Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Revisions to Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, 51403-51418 [2018-21949]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
representative payee, we will not
consider the conviction for one of the
crimes, or of attempt or conspiracy to
commit one of the crimes, listed in this
paragraph, by itself, to prohibit the
applicant from serving as a
representative payee. We will consider
the criminal history of an applicant in
this category, along with the factors in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
section, when we decide whether it is
in the best interest of the individual
entitled to benefits to appoint the
applicant as a representative payee.
(2) If the representative payee
applicant is the parent who was
previously the representative payee for
his or her minor child who has since
turned age 18 and continues to be
eligible for benefits, we will not
consider the conviction for one of the
crimes, or of attempt or conspiracy to
commit one of the crimes, listed in this
paragraph, by itself, to prohibit the
applicant from serving as a
representative payee for that
beneficiary. We will consider the
criminal history of an applicant in this
category, along with the factors in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this
section, when we decide whether it is
in the best interest of the individual
entitled to benefits to appoint the
applicant as a representative payee.
(3) If the representative payee
applicant received a Presidential or
gubernatorial pardon for the relevant
conviction, we will not consider the
conviction for one of the crimes, or of
attempt or conspiracy to commit one of
the crimes, listed in this paragraph (f),
by itself, to prohibit the applicant from
serving as a representative payee. We
will consider the criminal history of an
applicant in this category, along with
the factors in paragraphs (a) through (e)
of this section, when we decide whether
it is in the best interest of the individual
entitled to benefits to appoint the
applicant as a representative payee.
■ 11. Amend § 416.624 by revising
paragraph (a)(9) and adding paragraph
(a)(10) to read as follows:
§ 416.624 How do we investigate a
representative payee applicant?
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(9) Determine whether the payee
applicant is a creditor of the beneficiary
(see § 404.2022(e)) of this chapter.
(10) Conduct a criminal background
check on the payee applicant.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. Add § 416.626 to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
§ 416.626 How do we investigate an
appointed representative payee?
After we select an individual or
organization to act as your
representative payee, we will conduct a
criminal background check on the
appointed representative payee at least
once every 5 years.
[FR Doc. 2018–22168 Filed 10–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4191–02–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0606; FRL–9984–85–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Wyoming; Revisions to Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan; Revisions
to Regional Haze Federal
Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of
Wyoming on April 5, 2018, addressing
regional haze. The revisions modify the
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions reporting
requirements for Laramie River Station
Units 1 and 2. We are also proposing to
revise the nitrogen oxides (NOX) best
available retrofit technology (BART)
emission limits for Laramie River Units
1–3 in the Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) for regional haze in Wyoming. The
proposed revisions to the Wyoming
regional haze FIP would also establish
a SO2 emission limit averaged annually
across both Laramie River Station Units
1 and 2. The EPA is proposing this
action pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES:
Comments: Written comments must
be received on or before November 13,
2018.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us
requesting a public hearing on or before
October 26, 2018, we will hold a
hearing. Additional information about
the hearing, if requested, will be
published in a subsequent Federal
Register document. Contact Jaslyn
Dobrahner at (303) 312–6252, or at
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov, to request a
hearing or to determine if a hearing will
be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51403
OAR–2018–0606, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: 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 its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. The EPA requests that, if at
all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6252,
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and
the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
51404
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
C. BART Alternatives
D. Reasonable Progress Requirements
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
F. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2014
Wyoming SIP and FIP
III. Proposed FIP Revisions
A. Background
B. The BART Alternative
C. The NOX Emission Limit for Laramie
River Unit 1
IV. Proposed Action on Submitted SIP
Revisions
A. Background
B. April 5, 2018 Submittal
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of the SO2
Emissions Reporting Amendments
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
VI. Consultation With FLMs
VII. The EPA’s Proposed Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On January 30, 2014, the EPA
promulgated a final rule titled
‘‘Approval, Disapproval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze’’
approving, in part, a regional haze SIP
revision submitted by the State of
Wyoming on January 12, 2011.1 In the
final rule, the EPA also disapproved, in
part, the Wyoming regional haze SIP,
including the NOX BART emission limit
of 0.21 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) for Laramie River Units 1–3,
and promulgated a FIP that imposed a
NOX BART emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for each
of the three Laramie River Units, among
other actions.
The EPA is proposing to revise the
FIP per the terms of the settlement
agreement and amendment described in
Section II.G. to amend the NOX and SO2
emission limits for Laramie River.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to: (1)
Revise the NOX emission limit and
associated compliance date for Unit 1;
(2) through the incorporation of a BART
alternative, revise the NOX emission
limits for Units 2 and 3, and the SO2
emission limit averaged annually across
Units 1 and 2 along with the associated
compliance dates; and (3) require
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on
Unit 1 and selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) on Units 2 and 3.
Although we are proposing to revise the
Wyoming regional haze FIP, Wyoming
may always submit a new regional haze
SIP to the EPA for review and we would
1 79
FR 5032 (January 30, 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
welcome such a submission. The CAA
requires the EPA to act within 12
months on a SIP submittal that it
determines to be complete. If Wyoming
were to submit a SIP revision meeting
the requirements of the CAA and the
regional haze regulations, we would
propose approval of the State’s plan as
expeditiously as practicable.
The EPA is also proposing to approve
SIP revisions submitted by the State of
Wyoming on April 5, 2018, to amend
the SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for Laramie River Units 1
and 2. Specifically, the EPA is
proposing to approve the SO2 emissions
reporting requirements for Laramie
River Units 1 and 2, which address how
Basin Electric is required to calculate
reportable SO2 emissions, when Basin
Electric is required to use the revised
SO2 emissions calculation method, and
how the reported SO2 emissions will be
used within the context of the SO2
emissions milestone inventory.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes ‘‘as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ 2
The EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999.3
The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised
the existing visibility regulations 4 to
2 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
whose visibility they consider to be 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.’’
3 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at
40 CFR part 51, subpart P).
4 The EPA had previously promulgated
regulations to address visibility impairment in Class
I areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e., reasonably
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 40
CFR 51.309, are included in the EPA’s
visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. The
EPA revised the RHR on January 10,
2017.5
The CAA requires each state to
develop a SIP to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility.6 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 elects not to make a required SIP
submittal, 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
FIP to fill this regulatory gap.7
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states as part of their SIPs, or the EPA
when developing a FIP in the absence
of an approved regional haze SIP, to
evaluate the use of retrofit controls at
certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of
the CAA requires states’ 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
through their SIPs, or as determined by
the EPA when it promulgated a FIP.
Under the RHR, states (or the EPA) 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.8
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR
80084, 80084 (December 2, 1980).
5 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
6 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA
sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B.
7 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
8 40 CFR 51.308(e). The EPA designed the
Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the
Regional Haze Rule (Guidelines) 40 CFR appendix
Y to part 51 ‘‘to help States and others (1) identify
those sources that must comply with the BART
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Rather than requiring source-specific
BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading
program or other alternative program as
long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving
visibility than BART.9
C. BART Alternatives
An alternative program to BART must
meet requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These
requirements for alternative programs
relate to the ‘‘better-than-BART’’ test
and fundamental elements of any
alternative program.
In order to demonstrate that the
alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress than source-specific
BART, a state, or the EPA if developing
a FIP, must demonstrate that its SIP
meets the requirements in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i) through (v). The state or
the EPA must conduct an analysis of the
best system of continuous emission
control technology available and the
associated reductions for each source
subject to BART covered by the
alternative program, termed a ‘‘BART
benchmark.’’ Where the alternative
program has been designed to meet
requirements other than BART,
simplifying assumptions may be used to
establish a BART benchmark.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
the state or the EPA, must also provide
a determination that the alternative
program achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the
clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides specific
tests applicable under specific
circumstances for determining whether
the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. If the
distribution of emissions for the
alternative program is not substantially
different than for BART, and the
alternative program results in greater
emissions reductions, then the
alternative program may be deemed to
achieve greater reasonable progress. If
the distribution of emissions is
significantly different, the differences in
visibility between BART and the
alternative program, must be
determined by conducting dispersion
modeling for each impacted Class I area
for the best and worst 20 percent of
days. This modeling demonstrates
requirement, and (2) determine the level of control
technology that represents BART for each source.’’
Guidelines, Section I.A. Section II of the Guidelines
describes the four steps to identify BART sources,
and Section III explains how to identify BART
sources (i.e., sources that are ‘‘subject to BART’’).
9 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 770 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2014).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
‘‘greater reasonable progress’’ if both of
the two following criteria are met: (1)
Visibility does not decline in any Class
I area; and (2) there is overall
improvement in visibility when
comparing the average differences
between BART and the alternative
program across all the affected Class I
areas. Alternatively, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2), states may show that the
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than the BART benchmark
‘‘based on the clear weight of evidence’’
determinations. Specific RHR
requirements for alternative programs
are discussed in more detail in Section
III.10
Generally, a SIP or FIP addressing
regional haze must include emission
limits and compliance schedules for
each source subject to BART. In
addition to the RHR’s requirements,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP or FIP include all regulatory
requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the
alternative’s enforceable requirements.
See CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51,
subpart K.
D. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, as
mentioned previously, each regional
haze SIP or FIP must contain measures
as necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal. Finally, the SIP or FIP 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.11 If an RPG provides for a
slower rate of improvement in visibility
than the rate under which the national
goal of no anthropogenic visibility
impact would be attained by 2064, the
SIP or FIP must demonstrate, based on
the four reasonable progress factors,
why that faster rate is not reasonable
and the slower rate provided for by the
SIP or FIP’s state-specific RPG is
reasonable.12
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state, or the
EPA if promulgating a FIP that fills a
gap in the SIP with respect to this
requirement, consult with FLMs before
adopting and submitting a required SIP
or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP
revision.13 Further, the EPA, or state
when considering a SIP revision, must
10 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2).
CFR 51.308(d).
12 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
13 40 CFR 51.308(i).
11 40
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51405
include in its proposal a description of
how it addressed any comments
provided by the FLMs.
F. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
The EPA’s RHR provides two paths to
address regional haze. One is 40 CFR
51.308, requiring states to perform
individual point source BART
determinations and evaluate the need
for other control strategies. The other
method for addressing regional haze is
through 40 CFR 51.309, and is an option
for nine states termed the ‘‘Transport
Region States,’’ which include: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and
Wyoming. By meeting the requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309, a Transport
Region State can be deemed to be
making reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions for the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau.14
Section 309 requires those Transport
Region States that choose to participate
to adopt regional haze strategies that are
based on recommendations from the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC) for protecting the
16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess
information about the adverse impacts
on visibility in and around the 16 Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau and to
provide policy recommendations to the
EPA to address such impacts. The
GCVTC determined that all Transport
Region States could potentially impact
the Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report
to the EPA in 1996 for protecting
visibility for the Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau, and the EPA codified
these recommendations as an option
available to states as part of the RHR.15
The EPA determined that the GCVTC
strategies would provide for reasonable
progress in mitigating regional haze if
supplemented by an annex containing
quantitative emission reduction
milestones and provisions for a trading
program or other alternative measure.16
In September 2000, the Western
14 The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid
tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona,
northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The
16 mandatory Class I areas are: Grand Canyon
National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified
Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness,
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells
Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche
Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Park
Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon
National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park and Zion National Park.
15 64 FR 35714, 35749 (July 1, 1999).
16 64 FR 35714, 35749, 35756 (July 1, 1999).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
51406
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),
which is the successor organization to
the GCVTC, submitted an annex to EPA.
The annex contained SO2 emissions
reduction milestones and detailed
provisions of a backstop trading
program to be implemented
automatically if voluntary measures
failed to achieve the SO2 milestones.
The EPA codified the annex on June 5,
2003 at 40 CFR 51.309(h).17
Five western states, including
Wyoming, submitted implementation
plans under section 309 in 2003.18 The
EPA was challenged by the Center for
Energy and Economic Development
(CEED) on the validity of the annex
provisions. In CEED v. EPA, the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
EPA approval of the WRAP annex.19 In
response to the court’s decision, the
EPA vacated the annex requirements
adopted under 40 CFR 51.309(h), but
left in place the stationary source
requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).20
The requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4) contain general
requirements pertaining to stationary
sources and market trading, and allow
states to adopt alternatives to the point
source application of BART.
Thus, rather than requiring sourcespecific BART controls as explained
previously in Section II.B., states have
the flexibility to adopt an emissions
trading program or other alternative
program if the alternative provides
greater reasonable progress than would
be achieved by the application of BART
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). Under
40 CFR 51.309, states can satisfy the SO2
BART requirements by adopting SO2
emissions milestones and a backstop
trading program. Under this approach,
states must establish declining SO2
emissions milestones for each year of
the program through 2018. The
milestones must be consistent with the
GCVTC’s goal of 50 to 70 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions by 2040.
The backstop trading program would be
implemented if a milestone is exceeded
and the program is triggered.21
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the
2014 Wyoming SIP and FIP
On January 30, 2014, the EPA
promulgated a final rule titled
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
17 68
FR 33764, 33767 (June 5, 2003).
states—Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah and Wyoming—and Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County, New Mexico, initially exercised this option
by submitting plans to the EPA in December 2003.
Oregon elected to cease participation in 2006, and
Arizona elected to cease participation in 2010.
19 Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d
653, 654 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
20 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
21 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
18 Five
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
‘‘Approval, Disapproval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze’’
approving, in part, a regional haze SIP
revision submitted by the State of
Wyoming on January 12, 2011.22 In the
final rule, the EPA also disapproved, in
part, the Wyoming regional haze SIP,
including the SIP NOX BART emission
limit of 0.21 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) for each of the three Laramie
River Units, and promulgated a FIP that
imposed a NOX BART emission limit of
0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
at each of the three Laramie River Units,
among other actions. The Laramie River
Station is in Platte County, Wyoming,
and is comprised of three 550 megawatt
(MW) dry-bottom, wall-fired boilers
(Units 1, 2, and 3) burning
subbituminous coal for a total net
generating capacity of 1,650 MW. All
three units are within the statutory
definition of BART-eligible units, were
determined to be subject to BART by
WY, approved in the SIP and are
operated by, and owned in part by,
Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin
Electric).
Basin Electric, the State of Wyoming,
and others challenged the final rule.
Basin Electric challenged our action as
it pertained to the NOX BART emission
limits for Laramie River Units 1–3.23
After mediated discussions through the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit’s Mediation Office, Basin
Electric, Wyoming and the EPA reached
a settlement in 2017 that if fully
implemented, would address all of
Basin Electric’s challenges to the 2014
final rule and Wyoming’s challenges to
the portion of the 2014 final rule
establishing NOX BART emission limits
for Laramie River Units 1–3.24 25
22 79
FR 5032 (January 30, 2014).
Electric Cooperative v. EPA, No. 14–9533
(10th Cir. March 31, 2014) and Wyoming v. EPA,
No. 14–9529 (10th Cir. March 28, 2014).
24 81 FR 96450 (December 30, 2016).
25 Letter from Eileen T. McDonough, U.S.
Department of Justice, to Elizabeth Morrisseau,
Wyoming Attorney General’s Office, and Christina
F. Gomez, Denise W. Kennedy, and Patrick R, Day,
Holland & Hart LLC (notification that both EPA and
the Department of Justice (DOJ) determined not to
withdraw their consent to the Settlement
Agreement) (April 24, 2017); Settlement Agreement
between Basin Electric Power Cooperative, the State
of Wyoming, and the EPA (April 24, 2017); First
Amendment to Settlement Agreement (pursuant to
Paragraph 15 of the Agreement, extended the
deadline for EPA to determine whether to withdraw
or consent to the Settlement Agreement in
Paragraph 1 to May 3, 2017); Second Amendment
to Settlement Agreement (pursuant to Paragraph 15
of the Agreement, amended the date in Paragraph
5.b.ii. for the SO2 emission limits for Laramie River
Units 1 and 2 to commence December 31, 2018)
(September 14, 2018).
23 Basin
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The settlement agreement requires the
EPA to propose a FIP revision to include
three major items:
• First, an alternative (BART
alternative) to the NOX BART emission
limits in the EPA’s 2014 FIP that
includes:
Æ NOX emission limits for Laramie
River Units 2 and 3 of 0.15 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average) commencing
December 31, 2018, with an interim
limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) commencing the date that the
EPA’s final revised FIP becomes
effective and ending December 31, 2018;
and
Æ a SO2 emission limit for Laramie
River Units 1 and 2 of 0.12 lb/MMBtu
(annual) averaged annually across the
two units commencing December 31,
2018.
• Second, a NOX BART emission
limit for Laramie River Unit 1 of 0.06 lb/
MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average
commencing July 1, 2019, with an
interim limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu on a 30day rolling average commencing the
date that the EPA’s final revised FIP
becomes effective and ending June 30,
2019. These limits are voluntarily
requested by Basin Electric.
• Third, installation of SCR on
Laramie River Unit 1 by July 1, 2019,
(thereby revising the compliance date of
the existing SIP) and installation of
SNCR on Units 2 and 3 by December 30,
2018.
