Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Regional Haze Progress Report, 11455-11464 [2019-05769]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
11455
TABLE 1 OF § 165.801—SECTOR OHIO VALLEY ANNUAL AND RECURRING SAFETY ZONES—Continued
Sponsor/name
Sector Ohio Valley
location
Safety zone
University of Pittsburgh Athletic
Department/University
of
Pittsburgh Fireworks.
Leukemia & Lymphoma Society/Light the Night.
Leukemia and Lymphoma Society/Light the Night Walk Fireworks.
Yeatman’s Fireworks ................
Pittsburgh, PA .................
Ohio River, Miles 0.0–0.1, Monongahela River,
Miles 0.0–0.1, Allegheny River, Miles 0.0–
0.25 (Pennsylvania).
Ohio River, Miles 0.0–0.4 (Pennsylvania).
Date
81. Multiple days—September
through January.
82. 1 day— First week in October.
83. 1 day—Second weekend of
October.
84. 1 day—First two weeks in
October.
85. 1 day—Second or third
weekend in October.
86. 1 day—Fourth weekend in
October.
87. 1 day—One weekend in
October.
88. 1 day—Friday before
Thanksgiving.
89. 1 day—Friday before
Thanksgiving.
90. 1 day—Friday before
Thanksgiving.
91. 1 day—Friday before
Thanksgiving.
92. 1 day—Friday or Saturday
after Thanksgiving.
93. 1 day—Third week of November.
94. 1 day—December 31 ..........
95. 7 days—Scheduled home
games.
Outdoor Chattanooga/Swim the
Suck.
Chattajack .................................
Cumberland River, Miles 189.7–192.1 (Tennessee).
Cincinnati, OH ................
Ohio River, Miles 469.0–470.5 (Ohio).
Chattanooga, TN ............
West Virginia Motor Car Festival.
Pittsburgh Downtown Partnership/Light Up Night.
Kittanning Light Up Night Firework Display.
Duquesne Light/Santa Spectacular.
Charleston, WV ..............
Pittsburgh, PA .................
Allegheny River, Miles 0.0–1.0 (Pennsylvania).
Kittanning, PA .................
Monongahela Holiday Show .....
Monongahela, PA ...........
Allegheny River, Miles 44.5–45.5 (Pennsylvania).
Monongahela River, Miles 0.00–0.22, Allegheny
River, Miles 0.00–0.25, and Ohio River, Miles
0.0–0.3 (Pennsylvania).
Ohio River, Miles 31.5–32.5 (Pennsylvania).
Friends of the Festival/Cheer at
the Pier.
Gallipolis in Lights .....................
Chattanooga, TN ............
Pittsburgh
Cultural
Trust/
Highmark First Night Pittsburgh.
University of Tennessee/UT
Football Fireworks.
[FR Doc. 2019–05849 Filed 3–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0761; FRL–9991–30–
Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Regional
Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
Arizona’s Regional Haze Progress Report
(‘‘Progress Report’’ or ‘‘Report’’),
submitted by the State of Arizona on
November 12, 2015, as a revision to its
state implementation plan (SIP).
Arizona submitted its Progress Report
and a negative declaration stating that
SUMMARY:
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
Nashville, TN ..................
Tennessee River, Miles 452.0–454.5 (Tennessee).
Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.5 (Tennessee).
Kanawha River, Miles 58–59 (West Virginia).
Dated: March 21, 2019
M.B. Zamperini,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Sector Ohio Valley.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Pittsburgh, PA .................
Jkt 247001
Chattanooga, TN ............
Pittsburgh, PA .................
Gallipolis, OH ..................
Tennessee River, Miles 462.7–465.2 (Tennessee).
Ohio River, Miles 269.2–270 (Ohio).
Pittsburgh, PA .................
Allegheny River, Miles 0.5–1.0 (Pennsylvania).
Knoxville, TN ..................
Tennessee River, Miles 645.6–648.3 (Tennessee).
further revision of the existing regional
haze implementation plan is not needed
at this time. The Progress Report
addresses the federal Regional Haze
Rule requirements under the Clean Air
Act (CAA) to submit a report describing
progress in achieving reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing
implementation plan addressing
regional haze. Arizona’s Progress Report
notes that Arizona has implemented the
measures in the regional haze
implementation plan due to be in place
by the date of the Progress Report and
that visibility in Class I areas affected by
emissions from Arizona is improving.
