
LNC3+ of 23.9%, for SNCR of 24.9%
(with existing LNC3), and for SNCR plus
LNC3+ of 39.3%.
A summary of the State’s NOX BART
analysis is provided in Table 1. Note
that costs are provided in 2011 dollars.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF COAL CREEK NOX BART ANALYSIS FOR UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 BOILERS
Control
efficiency
(%)
Control option a
Annual
emission rate
(lb/MMBtu)
Annual
emission
reductions
(tons/yr)
Incremental
cost
effectiveness
($/ton) b
Cost
effectiveness
($/ton)
Visibility
benefit
(delta dv) c,d
SNCR plus LNC3+
100% Lost Fly Ash Sales ........................
30% Lost Fly Ash Sales ..........................
0% Lost Fly Ash Sales ............................
39.3
39.3
39.3
0.122
0.122
0.122
1,998
1,998
1,998
4,444
3,305
2,195
10,350
7,449
4,619
1.623
1.623
1.623
SNCR with existing LNC3
100% Lost Fly Ash Sales ........................
30% Lost Fly Ash Sales ..........................
0% Lost Fly Ash Sales ............................
24.9
24.9
24.9
0.151
0.151
0.151
1,265
1,265
1,265
7,194
5,396
3,643
163,471
118,863
75,373
1.529
1.529
1.529
LNC3+ ......................................................
23.9
0.153
1,214
629
NA
1.463
a DryFiningTM
is common to each of the control options.
incremental costs listed for SNCR plus LNC3+ are for between SNCR plus LNC3+ and LNC3+.
c The visibility modeling that GRE performed for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 included SO controls in addition to the noted NO control. Accord2
X
ingly, the modeling results summarized above reflect the chosen SO2 BART control, scrubber modifications, in addition to the noted NOX control
option. Thus, these values do not reflect the distinct visibility benefit from each NOX control option, but do provide the incremental benefit between the NOX control options.
d The visibility improvement described in this table represents the change in the maximum 98th percentile impact over the modeled 3-year meteorological period (2001–2003) at the highest impacted Class I area, Theodore Roosevelt, relative to a pre-controlled baseline. Refer to the
spreadsheet created by EPA titled ‘‘CALPUFF Modeling Results from GRE Supplemental Analysis of 4–5–2012.xlsx’’.
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
b The
22 North Dakota v. United States EPA, 730 F.3d
750 (8th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2662
(2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
23 Pursuant to Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA,
‘‘any existing pollution control technology in use at
the source’’ is one of the five factors that must be
considered when making a BART determination.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
24 Regional
25 Regional
Haze SIP, Section 7.3.1; 76 FR 58553.
Haze SIP, Appendix B.2; 76 FR
58622–23.
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
18252
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
The State considered each of the five
statutory BART factors when making its
NOX BART determination for Coal
Creek Station as described below.
Costs of Compliance
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
When the State began development of
its regional haze program in 2006, it
established costs of compliance
thresholds for both cost effectiveness
and incremental cost effectiveness
above which costs are considered
excessive.26 When adjusted to 2011
dollars, the threshold for cost
effectiveness is $4,100/ton, while the
threshold for incremental cost
effectiveness is $7,300/ton. The cost
effectiveness of LNC3+, $629/ton, is
very reasonable by this standard.27 The
State found that SNCR, with the existing
LNC3 combustion controls, is clearly an
inferior option to LNC3+ because this
control option presents only marginally
more control effectiveness at much
higher cost per ton values in
comparison to LNC3+. In addition, the
State found that the incremental cost
between these two options to be
excessive regardless of what percentage
of fly ash sales are lost. For the
remaining control option, SNCR plus
LNC3+, the State found that whether the
costs of compliance were reasonable
depends on the percentage of fly ash
sales that may be lost. If no fly ash sales
are lost, the State found that neither the
cost effectiveness, $2,195/ton, or
incremental cost effectiveness relative to
LNC3+, $4,619/ton, would be deemed
excessive when using the State’s
criteria. However, if 30% of the fly ash
sales are lost, the State found that the
incremental cost effectiveness relative to
LNC3+ of $7,449/ton exceeds the
relevant threshold. If all of the fly ash
sales are lost, then the State found that
both thresholds are exceeded. Moreover,
if none of the fly ash can be sold, the
State found that $31 million of existing
fly ash handling equipment would be
rendered useless with likely no
opportunity to retrieve the resources
invested. The State concluded that it is
likely that some fly ash sales will be
lost. However, because it is difficult to
know precisely how much of the fly ash
sales will be lost, the State found that
the costs of compliance are uncertain.
Energy and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts
When evaluating the environmental
and non-air quality impacts, the State
emphasized that recycling the fly ash
26 Refer
to Appendix E of the Regional Haze SIP.
27 Incremental cost effectiveness for LNC3+ is not
calculable because it is the least effective control
option considered.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
and keeping this material out of a
landfill is important. The State
expressed concerns that the use of
SNCR may prevent the recycling of fly
ash.
Any Existing Pollution Controls in Use
at the Source
Regarding any existing pollution
control in use at the source, the State
noted that SOFA, COFA, and LNB
(collectively referred to as LNC3) had
been in place at the facility for some
time, until combustion controls on Unit
2 were upgraded to LNC3+ in 2007. Unit
1 has not been similarly modified. Also,
both units were equipped with
DryFiningTM in 2010. Unlike in the
original BART evaluation, the State’s
2013 supplemental BART evaluation
recognizes the NOX emission reduction
that can be attributed to DryFiningTM.
When North Dakota submitted the
Regional Haze SIP in 2010, it based the
BART analysis on a historical baseline
emission rate of 0.22 lb/MMBtu (annual
average, 2000–2004) that reflected NOX
reductions achieved with the existing
combustion controls (LNC3). At that
time, although it had been installed, the
effect of DryFiningTM on NOX emissions
was uncertain. Since then, the State has
found that the technology can reduce
NOX emissions by about 0.02 lb/
MMBtu. The State has also determined
that, because LNC3+ had been installed
on Unit 2 for the purpose of meeting
BART, it was inappropriate for the
baseline to reflect the additional
reduction achieved by LNC3+ relative to
LNC3. Accordingly, the State used a
revised baseline emission rate of 0.201
lb/MMBtu in SIP Supplement No. 2 that
reflects the use of both LNC3 and
DryFiningTM.
Remaining Useful Life of the Source
The State noted that the source is
expected to have a remaining useful life
of at least 20 years.28 The State has used
this value in the calculations of cost
effectiveness. Otherwise, the remaining
useful life did not have an impact on the
State’s selection of NOX BART.