In accordance with other terms of the
2017 settlement, Wyoming also
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA on
April 5, 2018, to revise the SO2 annual
reporting requirements for Laramie
River Units 1 and 2 as they pertain to
the backstop trading program under 40
CFR 51.309. Specifically, Wyoming
determined that Basin Electric must use
SO2 emission rates of 0.159 lb/MMBtu
for Laramie River Unit 1 and 0.162 lb/
MMBtu for Laramie River Unit 2, and
multiply those rates by the actual
annual heat input during the year for
each unit to calculate and report
emissions under the SO2 backstop
trading program. The revisions, as
described in Section III., ensure that SO2
emissions reductions proposed under
the 2017 settlement agreement are no
longer counted as reductions under the
backstop trading program.
The EPA is required, per the 2017
settlement agreement, to sign a
proposed rule no later than 6 months
after receipt of Wyoming’s SIP
submittal.
III. Proposed FIP Revisions
A. Background
In the 2011 submittal, Wyoming
determined that emission limits for
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
51407
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Laramie River Units 1–3 of 0.23 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) each,
reflecting installation of operation of
new low NOX burners (LNB) with
overfire air (OFA), were reasonable
measures to satisfy the units NOX BART
obligations. We disagreed with
Wyoming that LNB with OFA was
reasonable for NOX BART and
subsequently finalized a FIP on January
30, 2014, with NOX BART emission
limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) for each unit based on the
installation and operation of new LNBs
with OFA and SCR. The 2017 settlement
agreement, described previously in
Section II.G, established a deadline for
the EPA to take specific actions related
to the NOX emission limits established
in the 2014 FIP for Laramie River Units
1–3 as well as new SO2 emission limits
and emission control technologies
requirements.
B. The BART Alternative
We are proposing to amend the 2014
FIP to replace the NOX BART
requirements with a NOX BART
alternative. Specifically, we are
proposing to revise the NOX emission
limits for Laramie River Units 2 and 3
and establish a SO2 emission limit for
Units 1 and 2. We evaluate the NOX
BART alternative against the regulatory
BART alternative requirements found in
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) of the regional haze
regulations.
The RHR establishes requirements for
BART alternatives. Three of the
requirements are of relevance to our
evaluation of the BART alternative. We
evaluate the proposed BART alternative
to the NOX BART requirements in the
EPA’s 2014 FIP with respect to each of
these following elements:
• A demonstration that the emissions
trading program or other BART
alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would have
resulted from the installation and
operation of BART at all sources subject
to BART in the state and covered by the
BART alternative program.26
• A requirement that all necessary
emissions reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze.27
• A demonstration that the emissions
reductions resulting from the BART
alternative measure will be surplus to
those reductions resulting from the
measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the
SIP.28
1. Demonstration that the BART
alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), we
must demonstrate that the BART
alternative measure will achieve greater
reasonable progress than would have
resulted from the installation and
operation of BART at all sources subject
to BART in the state and covered by the
BART alternative program. For a sourcespecific BART alternative, the critical
elements of this demonstration are:
• A list of all BART-eligible sources
within the state;
• A list of all BART-eligible sources
and all BART source categories covered
by the BART alternative program;
• An analysis of BART and associated
emission reductions;
• An analysis of projected emissions
reductions achievable through the
BART alternative; and
• A determination that the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of
BART.
We summarize the proposed revisions
to the 2014 FIP with respect to each of
these elements and provide our
evaluation in the proceeding sections.
a. A list of all BART-eligible sources
within the state.
Table 1 shows a list of all the BARTeligible sources in the State of
Wyoming.29
TABLE 1—WYOMING BART-ELIGIBLE
SOURCES
Company
Facility
PacifiCorp ......................
Basin Electric ................
PacifiCorp ......................
PacifiCorp ......................
PacifiCorp ......................
FMC ..............................
General Chemical .........
Black Hills .....................
Sinclair ..........................
Sinclair ..........................
FMC ..............................
Dyno Nobel ...................
OCI Wyoming ................
P4 Production ...............
Jim Bridger.
Laramie River.
Dave Johnston.
Naughton.
Wyodak.
Westvaco.
Green River.
Neil Simpson 1.
Sinclair Refinery.
Casper Refinery.
Granger.
Dyno Nobel.
OCI Wyoming.
P4 Production.
b. A list of all BART-eligible sources
and all BART source categories covered
by the BART alternative program.
Table 2 shows a list of all the BARTeligible sources covered by the BART
alternative program along with the
BART source category.
TABLE 2—WYOMING SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES COVERED BY THE BART ALTERNATIVE
Company
Facility
Subject-to-BART units
Basin Electric .................................
Laramie River ...............................
Units 1–3 ......................................
c. Analysis of BART and associated
emission reductions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C),
the BART alternative must include an
analysis of BART and associated
emission reductions at Laramie River
Units 1–3. As noted previously, the SIP
and 2014 FIP each included BART
analyses and determinations for Units
1–3. Since we disapproved Wyoming’s
BART NOX determinations for Laramie
River Units 1–3, we conducted our own
Source category
Electrical generating units.
BART analysis and determination for
NOX BART in the 2014 FIP.30 For the
purposes of this evaluation, we consider
NOX BART for Laramie River Units 1–
3 to be the 2014 FIP BART
determination summarized in Table 3.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE EPA’S LARAMIE RIVER UNITS 1–3 NOX BART ANALYSIS
Emission limit
(lb/MMBtu)
(30-day rolling
average)
Unit
Technology *
Unit 1 ...............................................
Unit 2 ...............................................
New LNBs with OFA and SCR .................................................................
New LNBs with OFA and SCR .................................................................
26 40
27 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
28 40
29 77
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
FR 33029 (June 4, 2012).
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30 79
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
0.07
0.07
FR 5039 (January 30, 2014).
11OCP1
Emission
reduction
(tpy)
4,880
5,129
51408
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF THE EPA’S LARAMIE RIVER UNITS 1–3 NOX BART ANALYSIS—Continued
Emission limit
(lb/MMBtu)
(30-day rolling
average)
Unit
Technology *
Unit 3 ...............................................
New LNBs with OFA and SCR .................................................................
Emission
reduction
(tpy)
0.07
5,181
* The technology listed is the technology evaluated as BART, but sources can choose to use another technology or combination of technologies to meet established limits.
emission rate (in units of lb/MMBtu)
divided by the annual average emission
rate (in units of lb/MMBtu) during the
BART baseline period (2001–2003). In
the BART alternative, the modeled
controlled NOX annual emission rate for
Unit 1, using SCR controls, is 0.04 lb/
MMBtu (annual) based on the expected
annual emission performance under a
0.06 lb/MMBtu emission limit (30-day
rolling average). Likewise, the modeled
controlled NOX annual emission rate for
Units 2 and 3, using LNB with OFA and
SNCR, is 0.128 lb/MMBtu based on the
expected annual emission performance
as calculated in the 2014 FIP under a
0.15 lb/MMBtu emission rate (30-day
rolling average). The controlled SO2
annual emission rate for Units 1 and 2
is 0.115 lb/MMBtu (annual) for each
unit based on the expected annual
As described previously, reductions
in SO2 emissions were previously
accounted for under the SO2 backstop
trading program, per 40 CFR 51.309.
d. Analysis of projected emissions
reductions achievable through the
BART alternative
To determine the projected emissions
reductions achievable through the
BART alternative, the emissions are
calculated using the same process
explained in the 2014 FIP, whereby a
percent reduction is applied to the
Laramie River Units 1–3 baseline
emissions. However, the actual percent
reduction for the BART alternative is
different than the 2014 FIP because the
controlled rates are different between
the 2014 FIP and BART alternative. The
percent reduction, for both the BART
alternative and the 2014 FIP, is
calculated as the controlled annual
emission performance under a 0.12 lb/
MMBtu emission limit (30-day rolling
average).
The controlled annual emissions rates
are divided by the average emission
rates during the BART baseline period
(2001–2003) to calculate the percent
reduction for each unit. The average
emission rates during the BART
baseline period for each unit are: 31
• Unit 1: 0.2585 lb NOX/MMBtu;
0.159 lb SO2/MMBtu,
• Unit 2: 0.2703 lb NOX/MMBtu;
0.162 lb SO2/MMBtu, and
• Unit 3: 0.2669 lb NOX/MMBtu.
The percent reduction for each unit is
applied to the baseline emissions to
determine the NOX and SO2 emission
reductions associated with the BART
alternative for Laramie River Units 1–3
(Table 4).
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF THE EPA’S LARAMIE RIVER UNITS 1–3 BART ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS
NOX
Emission limit
(lb/MMBtu)
(30-day rolling
average)
Unit
Technology
Unit 1 .............................
Unit 2 .............................
Unit 3 .............................
New LNBs with OFA and SCR ...........................
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR .........................
New LNBs with OFA and SNCR .........................
SO2
Emission
reduction
(tpy)
0.06
0.15
0.15
4,880
3,342
3,337
Emission limit
(lb/MMBtu)
(30-day rolling
average)
Emission
reduction
(tpy)
0.12
0.12
NA
1,032
1,091
NA
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
NA = not applicable.
e. Determination that the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of
BART.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
the FIP revision must provide a
determination under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the
clear weight of evidence that the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART. Two different tests
for determining whether the BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART are outlined in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3). Under the first test, if
the distribution of emissions is not
substantially different than under
BART, and the BART alternative
measure results in greater emission
reductions, then the BART alternative
measure may be deemed to achieve
greater reasonable progress. Under the
second test, if the distribution of
emissions is significantly different, then
dispersion modeling must be conducted
to determine differences between BART
and the BART alternative for each
impacted Class I area for the worst and
best 20 percent days. The modeling
results would demonstrate ‘‘greater
reasonable progress’’ if both of the
following criteria are met: (1) Visibility
does not decline in any Class I area; and
(2) there is an overall improvement in
visibility, determined by comparing the
average differences between BART and
the BART alternative over all affected
Class I areas. This modeling test is
sometimes referred to as the ‘‘two-prong
test.’’
For the proposed FIP revision, we
determined that the BART alternative
will not achieve greater emissions
reductions than BART because, while
the SO2 emission reductions for Units 1
and 2 (1,032 tons per year (tpy) and
1,091 tpy respectively under the BART
alternative, compared to 0 tpy under
BART) and NOX emission reduction for
Unit 1 (5,179 tpy under the BART
31 Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility
Impacts for Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final
Report. Prepared for Basin Electric, AECOM (May
2016). Data based on the information obtained from
the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)
database, available at: https://ampd.epa.gov/
ampd/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:52 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
alternative compared to 4,880 tpy under
BART) are greater under the BART
alternative, the NOX emission
reductions under the BART alternative
are less for Units 2 and 3 (3,342 lb/
MMBtu and 3,337 lb/MMBtu,
respectively) than the NOX emission
reductions under BART (5,129 lb/
MMBtu and 5,181 lb/MMBtu,
respectively). Therefore, we evaluated
the results of modeling (using the
Comprehensive Air Quality Model with
Extensions (CAMx) model version
5.4132) performed by a contractor for
Basin Electric, AECOM, to assess
whether the BART alternative would
result in ‘‘greater reasonable progress’’
under the two-prong test in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).33
CAMx has a scientifically current
treatment of chemistry to simulate
transformation of emissions into
visibility-impairing particles of species
such as ammonium nitrate and
ammonium sulfate, and is often
employed in large-scale modeling when
many sources of pollution and/or long
transport distances are involved.
Photochemical grid models like CAMx
include all emissions sources and have
realistic representation of formation,
transport, and removal processes of the
particulate matter that causes visibility
degradation. The use of the CAMx
model for analyzing potential
cumulative air quality impacts has been
well established: The model has been
used for previous visibility modeling
studies in the U.S., including SIPs.34
The modeling followed a modeling
protocol that was reviewed by the
EPA.35 The starting point for assessing
visibility impacts for different levels of
emissions from Laramie River was the
Three-State Air Quality Modeling Study
(3SAQS) modeling platform that
provides a framework for addressing air
quality impacts in Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming. The 3SAQS is a publicly
available platform intended to facilitate
air resources analyses.36 The 3SAQS
developed a base year modeling
platform using the year 2008 to leverage
work completed during the West-wide
Jump-start Air Quality modeling study
(WestJump).37 For the Laramie River
modeling, AECOM performed
additional modeling to refine the
modeling domain from the 3SAQS 12kilometer (km) grid resolution to a finer
4-km grid resolution. The refined spatial
resolution was used to more accurately
simulate the concentration gradients of
gas and particulate species in the
plumes emitted from the source
facilities. The AECOM modeling data
sets used for this action are available in
the docket.38 For the two-prong test, an
existing projected 2020 emissions
database was used to estimate emissions
of sources within the modeling
domains. The existing 2020 database
was derived from the 3SAQS study,
which projected emissions from 2008 to
2020. Since the BART alternative
emissions reductions will not be fully in
place until the end of 2018, the 2020
emissions projections are more
representative of the air quality
conditions that will be obtained while
the BART alternative is being
implemented than the 2008 database. In
the three 2020 CAMx modeling
scenarios, Laramie River emissions were
modeled to represent the baseline, the
BART 2014 FIP, and the proposed
BART alternative as described in the
proceeding section and Table 5.
51409
The CAMx-modeled concentrations
for sulfur, nitrogen, and primary
particulate matter (PM) were tracked
using the CAMx Particulate Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT)
tool 39 so that the concentrations and
visibility impacts due to Laramie River
could be separated out from those due
to the total of all other modeled sources.
AECOM computed visibility
impairment due to Laramie River using
the EPA’s Modeled Attainment Test
Software (MATS) tool which biascorrects CAMx outputs to available
measurements of PM species and uses
the revised IMPROVE equation to
calculate the 20 percent best and 20
percent worst days for visibility
impacts.40
As described previously, the CAMx
system was configured using the 3SAQS
modeling platform to simulate future
year 2020 conditions for the following
modeling scenarios:
• Baseline: This scenario included
the actual emission rates for all three
units during the 2001–2003 BART
baseline period that were previously
modeled in CALPUFF simulations.
• BART: This scenario included the
emission rates for all three units that
correspond to the EPA’s 2014 FIP.
• BART alternative: This scenario
included the emission rates for all three
units that correspond to the BART
alternative.
The only differences among scenarios
are the NOX and SO2 emission rates for
Laramie River (Table 5). All other model
inputs, including other regional
emission sources, remained unchanged
among all future year scenarios.
TABLE 5—LARAMIE RIVER UNITS 1–3 EMISSIONS FOR THE CAMX MODEL BY SCENARIO PROJECTED TO YEAR 2020
CONDITIONS
Scenario
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Baseline .......................
BART ............................
BART alternative ..........
NOX
(tpy)
SO2
(tpy)
18,890
3,560
7,030
11,605
11,605
9,479
32 CAMx modeling software (https://
www.camx.com/download/default.aspx) and User’s
Guide (https://www.camx.com/about/default.aspx)
are available on these CAMx web pages.
33 Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility
Impacts for Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final
Report. Prepared for Basin Electric, AECOM (May
2016).
34 82 FR 46903 (October 10, 2017) (Final action
for the Coronado Generating Station in the Regional
Haze Plan for Arizona); 81 FR 296 (January 5, 2016)
(Final action for Texas and Oklahoma Regional
Haze Plans).
35 Photochemical Modeling Protocol for the
Visibility Assessment of Basin Electric Laramie
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
VOC
(tpy)
CO
(tpy)
234
234
234
1,950
1,950
1,950
River Power Plant. Prepared for Basin Electric,
AECOM (September 2015). Draft Modeling
Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze,
EPA (December 3, 2014).
36 Three-State Air Quality Modeling Study CAMx
Photochemical Grid Model Final Model
Performance Evaluation. University of North
Carolina and Environ (September 2014). https://
views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/Attachments/
Modeling/3SAQS_Base08b_MPE_Final_
30Sep2014.pdf.
37 https://www.wrapair2.org/
WestJumpAQMS.aspx. Additional information on
the WestJump study available in the docket for this
action, ‘‘WestJump Fact Sheet.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
PM10
(tpy)
PM2.5
(tpy)
2,748
2,748
2,748
2,440
2,440
2,440
NH3
(tpy)
41
41
41
38 CAMx modeling data available on hard disk in
the docket.
39 PSAT is included in the CAMx modeling code
and is described in the CAMx User’s Guide
available at: https://www.camx.com/download/
default.aspx.
40 IMPROVE refers to a monitoring network and
also to the equation used to convert monitored
concentrations to visibility impacts. ‘‘Revised
IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light
Extinction from Particle Speciation Data’’,
IMPROVE technical subcommittee for algorithm
review (January 2006). https://vista.cira.colostate.
edu/Improve/gray-literature/.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
51410
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Maintaining consistent model inputs
allows the CAMx modeling results to be
easily compared to analyze the effects of
different emissions control scenarios. As
described previously, the PSAT was
applied to the simulations to track and
account for the particulate mass
concentrations that originate or are
formed as a result of emissions from
Laramie River.
Once all the scenarios above were
simulated with the photochemical grid
model, model results were postprocessed to isolate the changes to
visibility conditions as a result of
emissions controls applied to Laramie
River Units 1–3 under the scenarios
described previously. To assess
compliance with the RHR requirements,
visibility changes are assessed during
the 20 percent best visibility days and
the 20 percent worst visibility days at
each potentially affected federally
regulated Class I area. Model-predicted
visibility impacts at the thirteen Class I
areas in the 4-km modeling domain
were estimated for each of the three
future year modeling scenarios.