The EPA is proposing approval of
Arizona’s determination that the State’s
regional haze implementation plan is
adequate to meet RPGs in Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arizona for
the first implementation period, which
extended through 2018, and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 26, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
OAR–2018–0761 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
11456
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
is visibility impairment produced by
emissions of fine particles by numerous
sources and activities located across a
broad geographic area. These fine
particles can also cause serious health
effects and mortality in humans and
contribute to environmental impacts,
such as acid deposition and
eutrophication of water bodies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Panah Stauffer, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3247, stauffer.panah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, it is
intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
C. Arizona’s Regional Haze Plan
II. Context for Understanding Arizona’s
Progress Report
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
B. Data Sources for Arizona’s Progress
Report
III. The EPA’s Review of Arizona’s Progress
Report
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
Implementation Plan
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
D. Determination of Adequacy
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
Fine particles impair visibility by
scattering and absorbing light, thereby
reducing the clarity, color, and visible
distance that one can see. Regional haze
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA
Amendments of 1977, Congress created
a program to protect visibility in
designated national parks and
wilderness areas, establishing 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.’’ In accordance with section
169A of the CAA and after consulting
with the Department of the Interior, the
EPA promulgated a list of 156
mandatory Class I federal areas where
visibility is identified as an important
value.1 In this notice, we refer to
mandatory Class I federal areas on this
list as ‘‘Class I areas.’’
With the CAA Amendments of 1990,
Congress added section 169B to address
regional haze issues. The EPA
promulgated the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR) on July 1, 1999.2 In the RHR, the
EPA revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate provisions
addressing regional haze impairment
and to establish a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I
areas. As defined in the RHR, the RPGs
must provide for an improvement in
visibility for the most impaired days
(‘‘worst days’’) over the period of the
implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least
impaired days (‘‘best days’’) over the
same period.3 The first regional haze
implementation plan generally covers
the period from 2000–2018 (also known
as the first planning period).
Five years after submittal of the initial
regional haze plan, states were required
to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each
Class I area within the state and in each
Class I area outside the state that may
be affected by emissions from within the
state.4 States were also required to
submit, at the same time as the progress
report, a determination of the adequacy
of the state’s existing regional haze
plan.5
C. Arizona’s Regional Haze Plan
Arizona submitted its initial regional
haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308 to the
EPA on February 28, 2011 (hereinafter
‘‘2011 Submittal’’).6 The EPA actions in
Table 1 followed the 2011 Submittal.
TABLE 1—ARIZONA REGIONAL HAZE—SUMMARY OF EPA ACTIONS UNDER CAA SECTION 308
Date
EPA action
December 5, 2012 .....................
‘‘Phase 1’’ partial approval and partial disapproval of certain provisions of the 2011 Submittal and promulgation of partial federal
implementation plan (FIP).a
‘‘Phase 2’’ partial approval and partial disapproval of remaining portions of Arizona Regional Haze 2011 Submittal.b
‘‘Phase 3’’ promulgation of FIP for remaining portions of Arizona Regional Haze program.c
Approval of SIP revision for the Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO) Apache Generating Station.d
FIP revision replacing the control technology demonstration requirements for nitrogen oxides (NOX) at Lhoist North America of Arizona, Inc. Nelson Lime Plant with revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements.e
FIP revision revising NOX requirements for the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) Coronado
Generating Station.f
FIP revision replacing the control technology demonstration requirements for NOX at CalPortland Cement (CPC) Rillito Plant Kiln 4
and Phoenix Cement Company (PCC) Clarkdale Plant Kiln 4 with revised recordkeeping and reporting requirements.g
Approval of SIP revision to replace FIP for Arizona Public Service (APS) Cholla Generating Station.h
Approval of SIP revision to replace FIP for the SRP Coronado Generating Station.i
July 30, 2013 .............................
September 3, 2014 ....................
April 10, 2015 .............................
April 17, 2015 .............................
April 13, 2016 .............................
November 21, 2016 ...................
March 27, 2017 ..........................
October 10, 2017 .......................
a 77
FR 72511 (December 5, 2012).