Degree of Improvement in Visibility
The State evaluated visibility impacts
(and improvement) at the two affected
Class I areas: Theodore Roosevelt
National Park (NP) and Lostwood
Wilderness Area. The visibility impacts
were provided in GRE’s April 5, 2012,
submittal to the State, and were based
on CALPUFF modeling.29 At the most
28 Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D.2, BART
Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and
2, 12/1/2009, p. 12.
29 Refer to Appendix A.1 of the Regional Haze SIP
regarding the CALPUFF modeling methodology.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
impacted Class I area, Theodore
Roosevelt NP, the State found that the
incremental visibility improvement for
SNCR plus LNC3+ versus LNC3+ is
0.106 dv for the 98th percentile, and
this improvement was considered
negligible by the State. As such, the
State concluded that the visibility
improvement does not warrant the
selection of SNCR plus LNC3+ as
BART.30 Finally, because the costs of
compliance cannot be determined
precisely due to the uncertainty
surrounding lost fly ash sales, the State
chose to weigh the visibility benefits
heavily in its BART determination.
After evaluating the five BART
factors, and for the reasons stated above,
North Dakota determined that BART
should be based on the installation of
LNC3+. The State’s BART analysis used
an annual emission rate for LNC3+ of
0.153 lb/MMBtu, reflecting the
performance demonstrated at Unit 2.
However, the State noted that the
shorter averaging period of the BART
emission limit, 30 days, requires a
slightly higher value.31 Accordingly, the
State established an emission limit of
0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two
units (30-day rolling average). The State
required that compliance with the
emission limit be as expeditiously as
practicable but in no event later than 5
years after the EPA approves the BART
requirements for Coal Creek Station.
Further, the State required that
compliance be demonstrated within 180
days of initial startup of the equipment
required to meet the BART limits, but
no later than 5 years after the EPA
approves the BART requirements for the
Coal Creek Station.
B. EPA’s Evaluation of North Dakota’s
NOX BART Determination
In our evaluation of the State’s NOX
BART determination for Coal Creek
Station, we seek to address two
deficiencies that relate to our
disapproval of the State’s 2010 NOX
BART determination and resultant FIP.
First, we intend to revisit the State’s
NOX BART determination in light of the
fact that SIP Supplement No. 2
addresses the error related to lost fly ash
sales in the estimation of the costs of
compliance. Second, we intend to reevaluate the State’s BART determination
for Coal Creek in consideration the
30 The State calculated the incremental visibility
benefit between SNCR plus LNC3+ and LNC3+
(both with scrubber upgrades for SO2) as the
difference between the respective modeled
visibility impacts, or 1.623 dv¥1.529 dv = 0.106
dv.
31 North Dakota found that 30-day rolling average
emission rates are expected to be at least 5–15%
higher than the annual average emission rate. For
example, see Appendix B.1 of SIP, page 16.
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Eighth Circuit’s decision as it relates to
any existing pollution controls.
As described earlier, in 2012, the EPA
disapproved the State’s BART
determination in part because of an
error in the sales price for fly ash that
affected the State’s consideration of the
costs of compliance. GRE used a sales
price of $36/ton for fly ash in
calculating the cost effectiveness for
SNCR. The State in turn relied on these
values in support of its 2010 BART
determination. In 2011, GRE indicated
the correct sales price for fly ash was
$5/ton instead of $36/ton. Subsequently,
when commenting on EPA’s 2011
proposed rule,32 GRE indicated that,
rather than $5/ton, the lost fly ash sales
revenue should be based on the 2010
average per ton freight on board (FOB)
price of $41.00, with 30% ($12.30/ton)
of the sale price going to GRE as
revenue. The remainder of the revenue,
$28.79/ton, goes to Headwaters
Resources, Inc. (HRI), GRE’s partner in
the sale and distribution of fly ash. In
our 2012 final rule, we responded that
we were not convinced that such an
increase (over the $5/ton price) would
be appropriate because GRE did not
provide any detail on the basis for the
increased price. However, in GRE’s
revised BART analysis of April 5, 2012,
the company clarified that $5/ton figure
represented what GRE received as a
portion of the FOB price before
December of 2011. GRE also reaffirmed
the then-current ash sales contract (as of
April 2012) required payments to GRE
that total 30% of the price. GRE points
out that HRI has ‘‘invested heavily into
fly ash sales infrastructure including
terminals and storage facilities,
conveying equipment, scales and train
car shuttles’’ and that HRI ‘‘financed
GRE’s portion of the infrastructure
through a per ton payment on fly ash
sales.’’ 33 Accordingly, we find that the
revised cost effectiveness value for
SNCR plus LNC3+, as well as the
incremental cost effectiveness value of
SNCR plus LNC3+ compared to LNC3+,
in SIP Supplement No. 2 are reliable
because they are based on an
established contractual sales price for
fly ash.
In the 2011 proposed FIP, the EPA
agreed that use of SNCR might result in
lost ash sales and the need to landfill fly
ash due to ammonia contamination.
These additional costs were included in
our cost analysis supporting the
proposed FIP. However, we also invited
comment on the assumption that use of
SNCR would result in lost fly ash sales
and on the availability of ammonia
mitigation techniques.34 We received
responsive comments on both sides of
the issue. Ultimately, we concluded that
it is possible to control ammonia slip
from SNCR to within the range of 2 ppm
or less, and that it is widely accepted
that ammonia at this level does not
impact the potential sales and use of fly
ash in concrete. Accordingly, we
concluded that charges for lost fly ash
sales should not be applied to the SNCR
cost analysis and that SNCR can be
successfully deployed at the Coal Creek
Station in a cost-effective manner.
Specifically, we calculated a cost
effectiveness of $1,313/ton.35 In
consideration of the costs of
compliance, and the remaining BART
factors, we concluded that BART is
represented by SNCR plus LNC3+.
In its SIP Supplement No. 2, North
Dakota contested the lost ash sales
analysis reflected in the EPA’s final
rule, citing studies that, according to the
State, supported its assertions. North
Dakota contended that ‘‘EPA’s assertion
that no ash sales will be lost is
speculative.’’ 36
Given the importance of assumptions
about lost fly ash sales in assessing the
costs of compliance, and in
consideration of more than five years
having passed since we originally
established BART for the Coal Creek
Station, it is appropriate that we
investigate and analyze this issue
further. Accordingly, we once again
invite comment in relation to the
following: (1) Whether ammonia slip
from the SNCR can be controlled to
levels sufficient enough to prevent
unacceptable ammonia contamination
of the fly ash; (2) what levels of
ammonia contamination are acceptable
to fly ash marketers and end-users; and
(3) availability, applicability, and cost of
applying ammonia mitigation
techniques to fly ash derived from
lignite coal.