The MATS tool was used to convert
model concentrations into visibility
estimates and account for quantifiable
model bias. All models are affected by
biases, i.e., model results simulate
complex natural phenomena and, as
such, model results can either over or
under estimate measured
concentrations. The use of MATS helps
mitigate model bias by pairing model
estimates of PM species concentrations
with actual measured conditions.
As a final step, Laramie River’s
visibility impact under the BART
alternative is compared to the visibility
impact under the Baseline and BART
scenarios to determine if the BART
alternative meets the requirements of
the two-prong test, i.e., prong 1, no
degradation compared to the Baseline at
any Class I area on the best visibility
days, and prong 2, greater progress
compared to BART averaged over all
Class I areas on the worst visibility days.
The visibility impacts derived from
modeling results are summarized in
Tables 6 and 7. The tables show the
projected Laramie River contribution to
visibility on the 20 percent best days
and worst days, respectively, for the
2020 Baseline (Column A), BART
(Column B), and BART alternative
(Column C) scenarios at each of the
Class I areas analyzed. The last two
columns show the predicted visibility
benefits from the BART alternative
scenario relative to both the 2020
baseline (Column D) and BART
(Column E). Also shown at the bottom
row are the average visibility values
from all the areas. Negative values in
Column D indicate that the BART
alternative scenario has smaller
contributions to visibility relative to the
baseline (‘‘prong 1’’), and therefore it
improves visibility over the baseline.
Similarly, negative values in Column E
indicate that the BART alternative
scenario has smaller contributions to
visibility relative to the BART scenario
(‘‘prong 2’’).
TABLE 6—LARAMIE RIVER VISIBILITY IMPACT (UNITS 1–3) FOR THE 2020 BASELINE, BART, AND BART ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIOS ON THE 20 PERCENT BEST DAYS
[A] Baseline
(dv)
Class I area *
Badland NP ..........................................................................
Bridger WA ...........................................................................
Fitzpatrick WA ......................................................................
Grand Teton NP ...................................................................
Mount Zirkel WA ..................................................................
North Absaroka WA ** ..........................................................
Rawah WA ...........................................................................
Red Rock Lakes WA ...........................................................
Rocky Mountain NP .............................................................
Teton WA .............................................................................
Washakie WA ** ...................................................................
Wind Cave NP .....................................................................
Yellowstone NP ....................................................................
All Class I Area Average *** .................................................
[B] BART
(dv)
0.0212
0.0000
0.0000
0.0012
0.0000
0.0005
0.0000
0.0012
0.0000
0.0012
0.0005
0.0055
0.0012
0.0025
0.0131
0.0000
0.0000
0.0012
0.0000
0.0005
0.0000
0.0012
0.0000
0.0012
0.0005
0.0051
0.0012
0.00185
[C] BART
alternative
(dv)
0.0138
0.0000
0.0000
0.0009
0.0000
0.0004
0.0000
0.0009
0.0000
0.0009
0.0004
0.0047
0.0009
0.00176
[D] BART
alternative—
Baseline
¥0.0074
0.0000
0.0000
¥0.0003
0.0000
¥0.0001
0.0000
¥0.0003
0.0000
¥0.0003
¥0.0001
¥0.0008
¥0.0003
NA
[E] BART
alternative—
BART
0.0007
0.0000
0.0000
¥0.0003
0.0000
¥0.0001
0.0000
¥0.0003
0.0000
¥0.0003
¥0.0001
¥0.0004
¥0.0003
¥0.00009
* NP = National Park; WA = Wilderness Area.
** Values reported for these Class I areas have been calculated with only 2 years of valid monitoring data.
*** The average visibility impact is calculated as the sum of the visibility impacts divided by the number of Class I areas.
**** NA = Not applicable.
TABLE 7—LARAMIE RIVER VISIBILITY IMPACT (UNITS 1–3) FOR THE 2020 BASELINE, BART, AND BART ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIOS ON THE 20 PERCENT WORST DAYS
[A] Baseline
(dv)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Class I area *
Badland NP ..........................................................................
Bridger WA ...........................................................................
Fitzpatrick WA ......................................................................
Grand Teton NP ...................................................................
Mount Zirkel WA ..................................................................
North Absaroka WA ** ..........................................................
Rawah WA ...........................................................................
Red Rock Lakes WA ...........................................................
Rocky Mountain NP .............................................................
Teton WA .............................................................................
Washakie WA ** ...................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
[B] BART
(dv)
0.0259
0.0029
0.0029
0.0024
0.0065
0.0003
0.0065
0.0024
0.0137
0.0024
0.0003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.0177
0.0028
0.0028
0.0023
0.0059
0.0003
0.0059
0.0023
0.0119
0.0023
0.0003
[C] BART
alternative
(dv)
0.0176
0.0023
0.0023
0.0019
0.0053
0.0001
0.0053
0.0019
0.0106
0.0019
0.0001
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
[D] BART
alternative—
Baseline
¥0.0083
¥0.0006
¥0.0006
¥0.0005
¥0.0012
¥0.0002
¥0.0012
¥0.0005
¥0.0031
¥0.0005
¥0.0002
[E] BART
alternative—
BART
¥0.0001
¥0.0005
¥0.0005
¥0.0004
¥0.0006
¥0.0002
¥0.0006
¥0.0004
¥0.0013
¥0.0004
¥0.0002
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
51411
TABLE 7—LARAMIE RIVER VISIBILITY IMPACT (UNITS 1–3) FOR THE 2020 BASELINE, BART, AND BART ALTERNATIVE
SCENARIOS ON THE 20 PERCENT WORST DAYS—Continued
[A] Baseline
(dv)
Class I area *
Wind Cave NP .....................................................................
Yellowstone NP ....................................................................
All Class I Area Average .....................................................
[B] BART
(dv)
0.0369
0.0024
0.00812
0.0267
0.0023
0.00642
[C] BART
alternative
(dv)
0.0253
0.0019
0.00589
[D] BART
alternative—
Baseline
¥0.0116
¥0.0005
NA
[E] BART
alternative—
BART
¥0.0014
¥0.0004
¥0.00054
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
* NP = National Park; WA = Wilderness Area.
** Values reported for these Class I areas have been calculated with only 2 years of valid monitoring data.
*** NA = Not applicable.
Table 6 shows that the proposed
BART alternative emissions will not
result in degradation of visibility on the
20 percent best days compared to the
2020 baseline conditions at any of the
13 analyzed Class I areas. In each
individual area, visibility is predicted to
improve or remain unchanged
compared to the 2020 baseline visibility
since all values shown in Column D are
either negative or zero. Overall, the
BART alternative scenario shows an
average improvement in visibility of
0.00009 deciviews (dv) relative to BART
for the best 20 percent days. Table 6 also
shows that for the BART alternative
scenario, visibility during the best days
improves or remains unchanged at all
Class I areas compared to the BART
scenario except for Badlands National
Park.
Table 7 shows that the proposed
BART alternative emissions will not
result in degradation of visibility on the
20 percent worst days compared to the
2020 baseline conditions at any of the
13 analyzed Class I areas. In each
individual area, visibility is predicted to
improve compared to the 2020 baseline
visibility, since all values in Column D
are negative. Overall, the BART
alternative shows an average
improvement in visibility of 0.00054 dv
relative to BART for the 20 percent
worst days. Table 7 also shows that for
the BART alternative scenario, visibility
during the 20 percent worst days
improves at all Class I areas compared
to the BART scenario.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(3), the
modeling demonstrates ‘‘greater
reasonable progress’’ if both of the
following criteria are met: (1) Visibility
does not decline in any Class I area; and
(2) there is an overall improvement in
visibility, determined by comparing the
average differences between BART and
the BART alternative over all affected
Class I areas. For the first prong of the
modeling test, the modeling results
show that visibility improves or stays
the same (i.e., does not decline) under
the BART alternative scenario for all
Class I areas for the 20 percent best and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
20 percent worst days when compared
with the baseline scenario (Column D in
Tables 6 and 7). For the second prong
of the modeling test, the modeling
results show that there is an overall
improvement in visibility under the
BART alternative scenario for all Class
I areas averaged over the 20 percent best
and 20 percent worst days when
compared with the BART scenario
(Column E in Tables 6 and 7). Based on
the modeling analysis, we propose to
find that the BART alternative would
achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
Additionally, AECOM used PSAT to
further evaluate the modeling to
determine whether the results represent
‘‘real’’ modeled visibility differences
and not the result of numerical artifacts
or ‘‘noise’’ in the model results. The
numerical method used to simulate
aerosol thermodynamics in CAMx may
be subject to some level of numerical
error when calculating the difference
between two model simulations. This
typically occurs in areas with high
concentrations of sulfate and nitrate,
and numerical error is manifested as
areas of small random checkerboard
increases and decreases in
concentrations, as illustrated in the
AECOM final report, Figure A–1, left
panels.41 Note that this numerical error
is typically a very small percentage of
the total modeled nitrate and sulfate
concentration. However, this error can
be relatively large in comparison to the
impacts of a single emissions source
such as the Laramie River Station. The
PSAT-based evaluation approach
eliminates numerical error in the model
results by using model tracer species
that track the emissions and chemical
transformation of SO2 and NOX from a
single source. By calculating the
changes in the PSAT mass attributed to
Laramie River Station in the baseline for
the 2014 FIP and BART alternative
simulations, the effects of numerical
41 Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility
Impacts for Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final
Report. Prepared for Basin Electric, AECOM (May
2016).
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
error in other emissions sources are
excluded from the analysis of the
Laramie River Station impacts. The
AECOM report Figure A–1, right panels,
shows the nitrate mass attributed to the
Laramie River Station and illustrates
that numerical error from other sources
is eliminated using this approach. Thus,
the PSAT plots show that
concentrations within the modeling
domain are attributable to the emissions
from Laramie River, and therefore
provide reliable data for assessing
whether there is a numerical difference
between the visibility benefits from the
BART and BART alternative control
scenarios.
Finally, we note that 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) allows for a straight
numerical test, regardless of the
magnitude of the computed differences.
The regulation does not specify a
minimum delta deciview difference
between the modeled scenarios that
must be achieved in order for a BART
alternative to be deemed to achieve
greater reasonable progress than BART.
Accordingly, given that the modeling
results show that visibility under the
BART alternative does not decline at
any of the 13 affected Class I areas
compared to the baseline (prong 1) and
will result in improved visibility, on
average, across all 13 Class I areas
compared to BART in the 2014 FIP
(prong 2), we propose to find that the
BART alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress than BART (2014
FIP) under the two-prong modeling test
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
2. A requirement that all necessary
emissions reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii),
all necessary emission reductions must
take place during the period of the first
long-term strategy for regional haze. The
RHR further requires a detailed
description of the BART alternative
measure, including schedules for
implementation, the emission
reductions required by the program, all
necessary administrative and technical
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
51412
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
procedures for implementing the
program, rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures
for enforcement.42
As noted previously, the 2017
settlement agreement includes
requirements for implementing the
BART alternative. In addition to the
emission limitations for NOX and SO2,
the 2017 settlement agreement includes
compliance dates, interim limits,
averaging times, and control technology
requirements. The monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements,43 along with other aspects
of the 2014 FIP that are not contained
within the 2017 settlement agreement,
remain unchanged in the EPA’s FIP.44
The compliance date for the BART
alternative is December 31, 2018, for
Laramie River Units 2 and 3 to install
and operate SNCR with corresponding
NOX emission limits of 0.15 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average).45 Laramie
River Units 2 and 3 must also meet
interim NOX emission limits of 0.18 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average; each)
commencing the date that the EPA’s
final revised FIP becomes effective and
ending on December 30, 2018.46 In
addition, Laramie River Units 1 and 2
must meet an SO2 emission limit of 0.12
lb/MMBtu averaged annually across the
two units commencing on December 31,
2018.47 Therefore, we propose to find
that the proposed FIP revision along
with the existing FIP provisions will
ensure that all necessary emission
reductions take place during the period
of the first long-term strategy and
therefore meets the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
3. Demonstration that emissions
reductions from the BART alternative
measure will be surplus.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv),
the SIP (or FIP) must demonstrate that
the emissions reductions resulting from
the BART alternative measure will be
surplus to those reductions resulting
from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the
baseline date of the SIP. The baseline
date for regional haze SIPs is 2002. All
the NOX emission reductions required
by the BART alternative are surplus to
reductions resulting from SIP measures
42 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
CFR 52.2636(e)–(h).
44 40 CFR 52.2636.
45 Settlement Agreement between Basin Electric
Power Cooperative, the State of Wyoming and the
EPA (April 24, 2017).
46 Ibid.
47 Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement
(pursuant to Paragraph 15 of the Agreement,
amended the date in Paragraph 5.b.ii. for the SO2
emission limits for Laramie River Units 1 and 2 to
commence December 31, 2018) (September 14,
2018).
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
43 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
applicable to Laramie River as of 2002.
In addition, the proposed SIP revision
discussed in Section IV, revises the SO2
emissions reporting requirements for
Laramie River Units 1 and 2 so that the
SO2 emissions reductions achieved from
the 2017 settlement agreement are not
also counted towards reductions under
the SO2 backstop trading program and
thereby included in the regional SO2
milestone. As discussed in Section IV,
we propose to approve these changes to
the SIP. Therefore, we propose to find
that the BART alternative complies with
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). In sum, we
propose to find that the BART
alternative meets all the applicable
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
Finally, in accordance with the
proposed establishment of SO2 emission
limits in the proposed FIP for Laramie
River Units 1 and 2, we also propose to
revise the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the 2014
FIP to reflect the establishment of SO2
emission limits in the proposed FIP.
These proposed revisions support CAA
section 110(a)(2)(A) requiring
implementation plans to include
enforceable emission limitations. In
order to be considered enforceable,
emission limits must include associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. In addition, the
CAA and the EPA’s implementing
regulations expressly require
implementation plans to include
regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting for applicable emissions
limitations.48 We do not propose to alter
the monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting requirements established in
the 2014 FIP that relate to compliance
with the BART emission limit for NOX.
C. The NOX Emission Limit for Laramie
River Unit 1
In addition to the BART alternative,
we are also proposing to amend the
2014 FIP by revising the NOX emission
limit for Laramie River Unit 1 as
voluntarily requested by Basin Electric
in the settlement agreement.49 The
amendment revises the NOX emission
limit for Unit 1 from the NOX BART
limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu to 0.06 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
commencing July 1, 2019, with an
interim limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) commencing the
effective date of the EPA’s final revised
FIP and ending June 30, 2019. Because
the revision to the NOX emission limit
for Laramie River Unit 1 achieves
greater NOX emission reductions than
the relevant portions of the 2014 FIP, we
propose to amend the Wyoming regional
haze 2014 FIP with this revision.
IV. Proposed Action on Submitted SIP
Revisions
A. Background
Wyoming submitted SIP revisions on
January 12, 2011, and April 19, 2012,
that address regional haze requirements
under 40 CFR 51.309. As explained
previously, 40 CFR 51.309 allows
certain western Transport Region States
an optional way to fulfill regional haze
requirements as opposed to adopting the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. As
required by 40 CFR 51.309, the
participating states must adopt a trading
program, or what has been termed the
Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide
Trading Program (backstop trading
program or trading program). One of the
components of the backstop trading
program is for stationary source SO2
emissions reductions.50 Thus, under 40
CFR 51.309, states can satisfy the
section 308 SO2 BART requirements by
adopting SO2 emissions milestones and
a backstop trading program. Under this
approach, states must establish
declining SO2 emissions milestones for
each year of the program through 2018.
If the milestones are exceeded in any
year, the backstop trading program is
triggered.
Among other things, the January 2011
and April 2012 SIP submittals contained
amendments to the Wyoming Air
Quality Standards and Regulations
(WAQSR) Chapter 14, Emission Trading
Program Regulations, Section 3, Sulfur
dioxide milestone inventory. On
December 12, 2012, we approved these
amendments into the SIP as meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309.51
B. April 5, 2018 Submittal
On April 5, 2018, Wyoming submitted
a SIP revision containing amendments
to WAQSR, Chapter 14, Emission
Trading Program Regulations, Section 3,
Sulfur dioxide milestone inventory and
additions to the regional haze
narrative.52 The amendments modify
the SO2 emissions backstop trading
program reporting requirements for
Laramie River Station Units 1 and 2.
The revisions ensure that SO2 emissions
reductions proposed under the 2017
settlement are no longer counted as
50 40
48 See,
e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR
51.212(c).
49 Settlement Agreement between Basin Electric
Power Cooperative, the State of Wyoming and the
EPA (April 24, 2017).
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CFR 51.309(d)(4).
FR 73926 (December 12, 2012).
52 State of Wyoming. Addressing Regional Haze
Visibility Protection For The Mandatory Federal
Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309.
Revised April 5, 2018.
51 77
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
reductions under the backstop trading
program. Specifically, the amendments
revise the SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for Laramie River Units 1
and 2 so that Unit 1’s SO2 emissions
shall be reported based on an annual
emission rate of 0.159 lb/MMBtu
multiplied by the actual annual heat
input, and Unit 2’s SO2 emissions shall
be reported based on an annual
emission rate of 0.162 lb/MMBtu
multiplied by the actual heat input.
Annual SO2 emissions for Laramie River
Unit 3 shall be reported as otherwise
provided in Chapter 14, Section 3(b).