FR 461421 (July 30, 2013).
c 79 FR 52419 (September 3, 2014).
d 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
e 80 FR 21176 (April 17, 2015).
f 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).
g 81 FR 83144 (November 21, 2016).
h 82 FR 15139 (March 27, 2017).
i 82 FR 46903 (October 10, 2017).
b 78
1 The Class I areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81,
subpart D. Areas designated as Class I areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness
areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5,000
acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
2 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). The rule was
subsequently revised on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39103),
October 13, 2006 (71 FR 60611), and January 10,
2017 (82 FR 3078).
3 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
4 40 CFR 51.308(g).
5 40 CFR 51.308(h).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
6 On December 23, 2003, the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a
Regional Haze plan under 40 CFR 51.309 (‘‘309
Plan’’). Letter dated December 23, 2003, from
Stephen A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to Wayne
Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA, Region IX. On
December 30, 2004, ADEQ submitted a revision to
its 309 Plan, consisting of rules on emissions
trading and smoke management, and a correction to
the State’s regional haze statutes. Letter dated
December 30, 2004, from Stephen A. Owens,
Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional
Administrator, EPA. On December 24, 2008, ADEQ
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
sent a letter resubmitting the 309 Plan revisions to
the EPA. Letter dated December 24, 2008, from
Stephen A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to Wayne
Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA. On May 16,
2006 (71 FR 28270) and May 8, 2007 (72 FR 25973),
the EPA approved the smoke management rules that
were part of these submittals. On August 8, 2013
(78 FR 48326), the EPA disapproved the remainder
of the State’s submittals under 40 CFR 309.
Therefore, these prior submittals are not relevant for
purposes of the Progress Report, unless otherwise
noted.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
On November 12, 2015, the State of
Arizona submitted its Progress Report to
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(g) and (h).7 In accordance with
these requirements, the Progress Report
describes the status of implementation
of measures included in the regional
haze implementation plan, emissions
reductions from these measures, and
improvements in visibility conditions at
the State’s Class I areas. The Progress
Report also includes a negative
declaration stating that further revision
of the existing implementation plan is
not needed in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1).
II. Context for Understanding Arizona’s
Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of
Arizona’s Progress Report as well as the
EPA’s evaluation of it, this section
provides background on the regional
haze program in Arizona.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for
determining visibility conditions at
Class I areas referred to as the ‘‘deciview
index,’’ which is measured in
deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301.
A deciview expresses uniform changes
in haziness in terms of common
increments across the entire range of
visibility conditions (i.e., pristine (low
deciview) to extremely hazy (high
deciview)). Deciviews are determined
by using air quality data collected from
the Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE)
network monitors to estimate light
extinction, and then transforming the
value of light extinction using a
logarithmic function. Arizona has 12
Class I areas within its borders: The
Chiricahua National Monument,
Chiricahua Wilderness Area, Galiuro
Wilderness Area, Grand Canyon
National Park, Mazatzal Wilderness
Area, Mount Baldy Wilderness Area,
Petrified Forest National Park, Pine
Mountain Wilderness, Saguaro National
Park, Sierra Ancha Wilderness Area,
Superstition Wilderness Area, and
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Area. For
this Progress Report, monitoring data
representing visibility conditions in
Arizona’s 12 Class I areas were based on
the ten IMPROVE monitors identified in
Table 2.
7 Letter dated November 12, 2015, from Eric C.
Massey, Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to
Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
11457
TABLE 2—ARIZONA IMPROVE MONI- dated June 28, 2013.9 The WRAP Report
TORING SITES AND REPRESENTED was prepared for WRAP ‘‘on behalf of
the 15 western state members in the
CLASS I AREAS
Site code
Class I area
BALD1 ......
CHIR1 ......
Mount Baldy Wilderness.
Chiricahua National Monument, Chiricahua Wilderness & Galiuro Wilderness.
Grand Canyon National Park.
Mazatzal Wilderness & Pine Mountain
Wilderness.
Petrified Forest National Park.
Saguaro National Monument—East
Unit.
Saguaro National Monument—West
Unit.
Sierra Ancha Wilderness.
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.
Superstition Wilderness.
GRCA2 .....
IKBA1 .......
PEFO1 .....
SAGU1 .....
SAWE1 .....