On the matter of any existing controls,
the State’s BART evaluation now relies
on a baseline NOX emission rate of
0.201 lb/MMBtu (annual) that reflects
the use of DryFiningTM. As noted
earlier, this baseline emission rate
incorporates the 0.02 lb/MMBtu
reduction that is achieved with the
technology. As a result, the State’s
BART analysis reasonably considers
‘‘any existing pollution control
technology in use at the source,’’
FR 58620.
FR 20925.
36 Supplemental Evaluation of NO BART
X
Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and
2, at 10–11.
FR 58570 (Sep. 21, 2011).
33 GRE’s refined BART analysis of April 5, 2012,
p. 17.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
consistent with the Eighth Circuit
decision.37
With these two issues appropriately
addressed by the State’s SIP
Supplement No. 2, and because we have
not identified any further deficiencies,
we conclude that North Dakota has
reasonably considered the five statutory
BART factors in making its BART
determination for the Coal Creek Station
in accordance with the CAA and RHR.
Therefore, we propose to approve the
State’s NOX BART emission limit of
0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two
units (30-day rolling average), which is
based on LNC3+.
III. Coordination With FLMs
Theodore Roosevelt National Park is
managed by the National Park Service
(NPS), while the Lostwood Wilderness
Area is managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS). As described in
section I.D of this proposed rule, the
Regional Haze Rule grants the FLMs a
special role in the review of regional
haze SIPs. Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2),
North Dakota was obligated to provide
the FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation in development of the
State’s proposed SIP revisions. By
written correspondence dated August 8,
2012, North Dakota provided the FLMs
the opportunity to comment on the draft
SIP Supplement No. 2.38 The FWS
submitted comments to North Dakota in
a letter dated October 29, 2012, and the
State responded to those comments in
its response to public comments.39 No
other FLMs commented. The EPA
considers the State’s obligation to
consult with the FLMs on the SIP
revision to be fulfilled.
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve certain portions of North
Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the NOX BART determination
for the Coal Creek Station, included in
SIP Supplement No. 2, of 0.17 lb/
MMBtu averaged across the two units
(30-day rolling average). Refer to the
final action of April 6, 2012, regarding
EPA’s disapproval or approval of other
elements of North Dakota’s Regional
Haze SIP.
In addition, the EPA plans to remove
from the Code of Federal Regulations
the FIP requirements for Coal Creek
Station that the Eighth Circuit vacated
in the North Dakota decision and are
therefore not enforceable as a matter of
34 76
35 77
32 76
18253
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37 77 FR at 20925; see also North Dakota, 730
F.3d at 764.
38 Refer to Appendix J.3.4 of the SIP Supplement.
39 Refer to Appendix F.8.1 of the SIP Supplement.
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
18254
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
law. We are not inviting public
comment on this portion of our action.
V. 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 amendments described in section II.
The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov
and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
Rule No.
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this action does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not proposed to
apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an
State effective
date
Rule title
*
*
*
EPA effective
date
*
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 13, 2018.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be
amended 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 JJ—North Dakota
2. Section 52.1820 in paragraph (d) is
amended by revising the table entry
‘‘PTC10005’’ under the centered
heading ‘‘Coal Creek Station Units 1 and
2’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1820
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(d) * * *
*
Final rule
citation/date
*
Comments
*
*
*
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2.
*
PTC10005 .........
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
Air pollution control permit to construct for best available retrofit
technology (BART).
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 52.1825 is amended by
revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1) and (d) to
read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
*
12/20/12
Jkt 244001
5/29/18
*
*
[Insert Federal
Register citation], 4/26/18.
*
§ 52.1825 Federal implementation plan for
regional haze.
(a) Applicability. This section applies
to each owner and operator of the
following coal-fired electric generating
units (EGUs) in the State of North
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
*
*
Only: NOX BART emissions limits
for Units 1 and 2 and corresponding monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
Sfmt 4702
*
*
Dakota: Antelope Valley Station, Units 1
and 2.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Emissions limitations. (1) The
owners/operators subject to this section
shall not emit or cause to be emitted
NOX in excess of the following
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2018 / Proposed Rules
limitations, in pounds per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBtu),
averaged over a rolling 30-day period:
Source name
NOX Emission
limit
(lb/MMBtu)
Antelope Valley Station, Unit
1 ........................................
Antelope Valley Station, Unit
2 ........................................
0.17
0.17
(2) * * *
(d) Compliance date. The owners and
operators of Antelope Valley Station
shall comply with the emissions
limitations and other requirements of
this section as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than July 31,
2018, unless otherwise indicated in
specific paragraphs.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–08623 Filed 4–25–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0099 FRL–9977–21—
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; Flint
Hills Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Revision
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the Minnesota sulfur dioxide
(SO2) State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for the Flint Hills Resources, LLC Pine
Bend Refinery (FHR) as submitted on
February 8, 2017. The proposed SIP
revision pertains to the introduction and
removal of certain equipment at the
refinery as well as amendments to
certain emission limits, resulting in an
overall decrease of SO2 emissions from
FHR.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before May 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2017–0099 at https://
www.regulations.gov or via email to
blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
amozie on DSK30RV082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:23 Apr 25, 2018
Jkt 244001
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. 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:
Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP revision?
a. Coker Replacement
b. #4 Hydrogen Plant Reformer—30H401
Furnace
c. Diesel Fire Water Pump at #4 Cooling
Tower
d. #3 Crude/Coker Improvements
e. Cleanup
III. SO2 SIP and Emissions Impacts
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What is the background for this
action?
FHR operates an oil refinery located
in the Pine Bend Area of Rosemount,
Dakota County, Minnesota. On February
8, 2017, the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA) submitted a
request to EPA to approve into the
Minnesota SIP the conditions cited as
‘‘Title I Condition: 40 CFR 50.4(SO2
SIP); Title I Condition: 40 CFR 51; Title
I Condition: 40 CFR pt. 52, subp. Y’’ in
FHR’s revised joint Title I/Title V
document, Permit No. 03700011–101 1
1 In 1995, EPA approved consolidated permitting
regulations into the Minnesota SIP. (60 FR 21447,
May 2, 1995). The consolidated permitting
regulations included the term ‘‘Title I condition’’
which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA
requirements that SIP control measures remain
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
18255
(joint document 101). Joint document
101 contains measures for FHR to
implement changes that improve
technology at the plant and increase
efficiency through new and existing
equipment, as well as clarifying
amendments to the document’s
language. MPCA posted joint document
101 for public comment in the
Minnesota State Register on November
21, 2016, and the comment period
ended on December 23, 2016. MPCA
received no comments on the document.