The revisions also require that the
revised SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for Units 1 and 2
commence as of the year that Basin
Electric commences operation of SCR at
Unit 1 and that Wyoming use the
revised SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for all purposes under
Chapter 14. The additions to the SIP
narrative provide an explanation of the
regulatory amendments. The Wyoming
Environmental Quality Council
approved the proposed revisions on
December 5, 2017 (effective February 5,
2018).
C. The EPA’s Evaluation of the SO2
Emissions Reporting Amendments
We are proposing to approve
Wyoming’s amendments to the SO2
emissions reporting requirements and
the addition to the SIP narrative for
Laramie River Units 1 and 2, including
when Basin Electric is required to use
the revised SO2 emissions reporting
requirements and how the SO2
emissions will be reported within the
context of the SO2 emissions milestone
inventory. Together, these revisions
ensure that the SO2 emissions
reductions in the BART alternative are
not ‘‘double-counted’’ in the backstop
trading program in order to meet the
requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv)
(requirement that emissions reductions
from the alternative will be surplus to
the SIP). We evaluated how these
revisions meet the relevant
requirements under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4).
We agree with Wyoming that the
revisions to the SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for Laramie River Units 1
and 2 are sufficient to ensure that the
SO2 emissions reductions obtained
under the settlement agreement under
the NOX BART alternative (see Section
III) are not also counted towards
reductions under the SO2 backstop
trading program milestones.53 The
annual SO2 emission rates of 0.159 lb/
MMBtu and 0.162 lb/MMBtu (30-day
53 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:52 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
average) for Laramie River Units 1 and
2, respectively, reflect the actual average
emission rates from 2001 to 2003 for
these units.54 By reporting SO2
emissions using the average annual SO2
emission rates from 2001 to 2003 (and
multiplied by the actual annual heat
input) instead of reporting the actual
average annual SO2 emission rates,
emissions reductions achieved since the
baseline period at these units will no
longer be included in the backstop
trading program. Thus, if EPA decides
to finalize this proposed action, instead
of reporting the actual annual SO2
emissions for Units 1 and 2 achieved
under the revised average annual
emission limit of 0.115 lb/MMBtu (0.12
lb/MMBtu; 30-day rolling average limit),
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A)
and the settlement agreement, as of the
year that Basin Electric commences
operation of SCR on Unit 1, SO2
emissions would be calculated using the
average annual emission rates reflective
of the baseline period (0.159 lb/MMBtu
for Unit 1 and 0.162 lb/MMBtu for Unit
2) multiplied by the actual annual heat
input. Thus, these revisions not only
ensure that the SO2 emissions
reductions achieved under the NOX
BART alternative are only accounted for
under the BART alternative, and not
‘‘double-counted,’’ but also describe
how compliance with the backstop
trading program requirements will be
determined as required under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(i).
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii),
documentation of the SO2 emission
calculation methodology and any
changes to the specific methodology
used to calculate the emissions at any
emitting unit for any year after the base
year must be provided in the backstop
trading program implementation plan.
The revisions in Wyoming’s 2018 SIP
submittal: (1) Document the changes to
the specific methodology used to
calculate and report SO2 emissions at
Laramie River Units 1 and 2, including
the annual average SO2 emission rates
for each unit and how to determine the
actual annual heat rate (Chapter 14,
Section 3(d)); (2) specify that the revised
methodology will commence as of the
year that SCR is operational on Unit 1
(Chapter 14, Section 3(d)(i)); and (3)
clarify that the revisions to the SO2
emissions reporting methodology for
Units 1 and 2 shall be used for all
purposes under Chapter 14, Emission
54 Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility
Impacts for Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final
Report. Prepared for Basin Electric, AECOM (May
2016). Data based on the information obtained from
the EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD)
database, available at: https://ampd.epa.gov/
ampd/.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51413
Trading Program Regulations (Chapter
14, Section 3(e)). Thus, the revisions
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(ii) because the amendments
to the SO2 emissions reporting
requirements provide for documentation
of the changes to the specific
methodology used to calculate
emissions at Laramie River Units 1 and
2 for the relevant years after the base
year, and the amendments are contained
within Wyoming’s backstop trading
program implementation plan (Chapter
14, Section 3).
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), the
EPA-approved plan includes provisions
requiring the monitoring,
recordkeeping, and annual reporting of
actual stationary source SO2 emissions
within the State, (Chapter 14, Section
3(b)). These requirements continue to
apply to the Laramie River Units 1 and
2 and were not modified in Wyoming’s
2018 SIP submittal. Likewise, the
requirements found in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(iv), 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v)
and 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi) pertaining
to the market trading program and
provisions for the 2018 milestone were
not modified in Wyoming’s 2018 SIP
submittal. Because the revisions to the
SO2 emissions reporting requirements
for Laramie River Units 1 and 2 meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) we
propose to approve the SIP revisions to
Chapter 14, Section 3.
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA
cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of
this title), or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ 55 We
propose to find that these revisions
satisfy section 110(l). The previous
sections of the notice explain how the
proposed FIP revision will comply with
applicable regional haze requirements
and general implementation plan
requirements such as enforceability.
Likewise, the SIP revision will also
comply with applicable regional haze
requirements. With respect to
55 Note that ‘‘reasonable further progress’’ as used
in CAA section 110(l) is a reference to that term as
defined in section 301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)),
and as such means reductions required to attain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
set for criteria pollutants under section 109. This
term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in
section 301(a)) is not synonymous with ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ as that term is used in the regional haze
program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that EPA
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with
regional haze requirements (including reasonable
progress requirements) insofar as they are ‘‘other
applicable requirement[s]’’ of the Clean Air Act.
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
51414
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, the
Wyoming Regional Haze SIP and FIP, as
revised by this action, will result in a
significant reduction in emissions
compared to historical levels. In
addition, the area where the Laramie
River Station is located is in attainment
for all National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). Thus, the revisions
will ensure a significant reduction in
NOX and SO2 emissions compared to
historical levels in an area that has not
been designated nonattainment for the
relevant NAAQS at those current levels.
VI. Consultation With FLMs
There are seven (7) Class I areas in the
State of Wyoming. The United States
Forest Service manages the Bridger
Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness,
North Absaroka Wilderness, Teton
Wilderness, and Washakie Wilderness.
The National Park Service manages the
Grand Teton National Park and
Yellowstone National Park. The RHR
grants the FLMs, regardless of whether
a FLM manages a Class I area within the
state, a special role in the review of
regional haze implementation plans,
summarized in Section II.E of this
preamble.
There are obligations to consult on
plan revisions under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(3). Thus, we consulted with
the Forest Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Park Service
on the proposed FIP revision. We
described the proposed revisions to the
regional haze 2014 FIP and 2018 SIP
revisions with the Forest Service, the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Park Service on August 15,
2018 and met our obligations under 40
CFR 51.308(i)(3).
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
VII. The EPA’s Proposed Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to
approve SIP amendments, shown in
Table 8, to the Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations, Chapter 14,
Emission Trading Program Regulations,
Section 3, Sulfur dioxide milestone
inventory, revising the backstop trading
program SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for Laramie River Units 1
and 2.
in 40 CFR 52.2636 to remove the 2014
FIP’s NOX emission limits and instead
incorporate the BART alternative and
associated NOX and SO2 emission limits
for Laramie River Units 1–3, revise the
NOX emission limit for Unit 1, and add
control technology requirements.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to
revise the NOX emission limits and add
SO2 emission limits and control
technologies in Table 2 of 40 CFR
52.2636(c)(1) for Laramie River Units
1–3. We are also proposing to add
associated compliance dates in 40 CFR
52.2636(d)(4) for Laramie River Units
1–3. Finally, we are proposing to
reference SO2 in the following sections:
Applicability (40 CFR 52.2636(a));
Definitions (40 CFR 52.2636(b));
Compliance determinations for NOX (40
CFR 52.2636(e)); Reporting (40 CFR
52.2636(h)); and Notifications (40 CFR
52.2636(i)). We are not proposing to
change any other regulatory text in 40
CFR 52.2636.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to
include regulatory text in an EPA final
rule that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the SIP amendments described in
Section VII of this preamble. The EPA
has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available
through www.regulations.gov (refer to
docket EPA–R08–OAR–2018–0606) 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).
IX. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 56 and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. This proposed rule applies to
only one facility in the State of
Wyoming. It is therefore not a rule of
general applicability.
TABLE 8—LIST OF WYOMING AMENDMENTS THAT EPA IS PROPOSING TO B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
APPROVE
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Amended sections in April 5, 2018 submittal
proposed for approval
Chapter 14, Section 3: (d), (e).
We are also proposing to amend the
Wyoming regional haze FIP contained
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA).57 A ‘‘collection of
information’’ under the PRA means ‘‘the
obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
an agency, third parties or the public of
information by or for an agency by
means of identical questions posed to,
or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure requirements imposed on,
ten or more persons, whether such
collection of information is mandatory,
voluntary, or required to obtain or retain
a benefit.’’ 58 Because this proposed rule
revises the NOX and SO2 emission limits
and associated reporting requirements
for one facility, the PRA does not apply.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create
impacts on small entities as no small
entities are subject to the requirements
of this rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
federal agencies to assess the effects of
57 44
56 58
PO 00000
FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
58 5
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added).
11OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
their regulatory actions on state, local
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for final rules with ‘‘Federal
mandates’’ that may result in
expenditures to state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of UMRA generally requires
the EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 of UMRA do not apply when they
are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows
the EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before the EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
actions with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, the EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
not contain a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures that exceed the
inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of
$100 million 59 by state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector in any
one year. The proposed revisions to the
2014 FIP would reduce private sector
expenditures. Additionally, we do not
foresee significant costs (if any) for state
and local governments. Thus, because
the proposed revisions to the 2014 FIP
reduce annual expenditures, this
proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA. This proposed rule is also not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,60
revokes and replaces Executive Orders
12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires the EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ 61 ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ 62 Under
Executive Order 13132, the EPA may
not issue a regulation ‘‘that has
federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, . . .
and that is not required by statute,
unless [the federal government provides
the] funds necessary to pay the direct
[compliance] costs incurred by the State
and local governments,’’ or the EPA
consults with state and local officials
early in the process of developing the
final regulation.63 The EPA also may not
issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts state
law unless the agency consults with
state and local officials early in the
process of developing the final
regulation.
This action does not have federalism
implications. The proposed FIP
revisions will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments,’’ requires
the EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
FR 43255, 43255–43257 (August 10, 1999).
FR 43255, 43257.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
to 2014 dollars, the UMRA threshold
becomes $152 million.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
have tribal implications.’’ 64 This
proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule. However, on
September 5, 2018, the EPA did send
letters to each of the Wyoming tribes
explaining our regional haze proposed
FIP revision and offering consultation.65
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). The EPA interprets Executive
Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
executive order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. Section 12(d) of NTTAA,
Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs the EPA to consider
and use ‘‘voluntary consensus
standards’’ in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
60 64
61 64
59 Adjusted
51415
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
64 65
FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
to tribal governments (September 5,
65 Letters
2018).
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
51416
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
This action involves technical
standards. The EPA has decided to use
the applicable monitoring requirements
of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already
incorporates a number of voluntary
consensus standards. Consistent with
the agency’s Performance Based
Measurement System (PBMS), part 75
sets forth performance criteria that
allow the use of alternative methods to
the ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS
approach is intended to be more flexible
and cost-effective for the regulated
community; it is also intended to
encourage innovation in analytical
technology and improved data quality.
At this time, the EPA is not
recommending any revisions to part 75.
However, the EPA periodically revises
the test procedures set forth in part 75.
When the EPA revises the test
procedures set forth in part 75 in the
future, the EPA will address the use of
any new voluntary consensus standards
that are equivalent. Currently, even if a
test procedure is not set forth in part 75,
the EPA is not precluding the use of any
method, whether it constitutes a
voluntary consensus standard or not, as
long as it meets the performance criteria
specified; however, any alternative
methods must be approved through the
petition process under 40 CFR 75.66
before they are used.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, establishes
federal executive policy on
Rule No.
environmental justice.66 Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
I certify that the approaches under
this proposed rule will not have
potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or
indigenous/tribal populations. As
explained previously, the Wyoming
Regional Haze FIP, as revised by this
action, will result in a significant
reduction in emissions compared to
current levels. Although this revision
will allow an increase in future
emissions as compared to the 2014 FIP,
the proposed FIP, as a whole, will still
result in overall NOX and SO2
reductions compared to those currently
allowed. In addition, the area where
Laramie River Station is located has not
been designated nonattainment for any
NAAQS. Thus, the proposed FIP will
ensure a significant reduction in NOX
and SO2 emissions compared to current
levels and will not create a
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effect
on minority, low-income, or
indigenous/tribal populations. The EPA,
however, will consider any input
State
effective
date
Rule title
*
*
*
EPA
effective
date
*
received during the public comment
period regarding environmental justice
considerations.
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: October 3, 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 ZZ—Wyoming
2. Section 52.2620 is amended by
revising:
■ a. In paragraph (c), the table entry for
‘Section 3’ under the centered table
heading ‘‘Chapter 14. Emission Trading
Program Regulations.’’; and
■ b. In paragraph (e), the table entry for
‘(20)XX’.
The revisions read as follows:
■
§ 52.2620
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
Final rule/citation date
*
*
Comments
*
Chapter 14. Emission Trading Program Regulations
Section 3 .........
*
*
*
Sulfur dioxide milestone inventory .................
*
*
*
*
*
*
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
(20)XX .............
*
11/13/2018
*
*
*
[Federal Register citation], [Federal Register date of publication].
*
*
State
effective
date
Rule title
*
*
*
Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection For The Mandatory Federal Class I
Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309.
*
4/5/2018
*
EPA
effective
date
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
*
*
11/13/2018
*
Final rule/citation date
*
*
[Federal Register citation], [Federal Register date of publication].
*
*
FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
(e) * * *
*
66 59
*
*
Rule No.
2/5/2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Comments
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
3. Section 52.2636 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(4),
(b)(12), (c)(1), (c)(1) Table 2, (d)(2) and
(d)(3), (e), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii)(A) through
(C), (h)(1), and (i)(1); and
■ b. Adding paragraphs (b)(13), (d)(4),
and (e)(1)(ii)(D).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
§ 52.2636
haze.
Implementation plan for regional
(a) * * *
(2) This section also applies to each
owner and operator of the following
emissions units in the State of Wyoming
for which EPA disapproved the State’s
BART determination and issued a SO2
and/or NOX BART Federal
Implementation Plan:
(i) Basin Electric Power Cooperative
Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3;
(ii) PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3;
and
(iii) PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant
Unit 1.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(4) Continuous emission monitoring
system or CEMS means the equipment
required by this section to sample,
analyze, measure, and provide, by
means of readings recorded at least once
every 15 minutes (using an automated
51417
data acquisition and handling system
(DAHS)), a permanent record of SO2
and/or NOX emissions, diluent, or stack
gas volumetric flow rate.
*
*
*
*
*
(12) SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
(13) Unit means any of the units
identified in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(c) * * *
(1) The owners/operators of emissions
units subject to this section shall not
emit, or cause to be emitted, PM, NOX,
or SO2 in excess of the following
limitations:
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 2 TO § 52.2636
[Emission limits and required control technologies for BART units for which the EPA disapproved the State’s BART determination and
implemented a FIP]
Source name/BART unit
NOX required control technology
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 1 1 .........
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 2 1 .........
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) 2
Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) 3.
Selective Non-catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) 3.
N/A ......................................................
N/A ......................................................
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 3 1 .........
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 ...........................................................
PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1 ..................................................
NOX emission
limit—
lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling
average)
4 0.18/0.06
SO2 emission
limit—
lb/MMBtu
(averaged
annually
across both
units)
0.12
0.18/0.15
0.18/0.15
N/A
* 0.07
N/A
N/A
0.07
1 The owners and operators of Laramie River Station Unit 1 shall comply with the NO emission limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu on [the effective date of
X
the final rule] and ending June 30, 2019. The owners and operators of Laramie River Station Unit 1 shall comply with the NOX emission limit of
0.06 lb/MMBtu on July 1, 2019. The owners and operators of the Laramie River Station Units 2 and 3 shall comply with the NOX emission limit of
0.18 lb/MMBtu on [the effective date of the final rule] and ending on December 30, 2018. The owners and operators of Laramie River Station
Units 2 and 3 shall comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu on December 31, 2018. The owners and operators of Laramie River
Station Units 1 and 2 shall comply with the SO2 emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu averaged annually across the two units on December 31, 2018.
2 By July 1, 2019.
3 By December 30, 2018.
4 These limits are in addition to the NO emission limit for Laramie River Station Unit 1 of 0.07 MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average.
X
* (or 0.28 and shut-down by December 31, 2027).
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) The owners and operators of
Laramie River Station Unit 1 shall
comply with the NOX emission limit of
0.18 lb/MMBtu on [the effective date of
the final rule] and ending June 30, 2019.
The owners and operators of Laramie
River Station Unit 1 shall comply with
the NOX emission limit of 0.06 lb/
MMBtu on July 1, 2019. The owners and
operators of the Laramie River Station
Units 2 and 3 shall comply with the
NOX emission limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu
on [the effective date of the final rule]
and ending on December 30, 2018. The
owners and operators of Laramie River
Station Units 2 and 3 shall comply with
the NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu on December 31, 2018. The
owners and operators of Laramie River
Station Units 1 and 2 shall comply with
the SO2 emission limit of 0.12 lb/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
MMBtu averaged annually across the
two units on December 31, 2018.
(3) The owners and operators of the
other BART sources subject to this
section shall comply with the emissions
limitations and other requirements of
this section by March 4, 2019.
(4) Compliance alternatives for
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3. (i) The
owners and operators of PacifiCorp
Dave Johnston Unit 3 will meet a NOX
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30day rolling average) by March 4, 2019;
or
(ii) Alternatively, the owners and
operators of PacifiCorp Dave Johnston
Unit 3 will permanently cease operation
of this unit on or before December 31,
2027.
(e) Compliance determinations for
SO2 and NOX.
(1) * * *
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(i) CEMS. At all times after the earliest
compliance date specified in paragraph
(d) of this section, the owner/operator of
each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and
operate a CEMS, in full compliance with
the requirements found at 40 CFR part
75, to accurately measure SO2 and/or
NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric
flow rate from each unit. The CEMS
shall be used to determine compliance
with the emission limitations in
paragraph (c) of this section for each
unit.
(ii) * * *
(A) For any hour in which fuel is
combusted in a unit, the owner/operator
of each unit shall calculate the hourly
average NOX emission rates in lb/
MMBtu at the CEMS in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At
the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and
record a new 30-day rolling average
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
51418
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 197 / Thursday, October 11, 2018 / Proposed Rules
emission rate in lb/MMBtu from the
arithmetic average of all valid hourly
emission rates from the CEMS for the
current operating day and the previous
29 successive operating days.
(B) At the end of each calendar year,
the owner/operator shall calculate the
annual average SO2 emission rate in lb/
MMBtu across Laramie River Station
Units 1 and 2 as the sum of the SO2
annual mass emissions (pounds)
divided by the sum of the annual heat
inputs (MMBtu). For Laramie River
Station Units 1 and 2, the owner/
operator shall calculate the annual mass
emissions for SO2 and the annual heat
input in accordance with 40 CFR part 75
for each unit.
(C) An hourly average SO2 and/or
NOX emission rate in lb/MMBtu is valid
only if the minimum number of data
points, as specified in 40 CFR part 75,
is acquired by both the pollutant
concentration monitor (SO2 and/or
NOX) and the diluent monitor (O2 or
CO2).
(D) Data reported to meet the
requirements of this section shall not
include data substituted using the
missing data substitution procedures of
subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall
the data have been bias adjusted
according to the procedures of 40 CFR
part 75.
*
*
*
*
*
(h) * * *
(1) The owner/operator of each unit
shall submit quarterly excess emissions
reports for SO2 and/or NOX BART units
no later than the 30th day following the
end of each calendar quarter. Excess
emissions means emissions that exceed
the emissions limits specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. The reports
shall include the magnitude, date(s),
and duration of each period of excess
emissions, specific identification of
each period of excess emissions that
occurs during startups, shutdowns, and
malfunctions of the unit, the nature and
cause of any malfunction (if known),
and the corrective action taken or
preventative measures adopted.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(1) The owner/operator shall
promptly submit notification of
commencement of construction of any
equipment which is being constructed
to comply with the SO2 and/or NOX
emission limits in paragraph (c) of this
section.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2018–21949 Filed 10–10–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
20:17 Oct 10, 2018
Jkt 247001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065;
4500030114]
RIN 1018–BD52
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the Black Pinesnake
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; revision,
reopening of comment period, and
announcement of public meetings.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
reopening of the comment period on our
March 11, 2015, proposed designation
of critical habitat for the black
pinesnake (Pituophis melanoleucus
lodingi) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We are
reopening the comment period to accept
comments on our proposal, including
revisions to proposed Units 7 and 8 that
are described in this document. As a
result of these revisions, we are now
proposing to designate a total of 338,379
acres (136,937 hectares) as critical
habitat for the black pinesnake across
eight units within portions of Forrest,
George, Greene, Harrison, Jones, Marion,
Perry, Stone, and Wayne Counties in
Mississippi, and Clarke County in
Alabama. This is a small increase in
acreage from the area we proposed to
designate in our March 11, 2015,
proposed rule but constitutes less
privately owned lands. In addition, we
announce two public informational
meetings on the proposed rule. We are
reopening the comment period on our
March 11, 2015, proposed rule to allow
all interested parties the opportunity to
comment on the revised proposed rule.
Comments previously submitted need
not be resubmitted, as they will be fully
considered in preparation of the final
rule.
SUMMARY:
The comment period for the
proposed rule published March 11,
2015, at 80 FR 12846 is reopened.
Written comments: So that we can
fully consider your comments in our
final determination, submit them on or
before November 13, 2018. Comments
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing
date.
Public informational meetings: We
will hold two public meetings, one from
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. on October 22,
2018, and a second from 6:00 p.m. to
7:30 p.m. on October 24, 2018.
ADDRESSES:
Document availability: You may
obtain copies of the March 11, 2015,
proposed rule and associated
documents on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065 or by mail
from the Mississippi Ecological Services
Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Written comments: You may submit
written comments by one of the
following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065, which is
the docket number for this rulemaking.
Then, click on the Search button. On the
resulting page, in the Search panel on
the left side of the screen, under the
Document Type heading, click on the
Proposed Rule box to locate this
document. You may submit a comment
by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’
(2) By hard copy: Submit your
comments by U.S. mail or hand-delivery
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R4–ES–2014–0065, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send comments
only by the methods described above.
We will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see Public
Comments, below, for more
information).
Public informational meetings: The
public informational meetings will be
held in the following locations:
• On October 22, 2018, at Pearl River
Community College, Lowery A. Woodall
Advanced Technology Center, 906
Sullivan Drive, Hattiesburg, MS 39401.
• On October 24, 2018, at Alabama
Coastal Community College,
Administration Building, Tombigbee
Conference Room, 30755 Hwy. 43
South, Thomasville, AL 36784. See
Public Informational Meetings, below,
for more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor,
Mississippi Ecological Services Field
Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway,
Jackson, MS 39213; telephone 601–321–
1122; or facsimile 601–965–4340.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\11OCP1.SGM
11OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51403-51418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21949]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0606; FRL-9984-85-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Wyoming; Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan;
Revisions to Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Wyoming on April 5, 2018, addressing regional haze. The
revisions modify the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions
reporting requirements for Laramie River Station Units 1 and 2. We are
also proposing to revise the nitrogen oxides (NOX) best
available retrofit technology (BART) emission limits for Laramie River
Units 1-3 in the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for regional haze in
Wyoming. The proposed revisions to the Wyoming regional haze FIP would
also establish a SO2 emission limit averaged annually across
both Laramie River Station Units 1 and 2. The EPA is proposing this
action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES:
Comments: Written comments must be received on or before November
13, 2018.
Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting a public hearing
on or before October 26, 2018, we will hold a hearing. Additional
information about the hearing, if requested, will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document. Contact Jaslyn Dobrahner at (303)
312-6252, or at [email protected], to request a hearing or to
determine if a hearing will be held.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0606, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: 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 its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that, if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6252, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
[[Page 51404]]
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
C. BART Alternatives
D. Reasonable Progress Requirements
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
F. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR
51.309
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2014 Wyoming SIP and FIP
III. Proposed FIP Revisions
A. Background
B. The BART Alternative
C. The NOX Emission Limit for Laramie River Unit 1
IV. Proposed Action on Submitted SIP Revisions
A. Background
B. April 5, 2018 Submittal
C. The EPA's Evaluation of the SO2 Emissions
Reporting Amendments
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
VI. Consultation With FLMs
VII. The EPA's Proposed Action
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On January 30, 2014, the EPA promulgated a final rule titled
``Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State
of Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze'' approving, in part, a regional
haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12,
2011.\1\ In the final rule, the EPA also disapproved, in part, the
Wyoming regional haze SIP, including the NOX BART emission
limit of 0.21 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for Laramie River Units
1-3, and promulgated a FIP that imposed a NOX BART emission
limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for each of the three
Laramie River Units, among other actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 79 FR 5032 (January 30, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to revise the FIP per the terms of the
settlement agreement and amendment described in Section II.G. to amend
the NOX and SO2 emission limits for Laramie
River. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to: (1) Revise the
NOX emission limit and associated compliance date for Unit
1; (2) through the incorporation of a BART alternative, revise the
NOX emission limits for Units 2 and 3, and the
SO2 emission limit averaged annually across Units 1 and 2
along with the associated compliance dates; and (3) require selective
catalytic reduction (SCR) on Unit 1 and selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR) on Units 2 and 3. Although we are proposing to revise
the Wyoming regional haze FIP, Wyoming may always submit a new regional
haze SIP to the EPA for review and we would welcome such a submission.
The CAA requires the EPA to act within 12 months on a SIP submittal
that it determines to be complete. If Wyoming were to submit a SIP
revision meeting the requirements of the CAA and the regional haze
regulations, we would propose approval of the State's plan as
expeditiously as practicable.
The EPA is also proposing to approve SIP revisions submitted by the
State of Wyoming on April 5, 2018, to amend the SO2
emissions reporting requirements for Laramie River Units 1 and 2.
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve the SO2
emissions reporting requirements for Laramie River Units 1 and 2, which
address how Basin Electric is required to calculate reportable
SO2 emissions, when Basin Electric is required to use the
revised SO2 emissions calculation method, and how the
reported SO2 emissions will be used within the context of
the SO2 emissions milestone inventory.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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 whose visibility they consider
to be 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999.\3\ The Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revised the existing visibility
regulations \4\ 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
40 CFR 51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. The EPA revised the
RHR on January 10, 2017.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
\4\ The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084,
80084 (December 2, 1980).
\5\ 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.\6\ 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 elects not to
make a required SIP submittal, 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 FIP to fill this regulatory
gap.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
\7\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states as part of their SIPs, or
the EPA when developing a FIP in the absence of an approved regional
haze SIP, to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger,
often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states' 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 through their SIPs,
or as determined by the EPA when it promulgated a FIP. Under the RHR,
states (or the EPA) 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.\8\
[[Page 51405]]
Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have
the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other
alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 40 CFR 51.308(e). The EPA designed the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule (Guidelines) 40 CFR
appendix Y to part 51 ``to help States and others (1) identify those
sources that must comply with the BART requirement, and (2)
determine the level of control technology that represents BART for
each source.'' Guidelines, Section I.A. Section II of the Guidelines
describes the four steps to identify BART sources, and Section III
explains how to identify BART sources (i.e., sources that are
``subject to BART'').
\9\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d
919 (10th Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. BART Alternatives
An alternative program to BART must meet requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) and (e)(3). These requirements for alternative programs
relate to the ``better-than-BART'' test and fundamental elements of any
alternative program.
In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific BART, a state, or the
EPA if developing a FIP, must demonstrate that its SIP meets the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i) through (v). The state or the
EPA must conduct an analysis of the best system of continuous emission
control technology available and the associated reductions for each
source subject to BART covered by the alternative program, termed a
``BART benchmark.'' Where the alternative program has been designed to
meet requirements other than BART, simplifying assumptions may be used
to establish a BART benchmark.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the state or the EPA, must
also provide a determination that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or
otherwise based on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3),
in turn, provides specific tests applicable under specific
circumstances for determining whether the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. If the distribution of emissions for the
alternative program is not substantially different than for BART, and
the alternative program results in greater emissions reductions, then
the alternative program may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different,
the differences in visibility between BART and the alternative program,
must be determined by conducting dispersion modeling for each impacted
Class I area for the best and worst 20 percent of days. This modeling
demonstrates ``greater reasonable progress'' if both of the two
following criteria are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any
Class I area; and (2) there is overall improvement in visibility when
comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative
program across all the affected Class I areas. Alternatively, pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), states may show that the alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than the BART benchmark ``based on the
clear weight of evidence'' determinations. Specific RHR requirements
for alternative programs are discussed in more detail in Section
III.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, a SIP or FIP addressing regional haze must include
emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to
BART. In addition to the RHR's requirements, general SIP requirements
mandate that the SIP or FIP include all regulatory requirements related
to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for the alternative's
enforceable requirements. See CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51,
subpart K.
D. Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to BART requirements, as mentioned previously, each
regional haze SIP or FIP must contain measures as necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. Finally, the
SIP or FIP 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.\11\ If an RPG provides for a slower rate of improvement in
visibility than the rate under which the national goal of no
anthropogenic visibility impact would be attained by 2064, the SIP or
FIP must demonstrate, based on the four reasonable progress factors,
why that faster rate is not reasonable and the slower rate provided for
by the SIP or FIP's state-specific RPG is reasonable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 40 CFR 51.308(d).
\12\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The RHR requires that a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP
that fills a gap in the SIP with respect to this requirement, consult
with FLMs before adopting and submitting a required SIP or SIP
revision, or a required FIP or FIP revision.\13\ Further, the EPA, or
state when considering a SIP revision, must include in its proposal a
description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
The EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze. One is
40 CFR 51.308, requiring states to perform individual point source BART
determinations and evaluate the need for other control strategies. The
other method for addressing regional haze is through 40 CFR 51.309, and
is an option for nine states termed the ``Transport Region States,''
which include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New
Mexico, Oregon, Utah and Wyoming. By meeting the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309, a Transport Region State can be deemed to be making
reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions for the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are: Grand Canyon National
Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National Park,
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison National
Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells Wilderness, Mesa
Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San
Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon National
Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef National Park and Zion
National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 309 requires those Transport Region States that choose to
participate to adopt regional haze strategies that are based on
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(GCVTC) for protecting the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.
The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess information about the adverse
impacts on visibility in and around the 16 Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau and to provide policy recommendations to the EPA to
address such impacts. The GCVTC determined that all Transport Region
States could potentially impact the Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report to the EPA in 1996 for protecting
visibility for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, and the EPA
codified these recommendations as an option available to states as part
of the RHR.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 64 FR 35714, 35749 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for
reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an
annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and
provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure.\16\ In
September 2000, the Western
[[Page 51406]]
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), which is the successor organization to
the GCVTC, submitted an annex to EPA. The annex contained
SO2 emissions reduction milestones and detailed provisions
of a backstop trading program to be implemented automatically if
voluntary measures failed to achieve the SO2 milestones. The
EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 at 40 CFR 51.309(h).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 64 FR 35714, 35749, 35756 (July 1, 1999).
\17\ 68 FR 33764, 33767 (June 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five western states, including Wyoming, submitted implementation
plans under section 309 in 2003.\18\ The EPA was challenged by the
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) on the validity of
the annex provisions. In CEED v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
vacated the EPA approval of the WRAP annex.\19\ In response to the
court's decision, the EPA vacated the annex requirements adopted under
40 CFR 51.309(h), but left in place the stationary source requirements
in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).\20\ The requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)
contain general requirements pertaining to stationary sources and
market trading, and allow states to adopt alternatives to the point
source application of BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Five states--Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and
Wyoming--and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, initially
exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA in December
2003. Oregon elected to cease participation in 2006, and Arizona
elected to cease participation in 2010.
\19\ Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 654
(D.C. Cir. 2005).
\20\ 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, rather than requiring source-specific BART controls as
explained previously in Section II.B., states have the flexibility to
adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program if the
alternative provides greater reasonable progress than would be achieved
by the application of BART pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). Under 40
CFR 51.309, states can satisfy the SO2 BART requirements by
adopting SO2 emissions milestones and a backstop trading
program. Under this approach, states must establish declining
SO2 emissions milestones for each year of the program
through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the GCVTC's goal
of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO2 emissions by 2040. The
backstop trading program would be implemented if a milestone is
exceeded and the program is triggered.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Regulatory and Legal History of the 2014 Wyoming SIP and FIP
On January 30, 2014, the EPA promulgated a final rule titled
``Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State
of Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze'' approving, in part, a regional
haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12,
2011.\22\ In the final rule, the EPA also disapproved, in part, the
Wyoming regional haze SIP, including the SIP NOX BART
emission limit of 0.21 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for each of
the three Laramie River Units, and promulgated a FIP that imposed a
NOX BART emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) at each of the three Laramie River Units, among other actions.
The Laramie River Station is in Platte County, Wyoming, and is
comprised of three 550 megawatt (MW) dry-bottom, wall-fired boilers
(Units 1, 2, and 3) burning subbituminous coal for a total net
generating capacity of 1,650 MW. All three units are within the
statutory definition of BART-eligible units, were determined to be
subject to BART by WY, approved in the SIP and are operated by, and
owned in part by, Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin Electric).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 79 FR 5032 (January 30, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric, the State of Wyoming, and others challenged the
final rule. Basin Electric challenged our action as it pertained to the
NOX BART emission limits for Laramie River Units 1-3.\23\
After mediated discussions through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit's Mediation Office, Basin Electric, Wyoming and the EPA
reached a settlement in 2017 that if fully implemented, would address
all of Basin Electric's challenges to the 2014 final rule and Wyoming's
challenges to the portion of the 2014 final rule establishing
NOX BART emission limits for Laramie River Units 1-
3.24 25
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Basin Electric Cooperative v. EPA, No. 14-9533 (10th Cir.
March 31, 2014) and Wyoming v. EPA, No. 14-9529 (10th Cir. March 28,
2014).