II. What is EPA’s analysis of the SIP
revision?
Joint document 101, issued by MPCA
on January 13, 2017, contains amended
SIP conditions that, when combined,
provide FHR with the ability to more
efficiently upgrade hydrocarbons that
are distilled from FHR’s crude units into
transportation fuels, primarily diesel.
The amended SIP conditions allow FHR
to increase fuel production and operate
more efficiently and closer to the
facility’s overall distillation capacity.
See Table 1 at the end of our review for
a list of detailed changes to SO2
allowable emissions limits associated
with this action. The amended SIP
conditions in joint document 101
include:
a. Coker Replacement.
A coker replacement project consists
of the installation of a new coker
process unit (#4 Coker Unit Charge
Heater/EQUI1456) into joint document
101. The new #4 Coker will replace the
#1 and #2 Cokers, which will be
permanently retired. In addition to their
retirement, the SIP condition that lists
the decoking scenario in which the #1
and #2 cokers’ associated process units
permanent and enforceable. A ‘‘Title I condition’’
is defined, in part, as ‘‘any condition based on
source specific determination of ambient impacts
imposed for the purpose of achieving or
maintaining attainment with a national ambient air
quality standard and which was part of a [SIP]
approved by the EPA or submitted to the EPA
pending approval under section 110 of the act. . .’’
MINN. R. 7007.1011 (2013). The regulations also
state that ‘‘Title I conditions and the permittee’s
obligation to comply with them, shall not expire,
regardless of the expiration of the other conditions
of the permit.’’ Further, ‘‘any title I condition shall
remain in effect without regard to permit expiration
or reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued
permit.’’ MINN. R. 7007.0450 (2007). Minnesota has
initiated using the joint Title I/Title V document as
the enforceable document for imposing emission
limitations and compliance requirements in SIPs.
The SIP requirements in the joint Title I/Title V
document submitted by MPCA are cited as ‘‘Title
I conditions,’’ therefore ensuring that SIP
requirements remain permanent and enforceable.
EPA reviewed the state’s procedure for using joint
Title I/Title V documents to implement site specific
SIP requirements and found it to be acceptable
under both Title I and Title V of the Clean Air Act
(July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael
J. Sandusky, MPCA).
E:\FR\FM\26APP1.SGM
26APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18248-18255]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08623]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2010-0406; FRL-9976-56--Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
North Dakota; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve certain portions of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
to address regional haze submitted by the Governor of North Dakota on
March 3, 2010, along with SIP Supplement No. 1 submitted on July 27,
2010, SIP Amendment No. 1 submitted on July 28, 2011 and SIP Supplement
No. 2 submitted on January 2, 2013 (collectively, ``the Regional Haze
SIP''). Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the nitrogen
oxides (NOX) Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
determination for Coal Creek Station included in SIP Supplement No. 2.
Coal Creek Station is owned and operated by Great River Energy (GRE)
and is located near Underwood, North Dakota. This Regional Haze SIP was
submitted to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``the Act'') and our rules that require states to develop and implement
air quality protection plans to reduce visibility impairment in
mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from
numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to
as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas. The EPA is taking this action
pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 29, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2010-0406 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to the public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information, the disclosure of which 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, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit
[[Page 18249]]
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Worstell, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6073, [email protected].
I. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In CAA section 169A, added in the 1977 Amendments to the Act,
Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's
national parks and wilderness areas. This section of the CAA
establishes ``as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class
I Federal areas which impairment results from manmade air pollution.''
\1\ On December 2, 1980, the EPA promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, otherwise
known as reasonably attributable visibility impairment.\2\ These
regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility
impairment. The EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from
a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling, and scientific
knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility
impairment were improved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). 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). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory
Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas which they consider to have
visibility as an important value, the requirements of the visibility
program set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
``mandatory Class I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C.
7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
\2\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980) (codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart P).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional
haze issues. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on
July 1, 1999.\3\ The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze
and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class
I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and
51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection regulations at
40 CFR 51.300-51.309. The EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) (amending 40 CFR part 51, subpart
P).
\4\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\5\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. A state must
submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for approval. Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA;
that is, the SIP is federally enforceable. If a state fails to make a
required SIP submittal, or if we find that a state's required submittal
is incomplete or not approvable, then we must promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to fill this regulatory gap, unless the state
corrects the deficiency.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ CAA sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a),
7491, and 7492(a).
\6\ CAA section 110(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs the EPA to require 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 and the RHR require states' implementation plans to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward the
natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain
categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and
1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit
Technology'' as determined by the states. Under the RHR, states are
directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BART-eligible''
sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to
any visibility impairment in a Class I area.
On July 6, 2005, the EPA published the Guidelines for BART
Determinations under the Regional Haze Rule (the ``BART Guidelines'')
to assist states in determining which sources should be subject to the
BART requirements and the appropriate emission limits for each covered
source.\7\ The process of establishing BART emission limitations
follows three steps: First, identify the sources that meet the
definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; \8\
second, determine which of these sources ``emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a source which fits this
description is ``subject to BART''); and third, for each source subject
to BART, identify the best available type and level of control for
reducing emissions. Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA requires that states
must consider the following five factors in making BART determinations:
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution control
technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life of the
source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which may
reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such technology.
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by a
source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide (SO2),
NOX, and particulate matter (PM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 70 FR 39104; 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
\8\ BART-eligible sources are those sources that have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were
in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one
or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A SIP addressing regional haze must include source-specific BART
emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to
BART. 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'').\9\ Once a state has made a BART determination, the BART
controls must be installed and operated as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than 5 years after the date of the EPA's
approval of the final SIP.\10\ In addition to what is required by the
RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP include all
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting for the BART emission limitations. See CAA section 110(a); 40
CFR part 51, subpart K.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3).