\24\ 81 FR 96450 (December 30, 2016).
\25\ Letter from Eileen T. McDonough, U.S. Department of
Justice, to Elizabeth Morrisseau, Wyoming Attorney General's Office,
and Christina F. Gomez, Denise W. Kennedy, and Patrick R, Day,
Holland & Hart LLC (notification that both EPA and the Department of
Justice (DOJ) determined not to withdraw their consent to the
Settlement Agreement) (April 24, 2017); Settlement Agreement between
Basin Electric Power Cooperative, the State of Wyoming, and the EPA
(April 24, 2017); First Amendment to Settlement Agreement (pursuant
to Paragraph 15 of the Agreement, extended the deadline for EPA to
determine whether to withdraw or consent to the Settlement Agreement
in Paragraph 1 to May 3, 2017); Second Amendment to Settlement
Agreement (pursuant to Paragraph 15 of the Agreement, amended the
date in Paragraph 5.b.ii. for the SO2 emission limits for
Laramie River Units 1 and 2 to commence December 31, 2018)
(September 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement requires the EPA to propose a FIP revision
to include three major items:
First, an alternative (BART alternative) to the
NOX BART emission limits in the EPA's 2014 FIP that
includes:
[cir] NOX emission limits for Laramie River Units 2 and
3 of 0.15 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) commencing December 31,
2018, with an interim limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
commencing the date that the EPA's final revised FIP becomes effective
and ending December 31, 2018; and
[cir] a SO2 emission limit for Laramie River Units 1 and
2 of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (annual) averaged annually across the two units
commencing December 31, 2018.
Second, a NOX BART emission limit for Laramie
River Unit 1 of 0.06 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average commencing
July 1, 2019, with an interim limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day
rolling average commencing the date that the EPA's final revised FIP
becomes effective and ending June 30, 2019. These limits are
voluntarily requested by Basin Electric.
Third, installation of SCR on Laramie River Unit 1 by July
1, 2019, (thereby revising the compliance date of the existing SIP) and
installation of SNCR on Units 2 and 3 by December 30, 2018.
In accordance with other terms of the 2017 settlement, Wyoming also
submitted a SIP revision to the EPA on April 5, 2018, to revise the
SO2 annual reporting requirements for Laramie River Units 1
and 2 as they pertain to the backstop trading program under 40 CFR
51.309. Specifically, Wyoming determined that Basin Electric must use
SO2 emission rates of 0.159 lb/MMBtu for Laramie River Unit
1 and 0.162 lb/MMBtu for Laramie River Unit 2, and multiply those rates
by the actual annual heat input during the year for each unit to
calculate and report emissions under the SO2 backstop
trading program. The revisions, as described in Section III., ensure
that SO2 emissions reductions proposed under the 2017
settlement agreement are no longer counted as reductions under the
backstop trading program.
The EPA is required, per the 2017 settlement agreement, to sign a
proposed rule no later than 6 months after receipt of Wyoming's SIP
submittal.
III. Proposed FIP Revisions
A. Background
In the 2011 submittal, Wyoming determined that emission limits for
[[Page 51407]]
Laramie River Units 1-3 of 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) each,
reflecting installation of operation of new low NOX burners
(LNB) with overfire air (OFA), were reasonable measures to satisfy the
units NOX BART obligations. We disagreed with Wyoming that
LNB with OFA was reasonable for NOX BART and subsequently
finalized a FIP on January 30, 2014, with NOX BART emission
limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for each unit based on
the installation and operation of new LNBs with OFA and SCR. The 2017
settlement agreement, described previously in Section II.G, established
a deadline for the EPA to take specific actions related to the
NOX emission limits established in the 2014 FIP for Laramie
River Units 1-3 as well as new SO2 emission limits and
emission control technologies requirements.
B. The BART Alternative
We are proposing to amend the 2014 FIP to replace the
NOX BART requirements with a NOX BART
alternative. Specifically, we are proposing to revise the
NOX emission limits for Laramie River Units 2 and 3 and
establish a SO2 emission limit for Units 1 and 2. We
evaluate the NOX BART alternative against the regulatory
BART alternative requirements found in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) of the
regional haze regulations.
The RHR establishes requirements for BART alternatives. Three of
the requirements are of relevance to our evaluation of the BART
alternative. We evaluate the proposed BART alternative to the
NOX BART requirements in the EPA's 2014 FIP with respect to
each of these following elements:
A demonstration that the emissions trading program or
other BART alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress
than would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at
all sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the BART
alternative program.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take
place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional
haze.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting
from the BART alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions
resulting from the measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as
of the baseline date of the SIP.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Demonstration that the BART alternative measure will achieve
greater reasonable progress.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), we must demonstrate that the
BART alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than
would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the state and covered by the BART
alternative program. For a source-specific BART alternative, the
critical elements of this demonstration are:
A list of all BART-eligible sources within the state;
A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source
categories covered by the BART alternative program;
An analysis of BART and associated emission reductions;
An analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable
through the BART alternative; and
A determination that the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART.
We summarize the proposed revisions to the 2014 FIP with respect to
each of these elements and provide our evaluation in the proceeding
sections.
a. A list of all BART-eligible sources within the state.
Table 1 shows a list of all the BART-eligible sources in the State
of Wyoming.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 77 FR 33029 (June 4, 2012).
Table 1--Wyoming BART-Eligible Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Facility
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp............................ Jim Bridger.
Basin Electric........................ Laramie River.
PacifiCorp............................ Dave Johnston.
PacifiCorp............................ Naughton.
PacifiCorp............................ Wyodak.
FMC................................... Westvaco.
General Chemical...................... Green River.
Black Hills........................... Neil Simpson 1.
Sinclair.............................. Sinclair Refinery.
Sinclair.............................. Casper Refinery.
FMC................................... Granger.
Dyno Nobel............................ Dyno Nobel.
OCI Wyoming........................... OCI Wyoming.
P4 Production......................... P4 Production.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. A list of all BART-eligible sources and all BART source
categories covered by the BART alternative program.
Table 2 shows a list of all the BART-eligible sources covered by
the BART alternative program along with the BART source category.
Table 2--Wyoming Subject-to-BART Sources Covered by the BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Facility Subject-to-BART units Source category
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric....................... Laramie River.......... Units 1-3.............. Electrical generating
units.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Analysis of BART and associated emission reductions
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the BART alternative must
include an analysis of BART and associated emission reductions at
Laramie River Units 1-3. As noted previously, the SIP and 2014 FIP each
included BART analyses and determinations for Units 1-3. Since we
disapproved Wyoming's BART NOX determinations for Laramie
River Units 1-3, we conducted our own BART analysis and determination
for NOX BART in the 2014 FIP.\30\ For the purposes of this
evaluation, we consider NOX BART for Laramie River Units 1-3
to be the 2014 FIP BART determination summarized in Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 79 FR 5039 (January 30, 2014).
Table 3--Summary of the EPA's Laramie River Units 1-3 NOX BART Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit
(lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission
Unit Technology * day rolling reduction
average) (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1..................................... New LNBs with OFA and SCR.......... 0.07 4,880
Unit 2..................................... New LNBs with OFA and SCR.......... 0.07 5,129
[[Page 51408]]
Unit 3..................................... New LNBs with OFA and SCR.......... 0.07 5,181
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The technology listed is the technology evaluated as BART, but sources can choose to use another technology or
combination of technologies to meet established limits.
As described previously, reductions in SO2 emissions
were previously accounted for under the SO2 backstop trading
program, per 40 CFR 51.309.
d. Analysis of projected emissions reductions achievable through
the BART alternative
To determine the projected emissions reductions achievable through
the BART alternative, the emissions are calculated using the same
process explained in the 2014 FIP, whereby a percent reduction is
applied to the Laramie River Units 1-3 baseline emissions. However, the
actual percent reduction for the BART alternative is different than the
2014 FIP because the controlled rates are different between the 2014
FIP and BART alternative. The percent reduction, for both the BART
alternative and the 2014 FIP, is calculated as the controlled annual
emission rate (in units of lb/MMBtu) divided by the annual average
emission rate (in units of lb/MMBtu) during the BART baseline period
(2001-2003). In the BART alternative, the modeled controlled
NOX annual emission rate for Unit 1, using SCR controls, is
0.04 lb/MMBtu (annual) based on the expected annual emission
performance under a 0.06 lb/MMBtu emission limit (30-day rolling
average). Likewise, the modeled controlled NOX annual
emission rate for Units 2 and 3, using LNB with OFA and SNCR, is 0.128
lb/MMBtu based on the expected annual emission performance as
calculated in the 2014 FIP under a 0.15 lb/MMBtu emission rate (30-day
rolling average). The controlled SO2 annual emission rate
for Units 1 and 2 is 0.115 lb/MMBtu (annual) for each unit based on the
expected annual emission performance under a 0.12 lb/MMBtu emission
limit (30-day rolling average).
The controlled annual emissions rates are divided by the average
emission rates during the BART baseline period (2001-2003) to calculate
the percent reduction for each unit. The average emission rates during
the BART baseline period for each unit are: \31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility Impacts for
Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final Report. Prepared for Basin
Electric, AECOM (May 2016). Data based on the information obtained
from the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database, available
at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1: 0.2585 lb NOX/MMBtu; 0.159 lb
SO2/MMBtu,
Unit 2: 0.2703 lb NOX/MMBtu; 0.162 lb
SO2/MMBtu, and
Unit 3: 0.2669 lb NOX/MMBtu.
The percent reduction for each unit is applied to the baseline
emissions to determine the NOX and SO2 emission
reductions associated with the BART alternative for Laramie River Units
1-3 (Table 4).
Table 4--Summary of the EPA's Laramie River Units 1-3 BART Alternative Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SO2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit Emission limit
Unit Technology (lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission (lb/MMBtu) (30- Emission
day rolling reduction day rolling reduction
average) (tpy) average) (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1......................................... New LNBs with OFA and SCR.............. 0.06 4,880 0.12 1,032
Unit 2......................................... New LNBs with OFA and SNCR............. 0.15 3,342 0.12 1,091
Unit 3......................................... New LNBs with OFA and SNCR............. 0.15 3,337 NA NA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NA = not applicable.
e. Determination that the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the FIP revision must
provide a determination under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on
the clear weight of evidence that the BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. Two different tests for determining
whether the BART alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than
BART are outlined in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Under the first test, if the
distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under
BART, and the BART alternative measure results in greater emission
reductions, then the BART alternative measure may be deemed to achieve
greater reasonable progress. Under the second test, if the distribution
of emissions is significantly different, then dispersion modeling must
be conducted to determine differences between BART and the BART
alternative for each impacted Class I area for the worst and best 20
percent days. The modeling results would demonstrate ``greater
reasonable progress'' if both of the following criteria are met: (1)
Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2) there is an
overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average
differences between BART and the BART alternative over all affected
Class I areas. This modeling test is sometimes referred to as the
``two-prong test.''
For the proposed FIP revision, we determined that the BART
alternative will not achieve greater emissions reductions than BART
because, while the SO2 emission reductions for Units 1 and 2
(1,032 tons per year (tpy) and 1,091 tpy respectively under the BART
alternative, compared to 0 tpy under BART) and NOX emission
reduction for Unit 1 (5,179 tpy under the BART
[[Page 51409]]
alternative compared to 4,880 tpy under BART) are greater under the
BART alternative, the NOX emission reductions under the BART
alternative are less for Units 2 and 3 (3,342 lb/MMBtu and 3,337 lb/
MMBtu, respectively) than the NOX emission reductions under
BART (5,129 lb/MMBtu and 5,181 lb/MMBtu, respectively). Therefore, we
evaluated the results of modeling (using the Comprehensive Air Quality
Model with Extensions (CAMx) model version 5.41\32\) performed by a
contractor for Basin Electric, AECOM, to assess whether the BART
alternative would result in ``greater reasonable progress'' under the
two-prong test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ CAMx modeling software (https://www.camx.com/download/default.aspx) and User's Guide (https://www.camx.com/about/default.aspx) are available on these CAMx web pages.
\33\ Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility Impacts for
Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final Report. Prepared for Basin
Electric, AECOM (May 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAMx has a scientifically current treatment of chemistry to
simulate transformation of emissions into visibility-impairing
particles of species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, and
is often employed in large-scale modeling when many sources of
pollution and/or long transport distances are involved. Photochemical
grid models like CAMx include all emissions sources and have realistic
representation of formation, transport, and removal processes of the
particulate matter that causes visibility degradation. The use of the
CAMx model for analyzing potential cumulative air quality impacts has
been well established: The model has been used for previous visibility
modeling studies in the U.S., including SIPs.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 82 FR 46903 (October 10, 2017) (Final action for the
Coronado Generating Station in the Regional Haze Plan for Arizona);
81 FR 296 (January 5, 2016) (Final action for Texas and Oklahoma
Regional Haze Plans).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The modeling followed a modeling protocol that was reviewed by the
EPA.\35\ The starting point for assessing visibility impacts for
different levels of emissions from Laramie River was the Three-State
Air Quality Modeling Study (3SAQS) modeling platform that provides a
framework for addressing air quality impacts in Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming. The 3SAQS is a publicly available platform intended to
facilitate air resources analyses.\36\ The 3SAQS developed a base year
modeling platform using the year 2008 to leverage work completed during
the West-wide Jump-start Air Quality modeling study (WestJump).\37\ For
the Laramie River modeling, AECOM performed additional modeling to
refine the modeling domain from the 3SAQS 12-kilometer (km) grid
resolution to a finer 4-km grid resolution. The refined spatial
resolution was used to more accurately simulate the concentration
gradients of gas and particulate species in the plumes emitted from the
source facilities. The AECOM modeling data sets used for this action
are available in the docket.\38\ For the two-prong test, an existing
projected 2020 emissions database was used to estimate emissions of
sources within the modeling domains. The existing 2020 database was
derived from the 3SAQS study, which projected emissions from 2008 to
2020. Since the BART alternative emissions reductions will not be fully
in place until the end of 2018, the 2020 emissions projections are more
representative of the air quality conditions that will be obtained
while the BART alternative is being implemented than the 2008 database.
In the three 2020 CAMx modeling scenarios, Laramie River emissions were
modeled to represent the baseline, the BART 2014 FIP, and the proposed
BART alternative as described in the proceeding section and Table 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Photochemical Modeling Protocol for the Visibility
Assessment of Basin Electric Laramie River Power Plant. Prepared for
Basin Electric, AECOM (September 2015). Draft Modeling Guidance for
Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and
Regional Haze, EPA (December 3, 2014).
\36\ Three-State Air Quality Modeling Study CAMx Photochemical
Grid Model Final Model Performance Evaluation. University of North
Carolina and Environ (September 2014). https://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/Attachments/Modeling/3SAQS_Base08b_MPE_Final_30Sep2014.pdf.
\37\ https://www.wrapair2.org/WestJumpAQMS.aspx. Additional
information on the WestJump study available in the docket for this
action, ``WestJump Fact Sheet.''
\38\ CAMx modeling data available on hard disk in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAMx-modeled concentrations for sulfur, nitrogen, and primary
particulate matter (PM) were tracked using the CAMx Particulate Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) tool \39\ so that the concentrations
and visibility impacts due to Laramie River could be separated out from
those due to the total of all other modeled sources. AECOM computed
visibility impairment due to Laramie River using the EPA's Modeled
Attainment Test Software (MATS) tool which bias-corrects CAMx outputs
to available measurements of PM species and uses the revised IMPROVE
equation to calculate the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days for
visibility impacts.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ PSAT is included in the CAMx modeling code and is described
in the CAMx User's Guide available at: https://www.camx.com/download/default.aspx.
\40\ IMPROVE refers to a monitoring network and also to the
equation used to convert monitored concentrations to visibility
impacts. ``Revised IMPROVE Algorithm for Estimating Light Extinction
from Particle Speciation Data'', IMPROVE technical subcommittee for
algorithm review (January 2006). https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/gray-literature/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described previously, the CAMx system was configured using the
3SAQS modeling platform to simulate future year 2020 conditions for the
following modeling scenarios:
Baseline: This scenario included the actual emission rates
for all three units during the 2001-2003 BART baseline period that were
previously modeled in CALPUFF simulations.
BART: This scenario included the emission rates for all
three units that correspond to the EPA's 2014 FIP.
BART alternative: This scenario included the emission
rates for all three units that correspond to the BART alternative.
The only differences among scenarios are the NOX and
SO2 emission rates for Laramie River (Table 5). All other
model inputs, including other regional emission sources, remained
unchanged among all future year scenarios.
Table 5--Laramie River Units 1-3 Emissions for the CAMx Model by Scenario Projected to Year 2020 Conditions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM2.5 (tpy)
Scenario NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) VOC (tpy) CO (tpy) PM10 (tpy) NH3 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline................................ 18,890 11,605 234 1,950 2,748 2,440 41
BART.................................... 3,560 11,605 234 1,950 2,748 2,440 41
BART alternative........................ 7,030 9,479 234 1,950 2,748 2,440 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51410]]
Maintaining consistent model inputs allows the CAMx modeling
results to be easily compared to analyze the effects of different
emissions control scenarios. As described previously, the PSAT was
applied to the simulations to track and account for the particulate
mass concentrations that originate or are formed as a result of
emissions from Laramie River.
Once all the scenarios above were simulated with the photochemical
grid model, model results were post-processed to isolate the changes to
visibility conditions as a result of emissions controls applied to
Laramie River Units 1-3 under the scenarios described previously. To
assess compliance with the RHR requirements, visibility changes are
assessed during the 20 percent best visibility days and the 20 percent
worst visibility days at each potentially affected federally regulated
Class I area. Model-predicted visibility impacts at the thirteen Class
I areas in the 4-km modeling domain were estimated for each of the
three future year modeling scenarios.
The MATS tool was used to convert model concentrations into
visibility estimates and account for quantifiable model bias. All
models are affected by biases, i.e., model results simulate complex
natural phenomena and, as such, model results can either over or under
estimate measured concentrations. The use of MATS helps mitigate model
bias by pairing model estimates of PM species concentrations with
actual measured conditions.
As a final step, Laramie River's visibility impact under the BART
alternative is compared to the visibility impact under the Baseline and
BART scenarios to determine if the BART alternative meets the
requirements of the two-prong test, i.e., prong 1, no degradation
compared to the Baseline at any Class I area on the best visibility
days, and prong 2, greater progress compared to BART averaged over all
Class I areas on the worst visibility days.
The visibility impacts derived from modeling results are summarized
in Tables 6 and 7. The tables show the projected Laramie River
contribution to visibility on the 20 percent best days and worst days,
respectively, for the 2020 Baseline (Column A), BART (Column B), and
BART alternative (Column C) scenarios at each of the Class I areas
analyzed. The last two columns show the predicted visibility benefits
from the BART alternative scenario relative to both the 2020 baseline
(Column D) and BART (Column E). Also shown at the bottom row are the
average visibility values from all the areas. Negative values in Column
D indicate that the BART alternative scenario has smaller contributions
to visibility relative to the baseline (``prong 1''), and therefore it
improves visibility over the baseline. Similarly, negative values in
Column E indicate that the BART alternative scenario has smaller
contributions to visibility relative to the BART scenario (``prong
2'').
Table 6--Laramie River Visibility Impact (Units 1-3) for the 2020 Baseline, BART, and BART Alternative Scenarios on the 20 Percent Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[C] BART
Class I area * [A] Baseline [B] BART (dv) alternative [D] BART alternative-- [E] BART
(dv) (dv) Baseline alternative--BART
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badland NP.................................................... 0.0212 0.0131 0.0138 -0.0074 0.0007
Bridger WA.................................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Fitzpatrick WA................................................ 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Grand Teton NP................................................ 0.0012 0.0012 0.0009 -0.0003 -0.0003
Mount Zirkel WA............................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
North Absaroka WA **.......................................... 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 -0.0001 -0.0001
Rawah WA...................................................... 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Red Rock Lakes WA............................................. 0.0012 0.0012 0.0009 -0.0003 -0.0003
Rocky Mountain NP............................................. 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Teton WA...................................................... 0.0012 0.0012 0.0009 -0.0003 -0.0003
Washakie WA **................................................ 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 -0.0001 -0.0001
Wind Cave NP.................................................. 0.0055 0.0051 0.0047 -0.0008 -0.0004
Yellowstone NP................................................ 0.0012 0.0012 0.0009 -0.0003 -0.0003
All Class I Area Average ***.................................. 0.0025 0.00185 0.00176 NA -0.00009
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NP = National Park; WA = Wilderness Area.
** Values reported for these Class I areas have been calculated with only 2 years of valid monitoring data.
*** The average visibility impact is calculated as the sum of the visibility impacts divided by the number of Class I areas.
**** NA = Not applicable.
Table 7--Laramie River Visibility Impact (Units 1-3) for the 2020 Baseline, BART, and BART Alternative Scenarios on the 20 Percent Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[C] BART
Class I area * [A] Baseline [B] BART (dv) alternative [D] BART alternative-- [E] BART
(dv) (dv) Baseline alternative--BART
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badland NP.................................................... 0.0259 0.0177 0.0176 -0.0083 -0.0001
Bridger WA.................................................... 0.0029 0.0028 0.0023 -0.0006 -0.0005
Fitzpatrick WA................................................ 0.0029 0.0028 0.0023 -0.0006 -0.0005
Grand Teton NP................................................ 0.0024 0.0023 0.0019 -0.0005 -0.0004
Mount Zirkel WA............................................... 0.0065 0.0059 0.0053 -0.0012 -0.0006
North Absaroka WA **.......................................... 0.0003 0.0003 0.0001 -0.0002 -0.0002
Rawah WA...................................................... 0.0065 0.0059 0.0053 -0.0012 -0.0006
Red Rock Lakes WA............................................. 0.0024 0.0023 0.0019 -0.0005 -0.0004
Rocky Mountain NP............................................. 0.0137 0.0119 0.0106 -0.0031 -0.0013
Teton WA...................................................... 0.0024 0.0023 0.0019 -0.0005 -0.0004
Washakie WA **................................................ 0.0003 0.0003 0.0001 -0.0002 -0.0002
[[Page 51411]]
Wind Cave NP.................................................. 0.0369 0.0267 0.0253 -0.0116 -0.0014
Yellowstone NP................................................ 0.0024 0.0023 0.0019 -0.0005 -0.0004
All Class I Area Average...................................... 0.00812 0.00642 0.00589 NA -0.00054
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* NP = National Park; WA = Wilderness Area.
** Values reported for these Class I areas have been calculated with only 2 years of valid monitoring data.
*** NA = Not applicable.
Table 6 shows that the proposed BART alternative emissions will not
result in degradation of visibility on the 20 percent best days
compared to the 2020 baseline conditions at any of the 13 analyzed
Class I areas. In each individual area, visibility is predicted to
improve or remain unchanged compared to the 2020 baseline visibility
since all values shown in Column D are either negative or zero.
Overall, the BART alternative scenario shows an average improvement in
visibility of 0.00009 deciviews (dv) relative to BART for the best 20
percent days. Table 6 also shows that for the BART alternative
scenario, visibility during the best days improves or remains unchanged
at all Class I areas compared to the BART scenario except for Badlands
National Park.
Table 7 shows that the proposed BART alternative emissions will not
result in degradation of visibility on the 20 percent worst days
compared to the 2020 baseline conditions at any of the 13 analyzed
Class I areas. In each individual area, visibility is predicted to
improve compared to the 2020 baseline visibility, since all values in
Column D are negative. Overall, the BART alternative shows an average
improvement in visibility of 0.00054 dv relative to BART for the 20
percent worst days. Table 7 also shows that for the BART alternative
scenario, visibility during the 20 percent worst days improves at all
Class I areas compared to the BART scenario.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(3), the modeling demonstrates
``greater reasonable progress'' if both of the following criteria are
met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2) there
is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the
average differences between BART and the BART alternative over all
affected Class I areas. For the first prong of the modeling test, the
modeling results show that visibility improves or stays the same (i.e.,
does not decline) under the BART alternative scenario for all Class I
areas for the 20 percent best and 20 percent worst days when compared
with the baseline scenario (Column D in Tables 6 and 7). For the second
prong of the modeling test, the modeling results show that there is an
overall improvement in visibility under the BART alternative scenario
for all Class I areas averaged over the 20 percent best and 20 percent
worst days when compared with the BART scenario (Column E in Tables 6
and 7). Based on the modeling analysis, we propose to find that the
BART alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
Additionally, AECOM used PSAT to further evaluate the modeling to
determine whether the results represent ``real'' modeled visibility
differences and not the result of numerical artifacts or ``noise'' in
the model results. The numerical method used to simulate aerosol
thermodynamics in CAMx may be subject to some level of numerical error
when calculating the difference between two model simulations. This
typically occurs in areas with high concentrations of sulfate and
nitrate, and numerical error is manifested as areas of small random
checkerboard increases and decreases in concentrations, as illustrated
in the AECOM final report, Figure A-1, left panels.\41\ Note that this
numerical error is typically a very small percentage of the total
modeled nitrate and sulfate concentration. However, this error can be
relatively large in comparison to the impacts of a single emissions
source such as the Laramie River Station. The PSAT-based evaluation
approach eliminates numerical error in the model results by using model
tracer species that track the emissions and chemical transformation of
SO2 and NOX from a single source. By calculating
the changes in the PSAT mass attributed to Laramie River Station in the
baseline for the 2014 FIP and BART alternative simulations, the effects
of numerical error in other emissions sources are excluded from the
analysis of the Laramie River Station impacts. The AECOM report Figure
A-1, right panels, shows the nitrate mass attributed to the Laramie
River Station and illustrates that numerical error from other sources
is eliminated using this approach. Thus, the PSAT plots show that
concentrations within the modeling domain are attributable to the
emissions from Laramie River, and therefore provide reliable data for
assessing whether there is a numerical difference between the
visibility benefits from the BART and BART alternative control
scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility Impacts for
Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final Report. Prepared for Basin
Electric, AECOM (May 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we note that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) allows for a straight
numerical test, regardless of the magnitude of the computed
differences. The regulation does not specify a minimum delta deciview
difference between the modeled scenarios that must be achieved in order
for a BART alternative to be deemed to achieve greater reasonable
progress than BART. Accordingly, given that the modeling results show
that visibility under the BART alternative does not decline at any of
the 13 affected Class I areas compared to the baseline (prong 1) and
will result in improved visibility, on average, across all 13 Class I
areas compared to BART in the 2014 FIP (prong 2), we propose to find
that the BART alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress than
BART (2014 FIP) under the two-prong modeling test in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).
2. A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take place
during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional haze.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), all necessary emission
reductions must take place during the period of the first long-term
strategy for regional haze. The RHR further requires a detailed
description of the BART alternative measure, including schedules for
implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all
necessary administrative and technical
[[Page 51412]]
procedures for implementing the program, rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures for enforcement.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted previously, the 2017 settlement agreement includes
requirements for implementing the BART alternative. In addition to the
emission limitations for NOX and SO2, the 2017
settlement agreement includes compliance dates, interim limits,
averaging times, and control technology requirements. The monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements,\43\ along with other aspects
of the 2014 FIP that are not contained within the 2017 settlement
agreement, remain unchanged in the EPA's FIP.\44\ The compliance date
for the BART alternative is December 31, 2018, for Laramie River Units
2 and 3 to install and operate SNCR with corresponding NOX
emission limits of 0.15 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).\45\ Laramie
River Units 2 and 3 must also meet interim NOX emission
limits of 0.18 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average; each) commencing the
date that the EPA's final revised FIP becomes effective and ending on
December 30, 2018.\46\ In addition, Laramie River Units 1 and 2 must
meet an SO2 emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu averaged
annually across the two units commencing on December 31, 2018.\47\
Therefore, we propose to find that the proposed FIP revision along with
the existing FIP provisions will ensure that all necessary emission
reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy
and therefore meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 40 CFR 52.2636(e)-(h).
\44\ 40 CFR 52.2636.
\45\ Settlement Agreement between Basin Electric Power
Cooperative, the State of Wyoming and the EPA (April 24, 2017).
\46\ Ibid.
\47\ Second Amendment to Settlement Agreement (pursuant to
Paragraph 15 of the Agreement, amended the date in Paragraph 5.b.ii.
for the SO2 emission limits for Laramie River Units 1 and
2 to commence December 31, 2018) (September 14, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Demonstration that emissions reductions from the BART
alternative measure will be surplus.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP (or FIP) must
demonstrate that the emissions reductions resulting from the BART
alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline
date of the SIP. The baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002. All
the NOX emission reductions required by the BART alternative
are surplus to reductions resulting from SIP measures applicable to
Laramie River as of 2002. In addition, the proposed SIP revision
discussed in Section IV, revises the SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for Laramie River Units 1 and 2 so that the SO2
emissions reductions achieved from the 2017 settlement agreement are
not also counted towards reductions under the SO2 backstop
trading program and thereby included in the regional SO2
milestone. As discussed in Section IV, we propose to approve these
changes to the SIP. Therefore, we propose to find that the BART
alternative complies with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). In sum, we propose
to find that the BART alternative meets all the applicable requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
Finally, in accordance with the proposed establishment of
SO2 emission limits in the proposed FIP for Laramie River
Units 1 and 2, we also propose to revise the monitoring, recordkeeping,
and reporting requirements of the 2014 FIP to reflect the establishment
of SO2 emission limits in the proposed FIP. These proposed
revisions support CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requiring implementation
plans to include enforceable emission limitations. In order to be
considered enforceable, emission limits must include associated
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. In addition, the
CAA and the EPA's implementing regulations expressly require
implementation plans to include regulatory requirements related to
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for applicable emissions
limitations.\48\ We do not propose to alter the monitoring, record
keeping, and reporting requirements established in the 2014 FIP that
relate to compliance with the BART emission limit for NOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ See, e.g. CAA section 110(a)(2)(F) and 40 CFR 51.212(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The NOX Emission Limit for Laramie River Unit 1
In addition to the BART alternative, we are also proposing to amend
the 2014 FIP by revising the NOX emission limit for Laramie
River Unit 1 as voluntarily requested by Basin Electric in the
settlement agreement.\49\ The amendment revises the NOX
emission limit for Unit 1 from the NOX BART limit of 0.07
lb/MMBtu to 0.06 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) commencing July 1,
2019, with an interim limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
commencing the effective date of the EPA's final revised FIP and ending
June 30, 2019. Because the revision to the NOX emission
limit for Laramie River Unit 1 achieves greater NOX emission
reductions than the relevant portions of the 2014 FIP, we propose to
amend the Wyoming regional haze 2014 FIP with this revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Settlement Agreement between Basin Electric Power
Cooperative, the State of Wyoming and the EPA (April 24, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Action on Submitted SIP Revisions
A. Background
Wyoming submitted SIP revisions on January 12, 2011, and April 19,
2012, that address regional haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.309. As
explained previously, 40 CFR 51.309 allows certain western Transport
Region States an optional way to fulfill regional haze requirements as
opposed to adopting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.308. As required
by 40 CFR 51.309, the participating states must adopt a trading
program, or what has been termed the Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide
Trading Program (backstop trading program or trading program). One of
the components of the backstop trading program is for stationary source
SO2 emissions reductions.\50\ Thus, under 40 CFR 51.309,
states can satisfy the section 308 SO2 BART requirements by
adopting SO2 emissions milestones and a backstop trading
program. Under this approach, states must establish declining
SO2 emissions milestones for each year of the program
through 2018. If the milestones are exceeded in any year, the backstop
trading program is triggered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other things, the January 2011 and April 2012 SIP submittals
contained amendments to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and
Regulations (WAQSR) Chapter 14, Emission Trading Program Regulations,
Section 3, Sulfur dioxide milestone inventory. On December 12, 2012, we
approved these amendments into the SIP as meeting the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 77 FR 73926 (December 12, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. April 5, 2018 Submittal
On April 5, 2018, Wyoming submitted a SIP revision containing
amendments to WAQSR, Chapter 14, Emission Trading Program Regulations,
Section 3, Sulfur dioxide milestone inventory and additions to the
regional haze narrative.\52\ The amendments modify the SO2
emissions backstop trading program reporting requirements for Laramie
River Station Units 1 and 2. The revisions ensure that SO2
emissions reductions proposed under the 2017 settlement are no longer
counted as
[[Page 51413]]
reductions under the backstop trading program. Specifically, the
amendments revise the SO2 emissions reporting requirements
for Laramie River Units 1 and 2 so that Unit 1's SO2
emissions shall be reported based on an annual emission rate of 0.159
lb/MMBtu multiplied by the actual annual heat input, and Unit 2's
SO2 emissions shall be reported based on an annual emission
rate of 0.162 lb/MMBtu multiplied by the actual heat input. Annual
SO2 emissions for Laramie River Unit 3 shall be reported as
otherwise provided in Chapter 14, Section 3(b). The revisions also
require that the revised SO2 emissions reporting
requirements for Units 1 and 2 commence as of the year that Basin
Electric commences operation of SCR at Unit 1 and that Wyoming use the
revised SO2 emissions reporting requirements for all
purposes under Chapter 14. The additions to the SIP narrative provide
an explanation of the regulatory amendments. The Wyoming Environmental
Quality Council approved the proposed revisions on December 5, 2017
(effective February 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ State of Wyoming. Addressing Regional Haze Visibility
Protection For The Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40
CFR 51.309. Revised April 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. The EPA's Evaluation of the SO2 Emissions Reporting
Amendments
We are proposing to approve Wyoming's amendments to the
SO2 emissions reporting requirements and the addition to the
SIP narrative for Laramie River Units 1 and 2, including when Basin
Electric is required to use the revised SO2 emissions
reporting requirements and how the SO2 emissions will be
reported within the context of the SO2 emissions milestone
inventory. Together, these revisions ensure that the SO2
emissions reductions in the BART alternative are not ``double-counted''
in the backstop trading program in order to meet the requirement in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv) (requirement that emissions reductions from the
alternative will be surplus to the SIP). We evaluated how these
revisions meet the relevant requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).