\10\ CAA section 169A(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, as mentioned previously, each
regional haze SIP must contain measures as necessary to make reasonable
progress
[[Page 18250]]
towards the national visibility goals. As part of determining what
measures are necessary to make reasonable progress, the SIP must first
identify anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment that are to be
considered in developing the long-term strategy for addressing
visibility impairment.\11\ States must then consider the four statutory
reasonable progress factors in selecting control measures for inclusion
in the long-term strategy--the costs of compliance, the time necessary
for compliance, the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of potentially affected
sources.\12\ Finally, the SIP must establish reasonable progress goals
(RPGs) for each Class I area within the state for the plan
implementation period (or ``planning period''), based on the measures
included in the long-term strategy. If an RPG provides for a slower
rate of improvement in visibility than the rate needed to attain the
national goal by 2064, the SIP must demonstrate, based on the four
reasonable progress factors, why the rate to attain the national goal
by 2064 is not reasonable and the RPG is reasonable.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv).
\12\ See CAA section 169A(g)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1) (defining
the reasonable progress factors); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
\13\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP revision.\14\ States must provide FLMs
an opportunity for in-person consultation at least 60 days before
holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include
the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment
of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the
development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of
strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must
include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for
continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the
implementation of the state's visibility protection program, including
development and review of SIP revisions, 5-year progress reports, and
the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute
to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Regulatory and Legal History of the North Dakota Regional Haze SIP
The Governor of North Dakota originally submitted a Regional Haze
SIP to the EPA on March 3, 2010, followed by SIP Supplement No. 1
submitted on July 27, 2010, and SIP Amendment No. 1 submitted on July
28, 2011. The EPA initially acted on North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP
on April 6, 2012.\15\ Among other things, the Regional Haze SIP
included a BART emission limit for NOX for Units 1 and 2 at
Coal Creek Station of 0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two units (on a
30-day rolling average) \16\, represented by modified and additional
separated overfire air (SOFA), close-coupled overfire air (COFA), and
low NOX burners (LNB) (collectively referred to as
LNC3+).\17\ When considering the next most stringent control option,
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR; in addition to the existing
LNC3), North Dakota took into account the potential for ammonia from
the SNCR to contaminate the fly ash, which is a marketable product sold
by GRE. Ultimately, the State concluded that ``[b]ecause of the
potential for lost sales of fly ash, the negative environmental effects
of having to dispose of the fly ash instead of recycling it into
concrete, and the very small amount of visibility improvement from the
use of SNCR, this option is rejected as BART.'' \18\ The State's
Regional Haze SIP was submitted to meet the requirements of the
regional haze program for the first planning period of 2008 through
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 77 FR 20894.
\16\ Throughout, 30-day rolling average emission limits are
based on boiler operating days.
\17\ In the 2013 SIP supplement, modified and additional SOFA,
COFA, and LNB are referred to as LNC3+. Hereinafter in this proposed
rule, this combination of controls will also be referred to as
LNC3+. By contrast, the existing controls, SOFA (unmodified), COFA,
and LNB are referred to as LNC3.
\18\ Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D.2, BART Determination for
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2, 12/1/2009, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During our previous review of North Dakota's NOX BART
analysis for Coal Creek Station in 2012, the EPA identified an error in
the costs associated with lost fly ash sales.\19\ At our request, and
after submitting the Regional Haze SIP in 2010, North Dakota obtained
additional supporting information from GRE for lost fly ash revenue and
for the potential cost of fly ash ammonia mitigation. The supporting
information included an updated cost analysis from GRE noting that the
correct sales price for fly ash was $5/ton instead of $36/ton. The
updated analysis included corrected fly ash revenue data and ammonia
mitigation costs. That analysis, dated June 16, 2011, indicated that
the cost effectiveness for SNCR at Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2
would be $2,318/ton of NOX emissions reductions rather than
the original estimate of $8,551/ton. Because the State's cost of
compliance analysis was based upon fundamentally flawed and greatly
inflated cost estimates regarding lost fly ash revenue, we concluded
that the SIP submittal failed to properly consider the cost of
compliance in any meaningful sense as required by 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). We also concluded that GRE could avoid
contaminating the fly ash by proper management of the ammonia injection
rate; and thereby avoid losing fly ash sales altogether. Therefore, we
disapproved the NOX BART determination for the Coal Creek
Station.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 76 FR 58603; 77 FR 20921.
\20\ 77 FR 20894 (Apr. 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the same action, we promulgated a FIP that included a
NOX BART emission limit for Units 1 and 2 at the Coal Creek
Station of 0.13 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two units (30-day rolling
average), which GRE could meet by installing SNCR plus LNC3+.\21\ This
emission limit was based on the EPA's independent BART analysis,
including the updated costs of compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The FIP also included: A reasonable progress determination
and NOX emission limit for Antelope Valley Station Units
1 and 2 of 0.17 lb/MMBtu that applies singly to each of these units
on a 30 -day rolling average, and a requirement that the owner/
operator meet the limit as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than July 31, 2018; monitoring, record-keeping, and reporting
requirements for the Coal Creek Station and Antelope Valley Station
units to ensure compliance with the emission limitations; RPGs
consistent with the approved SIP emission limits approved and the
final FIP limits; and LTS elements that reflect the other aspects of
the finalized FIP. Please refer to the EPA's final FIP rule for
further information on the FIP requirements. 77 FR 20894 (Apr. 6,
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subsequently, several petitioners challenged various aspects of the
EPA's final rule in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Pertinent to
this proposal, the State and GRE, the owner of the Coal Creek Station,
challenged the EPA's disapproval of the State's determination that
LNC3+ with an emission limit of 0.17lb/MMBtu averaged across the two
units (30-day rolling average) is BART for Coal Creek Station. These
same petitioners also challenged the EPA's determination that SNCR plus
LNC3+ with an emission limit of 0.13lb/MMBtu averaged across the two
units (30-day rolling average) is BART for the Coal Creek Station.
On January 2, 2013, North Dakota submitted Supplement No. 2 to the
SIP, which was primarily intended to correct
[[Page 18251]]
the error in the costs of compliance for SNCR plus LNC3+ related to
lost fly ash sales. SIP Supplement No. 2 includes a revised five-factor
BART evaluation for Coal Creek Station that largely replaces the five-
factor evaluation contained in the Regional Haze SIP that was submitted
in 2010 and 2011. SIP Supplement No. 2 affirms the State's earlier BART
determination of 0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two units (30-day
rolling average) to be met with LNC3+. SIP Supplement No. 2 was
submitted after the EPA took final action on the Regional Haze SIP in
2012, and is the focus of this proposed rule.
On September 23, 2013, the Eighth Circuit concluded that the EPA
properly disapproved portions of the State's Regional Haze SIP,
including the State's NOX BART determination for the Coal
Creek Station.\22\ In particular, the court ruled that the EPA's role
in reviewing the State's SIP was not merely ministerial, and that the
EPA acted properly in disapproving the State's NOX BART
determination for the Coal Creek Station that was based on erroneous
costs of compliance. However, the court vacated the EPA's FIP
promulgating an emission limit of 0.13 lb/MMbtu (30-day rolling
average), holding that the EPA had failed to consider existing
pollution control technology \23\ in use at the Coal Creek Station.
More specifically, the court found that the EPA's refusal to consider
DryFining\TM\ as an existing pollution control because it had been
voluntarily installed after the regional haze baseline date was
arbitrary and capricious. DryFining\TM\ is an innovative technology
developed by GRE that reduces moisture and refines lignite coal,
increasing the efficiency and performance of the fuel while reducing
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ North Dakota v. United States EPA, 730 F.3d 750 (8th Cir.
2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2662 (2014).
\23\ Pursuant to Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA, ``any existing
pollution control technology in use at the source'' is one of the
five factors that must be considered when making a BART
determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Coal Creek Station--NOX BART Determination
Coal Creek Station is a mine-mouth electrical generating plant,
consisting primarily of two steam generators (each with a 550 MW
capacity) and associated coal and ash handling systems. The units are
identical Combustion Engineering boilers that tangentially fire
pulverized lignite coal. Since at least 1999, both units have been
equipped with the following combustion controls: SOFA, COFA, and LNB.
These combustion controls are collectively referred to as LNC3. In
addition, DryFining\TM\ was fully installed on both units by mid-2010.
The State analyzed the impact of Coal Creek on visibility in Class
I areas, and found that the source was subject to BART
requirements.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Regional Haze SIP, Section 7.3.1; 76 FR 58553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. North Dakota's NOX BART Determination
To address the EPA's disapproval of the NOX BART
determination for Coal Creek Station, North Dakota submitted SIP
Supplement No. 2 to the EPA on January 2, 2013. Because the two Coal
Creek boilers are identical, the State performed a single BART analysis
that is relevant to both units. The State's supplemental evaluation is
provided in Appendix B.2.1 of SIP Supplement No. 2. The supplemental
evaluation is informed by GRE's refined BART analysis of April 5, 2012,
updated June 6, 2012, and found in Appendix C.2.1 of SIP Supplement No.
2.
The State considered only LNC3+, SNCR (with existing LNC3), and
SNCR plus LNC3+ as technically feasible control options. Both the State
and the EPA have previously determined that selective catalytic
reduction and low temperature oxidation are not required as BART.\25\
In addition, because the State found that ammonia slip from SNCR has
the potential to negatively impact fly ash sales, it evaluated three
different scenarios for the SNCR and SNCR plus LNC3+ control options:
0% lost fly ash sales, 30% lost fly ash sales, and 100% lost fly ash
sales. The State determined a control effectiveness for LNC3+ of 23.9%,
for SNCR of 24.9% (with existing LNC3), and for SNCR plus LNC3+ of
39.3%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Regional Haze SIP, Appendix B.2; 76 FR 58622-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the State's NOX BART analysis is provided
in Table 1. Note that costs are provided in 2011 dollars.
Table 1--Summary of Coal Creek NOX BART Analysis for Unit 1 and Unit 2 Boilers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Incremental Visibility
Control Annual emission Cost cost benefit
Control option \a\ efficiency (%) emission rate reductions effectiveness effectiveness (delta dv)
(lb/MMBtu) (tons/yr) ($/ton) ($/ton) \b\ \c,d\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNCR plus LNC3+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% Lost Fly Ash Sales................................. 39.3 0.122 1,998 4,444 10,350 1.623
30% Lost Fly Ash Sales.................................. 39.3 0.122 1,998 3,305 7,449 1.623
0% Lost Fly Ash Sales................................... 39.3 0.122 1,998 2,195 4,619 1.623
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SNCR with existing LNC3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% Lost Fly Ash Sales................................. 24.9 0.151 1,265 7,194 163,471 1.529
30% Lost Fly Ash Sales.................................. 24.9 0.151 1,265 5,396 118,863 1.529
0% Lost Fly Ash Sales................................... 24.9 0.151 1,265 3,643 75,373 1.529
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNC3+................................................... 23.9 0.153 1,214 629 NA 1.463
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ DryFining\TM\ is common to each of the control options.
\b\ The incremental costs listed for SNCR plus LNC3+ are for between SNCR plus LNC3+ and LNC3+.
\c\ The visibility modeling that GRE performed for Coal Creek Units 1 and 2 included SO2 controls in addition to the noted NOX control. Accordingly,
the modeling results summarized above reflect the chosen SO2 BART control, scrubber modifications, in addition to the noted NOX control option. Thus,
these values do not reflect the distinct visibility benefit from each NOX control option, but do provide the incremental benefit between the NOX
control options.
\d\ The visibility improvement described in this table represents the change in the maximum 98th percentile impact over the modeled 3-year
meteorological period (2001-2003) at the highest impacted Class I area, Theodore Roosevelt, relative to a pre-controlled baseline. Refer to the
spreadsheet created by EPA titled ``CALPUFF Modeling Results from GRE Supplemental Analysis of 4-5-2012.xlsx''.
[[Page 18252]]
The State considered each of the five statutory BART factors when
making its NOX BART determination for Coal Creek Station as
described below.
Costs of Compliance
When the State began development of its regional haze program in
2006, it established costs of compliance thresholds for both cost
effectiveness and incremental cost effectiveness above which costs are
considered excessive.\26\ When adjusted to 2011 dollars, the threshold
for cost effectiveness is $4,100/ton, while the threshold for
incremental cost effectiveness is $7,300/ton. The cost effectiveness of
LNC3+, $629/ton, is very reasonable by this standard.\27\ The State
found that SNCR, with the existing LNC3 combustion controls, is clearly
an inferior option to LNC3+ because this control option presents only
marginally more control effectiveness at much higher cost per ton
values in comparison to LNC3+. In addition, the State found that the
incremental cost between these two options to be excessive regardless
of what percentage of fly ash sales are lost. For the remaining control
option, SNCR plus LNC3+, the State found that whether the costs of
compliance were reasonable depends on the percentage of fly ash sales
that may be lost. If no fly ash sales are lost, the State found that
neither the cost effectiveness, $2,195/ton, or incremental cost
effectiveness relative to LNC3+, $4,619/ton, would be deemed excessive
when using the State's criteria. However, if 30% of the fly ash sales
are lost, the State found that the incremental cost effectiveness
relative to LNC3+ of $7,449/ton exceeds the relevant threshold. If all
of the fly ash sales are lost, then the State found that both
thresholds are exceeded. Moreover, if none of the fly ash can be sold,
the State found that $31 million of existing fly ash handling equipment
would be rendered useless with likely no opportunity to retrieve the
resources invested. The State concluded that it is likely that some fly
ash sales will be lost. However, because it is difficult to know
precisely how much of the fly ash sales will be lost, the State found
that the costs of compliance are uncertain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Refer to Appendix E of the Regional Haze SIP.