We agree with Wyoming that the revisions to the SO2
emissions reporting requirements for Laramie River Units 1 and 2 are
sufficient to ensure that the SO2 emissions reductions
obtained under the settlement agreement under the NOX BART
alternative (see Section III) are not also counted towards reductions
under the SO2 backstop trading program milestones.\53\ The
annual SO2 emission rates of 0.159 lb/MMBtu and 0.162 lb/
MMBtu (30-day average) for Laramie River Units 1 and 2, respectively,
reflect the actual average emission rates from 2001 to 2003 for these
units.\54\ By reporting SO2 emissions using the average
annual SO2 emission rates from 2001 to 2003 (and multiplied
by the actual annual heat input) instead of reporting the actual
average annual SO2 emission rates, emissions reductions
achieved since the baseline period at these units will no longer be
included in the backstop trading program. Thus, if EPA decides to
finalize this proposed action, instead of reporting the actual annual
SO2 emissions for Units 1 and 2 achieved under the revised
average annual emission limit of 0.115 lb/MMBtu (0.12 lb/MMBtu; 30-day
rolling average limit), pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi)(A) and the
settlement agreement, as of the year that Basin Electric commences
operation of SCR on Unit 1, SO2 emissions would be
calculated using the average annual emission rates reflective of the
baseline period (0.159 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 0.162 lb/MMBtu for Unit
2) multiplied by the actual annual heat input. Thus, these revisions
not only ensure that the SO2 emissions reductions achieved
under the NOX BART alternative are only accounted for under
the BART alternative, and not ``double-counted,'' but also describe how
compliance with the backstop trading program requirements will be
determined as required under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i).
\54\ Laramie River Station Power Plant Visibility Impacts for
Two Emissions Control Scenarios: Final Report. Prepared for Basin
Electric, AECOM (May 2016). Data based on the information obtained
from the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database, available
at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/ ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii), documentation of the SO2
emission calculation methodology and any changes to the specific
methodology used to calculate the emissions at any emitting unit for
any year after the base year must be provided in the backstop trading
program implementation plan. The revisions in Wyoming's 2018 SIP
submittal: (1) Document the changes to the specific methodology used to
calculate and report SO2 emissions at Laramie River Units 1
and 2, including the annual average SO2 emission rates for
each unit and how to determine the actual annual heat rate (Chapter 14,
Section 3(d)); (2) specify that the revised methodology will commence
as of the year that SCR is operational on Unit 1 (Chapter 14, Section
3(d)(i)); and (3) clarify that the revisions to the SO2
emissions reporting methodology for Units 1 and 2 shall be used for all
purposes under Chapter 14, Emission Trading Program Regulations
(Chapter 14, Section 3(e)). Thus, the revisions meet the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(ii) because the amendments to the SO2
emissions reporting requirements provide for documentation of the
changes to the specific methodology used to calculate emissions at
Laramie River Units 1 and 2 for the relevant years after the base year,
and the amendments are contained within Wyoming's backstop trading
program implementation plan (Chapter 14, Section 3).
Under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iii), the EPA-approved plan includes
provisions requiring the monitoring, recordkeeping, and annual
reporting of actual stationary source SO2 emissions within
the State, (Chapter 14, Section 3(b)). These requirements continue to
apply to the Laramie River Units 1 and 2 and were not modified in
Wyoming's 2018 SIP submittal. Likewise, the requirements found in 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(iv), 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v) and 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vi) pertaining to the market trading program and
provisions for the 2018 milestone were not modified in Wyoming's 2018
SIP submittal. Because the revisions to the SO2 emissions
reporting requirements for Laramie River Units 1 and 2 meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) we propose to approve the SIP
revisions to Chapter 14, Section 3.
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' \55\ We propose to find that these revisions satisfy
section 110(l). The previous sections of the notice explain how the
proposed FIP revision will comply with applicable regional haze
requirements and general implementation plan requirements such as
enforceability. Likewise, the SIP revision will also comply with
applicable regional haze requirements. With respect to
[[Page 51414]]
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, the
Wyoming Regional Haze SIP and FIP, as revised by this action, will
result in a significant reduction in emissions compared to historical
levels. In addition, the area where the Laramie River Station is
located is in attainment for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Thus, the revisions will ensure a significant reduction in
NOX and SO2 emissions compared to historical
levels in an area that has not been designated nonattainment for the
relevant NAAQS at those current levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions
required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under section 109. This term as
used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not
synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used in the
regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that EPA
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Consultation With FLMs
There are seven (7) Class I areas in the State of Wyoming. The
United States Forest Service manages the Bridger Wilderness,
Fitzpatrick Wilderness, North Absaroka Wilderness, Teton Wilderness,
and Washakie Wilderness. The National Park Service manages the Grand
Teton National Park and Yellowstone National Park. The RHR grants the
FLMs, regardless of whether a FLM manages a Class I area within the
state, a special role in the review of regional haze implementation
plans, summarized in Section II.E of this preamble.
There are obligations to consult on plan revisions under 40 CFR
51.308(i)(3). Thus, we consulted with the Forest Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Service on the proposed FIP
revision. We described the proposed revisions to the regional haze 2014
FIP and 2018 SIP revisions with the Forest Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the National Park Service on August 15, 2018 and
met our obligations under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(3).
VII. The EPA's Proposed Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing to approve SIP amendments,
shown in Table 8, to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations,
Chapter 14, Emission Trading Program Regulations, Section 3, Sulfur
dioxide milestone inventory, revising the backstop trading program
SO2 emissions reporting requirements for Laramie River Units
1 and 2.
Table 8--List of Wyoming Amendments That EPA Is Proposing To Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amended sections in April 5, 2018 submittal proposed for approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 14, Section 3: (d), (e).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also proposing to amend the Wyoming regional haze FIP
contained in 40 CFR 52.2636 to remove the 2014 FIP's NOX
emission limits and instead incorporate the BART alternative and
associated NOX and SO2 emission limits for
Laramie River Units 1-3, revise the NOX emission limit for
Unit 1, and add control technology requirements. Specifically, the EPA
is proposing to revise the NOX emission limits and add
SO2 emission limits and control technologies in Table 2 of
40 CFR 52.2636(c)(1) for Laramie River Units 1-3. We are also proposing
to add associated compliance dates in 40 CFR 52.2636(d)(4) for Laramie
River Units 1-3. Finally, we are proposing to reference SO2
in the following sections: Applicability (40 CFR 52.2636(a));
Definitions (40 CFR 52.2636(b)); Compliance determinations for NOX (40
CFR 52.2636(e)); Reporting (40 CFR 52.2636(h)); and Notifications (40
CFR 52.2636(i)). We are not proposing to change any other regulatory
text in 40 CFR 52.2636.
VIII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SIP amendments described in Section VII of this preamble.
The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov (refer to docket EPA-R08-OAR-
2018-0606) 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).
IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 \56\ and was therefore not submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This proposed
rule applies to only one facility in the State of Wyoming. It is
therefore not a rule of general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 58 FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\57\ A
``collection of information'' under the PRA means ``the obtaining,
causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to an
agency, third parties or the public of information by or for an agency
by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, ten or more
persons, whether such collection of information is mandatory,
voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit.'' \58\ Because
this proposed rule revises the NOX and SO2
emission limits and associated reporting requirements for one facility,
the PRA does not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
\58\ 5 CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on
small entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of
this rule.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of
[[Page 51415]]
their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal governments and the
private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the EPA generally must
prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures
to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for inflation) in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
of UMRA do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows the EPA to adopt an alternative
other than the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it
must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency
plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
actions with significant federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, the EPA has determined that this proposed
rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures
that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million \59\
by state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector in any one
year. The proposed revisions to the 2014 FIP would reduce private
sector expenditures. Additionally, we do not foresee significant costs
(if any) for state and local governments. Thus, because the proposed
revisions to the 2014 FIP reduce annual expenditures, this proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Adjusted to 2014 dollars, the UMRA threshold becomes $152
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,\60\ revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' \61\ ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.'' \62\ Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not
issue a regulation ``that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, . . . and that is not required by
statute, unless [the federal government provides the] funds necessary
to pay the direct [compliance] costs incurred by the State and local
governments,'' or the EPA consults with state and local officials early
in the process of developing the final regulation.\63\ The EPA also may
not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that
preempts state law unless the agency consults with state and local
officials early in the process of developing the final regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ 64 FR 43255, 43255-43257 (August 10, 1999).
\61\ 64 FR 43255, 43257.
\62\ Ibid.
\63\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action does not have federalism implications. The proposed FIP
revisions will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,'' requires the EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.'' \64\ This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule. However, on September 5, 2018, the
EPA did send letters to each of the Wyoming tribes explaining our
regional haze proposed FIP revision and offering consultation.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ 65 FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
\65\ Letters to tribal governments (September 5, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or
safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately
affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. Section 12(d) of
NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA
to consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
[[Page 51416]]
This action involves technical standards. The EPA has decided to
use the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75
already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards.
Consistent with the agency's Performance Based Measurement System
(PBMS), part 75 sets forth performance criteria that allow the use of
alternative methods to the ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS approach
is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated
community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical
technology and improved data quality. At this time, the EPA is not
recommending any revisions to part 75. However, the EPA periodically
revises the test procedures set forth in part 75. When the EPA revises
the test procedures set forth in part 75 in the future, the EPA will
address the use of any new voluntary consensus standards that are
equivalent. Currently, even if a test procedure is not set forth in
part 75, the EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it
constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets
the performance criteria specified; however, any alternative methods
must be approved through the petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 before
they are used.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice.\66\ Its main provision directs federal agencies,
to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certify that the approaches under this proposed rule will not
have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous/tribal
populations. As explained previously, the Wyoming Regional Haze FIP, as
revised by this action, will result in a significant reduction in
emissions compared to current levels. Although this revision will allow
an increase in future emissions as compared to the 2014 FIP, the
proposed FIP, as a whole, will still result in overall NOX
and SO2 reductions compared to those currently allowed. In
addition, the area where Laramie River Station is located has not been
designated nonattainment for any NAAQS. Thus, the proposed FIP will
ensure a significant reduction in NOX and SO2
emissions compared to current levels and will not create a
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effect on minority, low-income, or indigenous/tribal populations. The
EPA, however, will consider any input received during the public
comment period regarding environmental justice considerations.
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: October 3, 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 ZZ--Wyoming
0
2. Section 52.2620 is amended by revising:
0
a. In paragraph (c), the table entry for `Section 3' under the centered
table heading ``Chapter 14. Emission Trading Program Regulations.'';
and
0
b. In paragraph (e), the table entry for `(20)XX'.
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2620 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA
Rule No. Rule title effective effective Final rule/citation Comments
date date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chapter 14. Emission Trading Program Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Section 3............ Sulfur dioxide 2/5/2018 11/13/2018 [Federal Register
milestone inventory. citation], [Federal
Register date of
publication].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA
Rule No. Rule title effective effective Final rule/citation Comments
date date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
(20)XX............... Addressing Regional 4/5/2018 11/13/2018 [Federal Register
Haze Visibility citation], [Federal
Protection For The Register date of
Mandatory Federal publication].
Class I Areas
Required Under 40
CFR 51.309.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51417]]
0
3. Section 52.2636 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(4), (b)(12), (c)(1), (c)(1) Table 2,
(d)(2) and (d)(3), (e), (e)(1)(i), (e)(1)(ii)(A) through (C), (h)(1),
and (i)(1); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (b)(13), (d)(4), and (e)(1)(ii)(D).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2636 Implementation plan for regional haze.
(a) * * *
(2) This section also applies to each owner and operator of the
following emissions units in the State of Wyoming for which EPA
disapproved the State's BART determination and issued a SO2
and/or NOX BART Federal Implementation Plan:
(i) Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station Units 1,
2, and 3;
(ii) PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3; and
(iii) PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 1.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Continuous emission monitoring system or CEMS means the
equipment required by this section to sample, analyze, measure, and
provide, by means of readings recorded at least once every 15 minutes
(using an automated data acquisition and handling system (DAHS)), a
permanent record of SO2 and/or NOX emissions,
diluent, or stack gas volumetric flow rate.
* * * * *
(12) SO2 means sulfur dioxide.
(13) Unit means any of the units identified in paragraph (a) of
this section.
(c) * * *
(1) The owners/operators of emissions units subject to this section
shall not emit, or cause to be emitted, PM, NOX, or
SO2 in excess of the following limitations:
* * * * *
Table 2 to Sec. 52.2636
[Emission limits and required control technologies for BART units for which the EPA disapproved the State's BART
determination and implemented a FIP]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 emission
NOX emission limit-- lb/
limit-- lb/ MMBtu
NOX required control MMBtu (30-day (averaged
Source name/BART unit technology rolling annually
average) across both
units)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Selective Catalytic Reduction \4\ 0.18/0.06 0.12
Station/Unit 1 \1\. (SCR) \2\.
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Selective Non-catalytic 0.18/0.15
Station/Unit 2 \1\. Reduction (SNCR) \3\.
Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Selective Non-catalytic 0.18/0.15 N/A
Station/Unit 3 \1\. Reduction (SNCR) \3\.
PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3................. N/A........................... \*\ 0.07 N/A
PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1............ N/A........................... 0.07 N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The owners and operators of Laramie River Station Unit 1 shall comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.18 lb/
MMBtu on [the effective date of the final rule] and ending June 30, 2019. The owners and operators of Laramie
River Station Unit 1 shall comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu on July 1, 2019. The owners and
operators of the Laramie River Station Units 2 and 3 shall comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu
on [the effective date of the final rule] and ending on December 30, 2018. The owners and operators of Laramie
River Station Units 2 and 3 shall comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu on December 31, 2018.
The owners and operators of Laramie River Station Units 1 and 2 shall comply with the SO2 emission limit of
0.12 lb/MMBtu averaged annually across the two units on December 31, 2018.
\2\ By July 1, 2019.
\3\ By December 30, 2018.
\4\ These limits are in addition to the NOX emission limit for Laramie River Station Unit 1 of 0.07 MMBtu on a
30-day rolling average.
* (or 0.28 and shut-down by December 31, 2027).
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) The owners and operators of Laramie River Station Unit 1 shall
comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu on [the
effective date of the final rule] and ending June 30, 2019. The owners
and operators of Laramie River Station Unit 1 shall comply with the
NOX emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu on July 1, 2019. The
owners and operators of the Laramie River Station Units 2 and 3 shall
comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu on [the
effective date of the final rule] and ending on December 30, 2018. The
owners and operators of Laramie River Station Units 2 and 3 shall
comply with the NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu on
December 31, 2018. The owners and operators of Laramie River Station
Units 1 and 2 shall comply with the SO2 emission limit of
0.12 lb/MMBtu averaged annually across the two units on December 31,
2018.
(3) The owners and operators of the other BART sources subject to
this section shall comply with the emissions limitations and other
requirements of this section by March 4, 2019.
(4) Compliance alternatives for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3.
(i) The owners and operators of PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 will
meet a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) by March 4, 2019; or
(ii) Alternatively, the owners and operators of PacifiCorp Dave
Johnston Unit 3 will permanently cease operation of this unit on or
before December 31, 2027.
(e) Compliance determinations for SO2 and NOX.
(1) * * *
(i) CEMS. At all times after the earliest compliance date specified
in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner/operator of each unit shall
maintain, calibrate, and operate a CEMS, in full compliance with the
requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, to accurately measure
SO2 and/or NOX, diluent, and stack gas volumetric
flow rate from each unit. The CEMS shall be used to determine
compliance with the emission limitations in paragraph (c) of this
section for each unit.
(ii) * * *
(A) For any hour in which fuel is combusted in a unit, the owner/
operator of each unit shall calculate the hourly average NOX
emission rates in lb/MMBtu at the CEMS in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. At the end of each operating day, the
owner/operator shall calculate and record a new 30-day rolling average
[[Page 51418]]
emission rate in lb/MMBtu from the arithmetic average of all valid
hourly emission rates from the CEMS for the current operating day and
the previous 29 successive operating days.
(B) At the end of each calendar year, the owner/operator shall
calculate the annual average SO2 emission rate in lb/MMBtu
across Laramie River Station Units 1 and 2 as the sum of the
SO2 annual mass emissions (pounds) divided by the sum of the
annual heat inputs (MMBtu). For Laramie River Station Units 1 and 2,
the owner/operator shall calculate the annual mass emissions for
SO2 and the annual heat input in accordance with 40 CFR part
75 for each unit.
(C) An hourly average SO2 and/or NOX emission
rate in lb/MMBtu is valid only if the minimum number of data points, as
specified in 40 CFR part 75, is acquired by both the pollutant
concentration monitor (SO2 and/or NOX) and the
diluent monitor (O2 or CO2).
(D) Data reported to meet the requirements of this section shall
not include data substituted using the missing data substitution
procedures of subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall the data have been
bias adjusted according to the procedures of 40 CFR part 75.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
(1) The owner/operator of each unit shall submit quarterly excess
emissions reports for SO2 and/or NOX BART units
no later than the 30th day following the end of each calendar quarter.
Excess emissions means emissions that exceed the emissions limits
specified in paragraph (c) of this section. The reports shall include
the magnitude, date(s), and duration of each period of excess
emissions, specific identification of each period of excess emissions
that occurs during startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions of the unit,
the nature and cause of any malfunction (if known), and the corrective
action taken or preventative measures adopted.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) The owner/operator shall promptly submit notification of
commencement of construction of any equipment which is being
constructed to comply with the SO2 and/or NOX
emission limits in paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-21949 Filed 10-10-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P