\27\ Incremental cost effectiveness for LNC3+ is not calculable
because it is the least effective control option considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts
When evaluating the environmental and non-air quality impacts, the
State emphasized that recycling the fly ash and keeping this material
out of a landfill is important. The State expressed concerns that the
use of SNCR may prevent the recycling of fly ash.
Any Existing Pollution Controls in Use at the Source
Regarding any existing pollution control in use at the source, the
State noted that SOFA, COFA, and LNB (collectively referred to as LNC3)
had been in place at the facility for some time, until combustion
controls on Unit 2 were upgraded to LNC3+ in 2007. Unit 1 has not been
similarly modified. Also, both units were equipped with DryFining\TM\
in 2010. Unlike in the original BART evaluation, the State's 2013
supplemental BART evaluation recognizes the NOX emission
reduction that can be attributed to DryFining\TM\. When North Dakota
submitted the Regional Haze SIP in 2010, it based the BART analysis on
a historical baseline emission rate of 0.22 lb/MMBtu (annual average,
2000-2004) that reflected NOX reductions achieved with the
existing combustion controls (LNC3). At that time, although it had been
installed, the effect of DryFining\TM\ on NOX emissions was
uncertain. Since then, the State has found that the technology can
reduce NOX emissions by about 0.02 lb/MMBtu. The State has
also determined that, because LNC3+ had been installed on Unit 2 for
the purpose of meeting BART, it was inappropriate for the baseline to
reflect the additional reduction achieved by LNC3+ relative to LNC3.
Accordingly, the State used a revised baseline emission rate of 0.201
lb/MMBtu in SIP Supplement No. 2 that reflects the use of both LNC3 and
DryFining\TM\.
Remaining Useful Life of the Source
The State noted that the source is expected to have a remaining
useful life of at least 20 years.\28\ The State has used this value in
the calculations of cost effectiveness. Otherwise, the remaining useful
life did not have an impact on the State's selection of NOX
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D.2, BART Determination for
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2, 12/1/2009, p. 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degree of Improvement in Visibility
The State evaluated visibility impacts (and improvement) at the two
affected Class I areas: Theodore Roosevelt National Park (NP) and
Lostwood Wilderness Area. The visibility impacts were provided in GRE's
April 5, 2012, submittal to the State, and were based on CALPUFF
modeling.\29\ At the most impacted Class I area, Theodore Roosevelt NP,
the State found that the incremental visibility improvement for SNCR
plus LNC3+ versus LNC3+ is 0.106 dv for the 98th percentile, and this
improvement was considered negligible by the State. As such, the State
concluded that the visibility improvement does not warrant the
selection of SNCR plus LNC3+ as BART.\30\ Finally, because the costs of
compliance cannot be determined precisely due to the uncertainty
surrounding lost fly ash sales, the State chose to weigh the visibility
benefits heavily in its BART determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Refer to Appendix A.1 of the Regional Haze SIP regarding
the CALPUFF modeling methodology.
\30\ The State calculated the incremental visibility benefit
between SNCR plus LNC3+ and LNC3+ (both with scrubber upgrades for
SO2) as the difference between the respective modeled
visibility impacts, or 1.623 dv-1.529 dv = 0.106 dv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After evaluating the five BART factors, and for the reasons stated
above, North Dakota determined that BART should be based on the
installation of LNC3+. The State's BART analysis used an annual
emission rate for LNC3+ of 0.153 lb/MMBtu, reflecting the performance
demonstrated at Unit 2. However, the State noted that the shorter
averaging period of the BART emission limit, 30 days, requires a
slightly higher value.\31\ Accordingly, the State established an
emission limit of 0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two units (30-day
rolling average). The State required that compliance with the emission
limit be as expeditiously as practicable but in no event later than 5
years after the EPA approves the BART requirements for Coal Creek
Station. Further, the State required that compliance be demonstrated
within 180 days of initial startup of the equipment required to meet
the BART limits, but no later than 5 years after the EPA approves the
BART requirements for the Coal Creek Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ North Dakota found that 30-day rolling average emission
rates are expected to be at least 5-15% higher than the annual
average emission rate. For example, see Appendix B.1 of SIP, page
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. EPA's Evaluation of North Dakota's NOX BART Determination
In our evaluation of the State's NOX BART determination
for Coal Creek Station, we seek to address two deficiencies that relate
to our disapproval of the State's 2010 NOX BART
determination and resultant FIP. First, we intend to revisit the
State's NOX BART determination in light of the fact that SIP
Supplement No. 2 addresses the error related to lost fly ash sales in
the estimation of the costs of compliance. Second, we intend to re-
evaluate the State's BART determination for Coal Creek in consideration
the
[[Page 18253]]
Eighth Circuit's decision as it relates to any existing pollution
controls.
As described earlier, in 2012, the EPA disapproved the State's BART
determination in part because of an error in the sales price for fly
ash that affected the State's consideration of the costs of compliance.
GRE used a sales price of $36/ton for fly ash in calculating the cost
effectiveness for SNCR. The State in turn relied on these values in
support of its 2010 BART determination. In 2011, GRE indicated the
correct sales price for fly ash was $5/ton instead of $36/ton.
Subsequently, when commenting on EPA's 2011 proposed rule,\32\ GRE
indicated that, rather than $5/ton, the lost fly ash sales revenue
should be based on the 2010 average per ton freight on board (FOB)
price of $41.00, with 30% ($12.30/ton) of the sale price going to GRE
as revenue. The remainder of the revenue, $28.79/ton, goes to
Headwaters Resources, Inc. (HRI), GRE's partner in the sale and
distribution of fly ash. In our 2012 final rule, we responded that we
were not convinced that such an increase (over the $5/ton price) would
be appropriate because GRE did not provide any detail on the basis for
the increased price. However, in GRE's revised BART analysis of April
5, 2012, the company clarified that $5/ton figure represented what GRE
received as a portion of the FOB price before December of 2011. GRE
also reaffirmed the then-current ash sales contract (as of April 2012)
required payments to GRE that total 30% of the price. GRE points out
that HRI has ``invested heavily into fly ash sales infrastructure
including terminals and storage facilities, conveying equipment, scales
and train car shuttles'' and that HRI ``financed GRE's portion of the
infrastructure through a per ton payment on fly ash sales.'' \33\
Accordingly, we find that the revised cost effectiveness value for SNCR
plus LNC3+, as well as the incremental cost effectiveness value of SNCR
plus LNC3+ compared to LNC3+, in SIP Supplement No. 2 are reliable
because they are based on an established contractual sales price for
fly ash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 76 FR 58570 (Sep. 21, 2011).
\33\ GRE's refined BART analysis of April 5, 2012, p. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2011 proposed FIP, the EPA agreed that use of SNCR might
result in lost ash sales and the need to landfill fly ash due to
ammonia contamination. These additional costs were included in our cost
analysis supporting the proposed FIP. However, we also invited comment
on the assumption that use of SNCR would result in lost fly ash sales
and on the availability of ammonia mitigation techniques.\34\ We
received responsive comments on both sides of the issue. Ultimately, we
concluded that it is possible to control ammonia slip from SNCR to
within the range of 2 ppm or less, and that it is widely accepted that
ammonia at this level does not impact the potential sales and use of
fly ash in concrete. Accordingly, we concluded that charges for lost
fly ash sales should not be applied to the SNCR cost analysis and that
SNCR can be successfully deployed at the Coal Creek Station in a cost-
effective manner. Specifically, we calculated a cost effectiveness of
$1,313/ton.\35\ In consideration of the costs of compliance, and the
remaining BART factors, we concluded that BART is represented by SNCR
plus LNC3+.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 76 FR 58620.
\35\ 77 FR 20925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its SIP Supplement No. 2, North Dakota contested the lost ash
sales analysis reflected in the EPA's final rule, citing studies that,
according to the State, supported its assertions. North Dakota
contended that ``EPA's assertion that no ash sales will be lost is
speculative.'' \36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ Supplemental Evaluation of NOX BART
Determination for Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2, at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the importance of assumptions about lost fly ash sales in
assessing the costs of compliance, and in consideration of more than
five years having passed since we originally established BART for the
Coal Creek Station, it is appropriate that we investigate and analyze
this issue further. Accordingly, we once again invite comment in
relation to the following: (1) Whether ammonia slip from the SNCR can
be controlled to levels sufficient enough to prevent unacceptable
ammonia contamination of the fly ash; (2) what levels of ammonia
contamination are acceptable to fly ash marketers and end-users; and
(3) availability, applicability, and cost of applying ammonia
mitigation techniques to fly ash derived from lignite coal.
On the matter of any existing controls, the State's BART evaluation
now relies on a baseline NOX emission rate of 0.201 lb/MMBtu
(annual) that reflects the use of DryFining\TM\. As noted earlier, this
baseline emission rate incorporates the 0.02 lb/MMBtu reduction that is
achieved with the technology. As a result, the State's BART analysis
reasonably considers ``any existing pollution control technology in use
at the source,'' consistent with the Eighth Circuit decision.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 77 FR at 20925; see also North Dakota, 730 F.3d at 764.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With these two issues appropriately addressed by the State's SIP
Supplement No. 2, and because we have not identified any further
deficiencies, we conclude that North Dakota has reasonably considered
the five statutory BART factors in making its BART determination for
the Coal Creek Station in accordance with the CAA and RHR. Therefore,
we propose to approve the State's NOX BART emission limit of
0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged across the two units (30-day rolling average),
which is based on LNC3+.
III. Coordination With FLMs
Theodore Roosevelt National Park is managed by the National Park
Service (NPS), while the Lostwood Wilderness Area is managed by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). As described in section I.D of
this proposed rule, the Regional Haze Rule grants the FLMs a special
role in the review of regional haze SIPs. Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2),
North Dakota was obligated to provide the FLMs with an opportunity for
consultation in development of the State's proposed SIP revisions. By
written correspondence dated August 8, 2012, North Dakota provided the
FLMs the opportunity to comment on the draft SIP Supplement No. 2.\38\
The FWS submitted comments to North Dakota in a letter dated October
29, 2012, and the State responded to those comments in its response to
public comments.\39\ No other FLMs commented. The EPA considers the
State's obligation to consult with the FLMs on the SIP revision to be
fulfilled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ Refer to Appendix J.3.4 of the SIP Supplement.
\39\ Refer to Appendix F.8.1 of the SIP Supplement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve certain portions of
North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
approve the NOX BART determination for the Coal Creek
Station, included in SIP Supplement No. 2, of 0.17 lb/MMBtu averaged
across the two units (30-day rolling average). Refer to the final
action of April 6, 2012, regarding EPA's disapproval or approval of
other elements of North Dakota's Regional Haze SIP.
In addition, the EPA plans to remove from the Code of Federal
Regulations the FIP requirements for Coal Creek Station that the Eighth
Circuit vacated in the North Dakota decision and are therefore not
enforceable as a matter of
[[Page 18254]]
law. We are not inviting public comment on this portion of our action.
V. 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 amendments described in section II. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not proposed to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: April 13, 2018.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended 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 JJ--North Dakota
0
2. Section 52.1820 in paragraph (d) is amended by revising the table
entry ``PTC10005'' under the centered heading ``Coal Creek Station
Units 1 and 2'' to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1820 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA effective Final rule
Rule No. Rule title effective date date citation/date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal Creek Station Units 1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
PTC10005............... Air pollution 12/20/12 5/29/18 [Insert Federal Only: NOX BART
control permit Register emissions limits
to construct for citation], 4/26/ for Units 1 and
best available 18. 2 and
retrofit corresponding
technology monitoring,
(BART). recordkeeping,
and reporting
requirements.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.1825 is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (c)(1) and
(d) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1825 Federal implementation plan for regional haze.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to each owner and operator
of the following coal-fired electric generating units (EGUs) in the
State of North Dakota: Antelope Valley Station, Units 1 and 2.
* * * * *
(c) Emissions limitations. (1) The owners/operators subject to this
section shall not emit or cause to be emitted NOX in excess
of the following
[[Page 18255]]
limitations, in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu),
averaged over a rolling 30-day period:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX Emission
limit (lb/
Source name MMBtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antelope Valley Station, Unit 1......................... 0.17
Antelope Valley Station, Unit 2......................... 0.17
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) * * *
(d) Compliance date. The owners and operators of Antelope Valley
Station shall comply with the emissions limitations and other
requirements of this section as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than July 31, 2018, unless otherwise indicated in specific
paragraphs.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-08623 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