SIAN1 .......
SYCA2 .....
TONT1 .....
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year
Progress Report, Table 17, 25.
Under the RHR, a state’s initial
regional haze plan must establish two
RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One
for the 20 percent least impaired days
and one for the 20 percent most
impaired days. The RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility on the
20 percent most impaired days and
ensure no degradation in visibility on
the 20 percent least impaired days, as
compared to visibility conditions during
the baseline period. In establishing the
RPGs, a state must consider the uniform
rate of visibility improvement from the
baseline to natural conditions in 2064
and the emission reduction measures
needed to achieve that uniform rate. The
EPA’s 2014 FIP set the RPGs for
Arizona’s 12 Class I areas based on
modeling performed by the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),
scaled according to projected emission
reductions from the FIP’s controls for
best available retrofit technology
(BART) and reasonable progress.
Arizona used these RPGs in its Progress
Report.8
In addition, the Progress Report
addresses Arizona’s potential
contribution to visibility impairment at
twelve Class 1 areas located in three
other states: Colorado, Utah, and New
Mexico.
B. Data Sources for Arizona’s Progress
Report
To demonstrate visibility progress, the
Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) used recent visibility
information available from the WRAP
Technical Support System (TSS). It also
used the technical data and analyses in
the ‘‘Western Regional Air Partnership
Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress
Summary Report’’ (‘‘WRAP Report’’),
8 The RPGs are shown in Table 10 of today’s
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
WRAP region, to provide the technical
basis for the first of RHR individual
progress reports.’’ 10 ADEQ’s Progress
Report presented data for each of its
Class I areas comparing visibility
conditions for the 20 percent most
impaired and 20 percent least impaired
days during the baseline period (2000–
2004), the current period for the
Progress Report (2009–2013), and years
between those periods. ADEQ also
relied on WRAP TSS data for its
emissions inventory.
The emissions data for BART sources
and non-BART electrical generating
units (EGUs) came from information the
facilities report to the EPA’s Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) database.
Emissions data for non-electric
generating unit (non-EGU) sources came
from the 2008 and 2011 National
Emissions Inventory as well as ADEQ’s
internal point source emission database.
ADEQ also calculated emissions averted
from prescribed burning of
nonagricultural fuels using WRAPrecommended emission reduction
techniques.
III. The EPA’s Review of Arizona’s
Progress Report
This section describes the contents of
Arizona’s Progress Report, the EPA’s
review of the report, the determination
of adequacy required by 40 CFR
51.308(h), and the requirement for state
and federal land manager coordination
in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All
Measures Included in the Regional Haze
Implementation Plan
In its Progress Report, Arizona
provided descriptions and compliance
dates for emissions limits on the seven
BART sources established through the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP 11 and the
Arizona Regional Haze FIP.12 The
Progress Report also described controls
and compliance dates for two
reasonable progress sources that the
EPA established in the Arizona Regional
9 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress
Report, 2.
10 The WRAP Report is available at https://
www.wrapair2.org/documents/Full%20Report/
WRAP_RHRPR_Full_Report_without_
Appendices.PDF.
11 We refer to the approved provisions of the
Arizona Regional Haze Plan (including approved
revisions) collectively as the ‘‘Arizona Regional
Haze SIP.’’
12 We refer to the various FIP requirements
promulgated by the EPA collectively as the
‘‘Arizona Regional Haze FIP.’’
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
11458
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Haze FIP.13 The Progress Report
addressed the status of these sources at
the time of the Report’s submittal in
2015. However, most of the compliance
dates for these sources had not yet
passed at the time of the Report’s
submittal, so information regarding
compliance was not available.
Following submittal of the Progress
Report, the EPA has taken several
actions to approve revisions to the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP and to revise
the Arizona Regional Haze FIP, as
shown in Table 1 above. These revisions
superseded some of the SIP
requirements discussed in the Progress
Report. The RHR requires a progress
report to address the ‘‘implementation
plan,’’ defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as any
SIP, FIP, or tribal implementation
plan.14 Accordingly, in the following
sections, we summarize the currently
applicable requirements of the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional
Haze FIP, as described in the Progress
Report and revised by subsequent SIP
and FIP actions.
As described further below, beyond
stationary source controls required in
the SIP and FIP, ADEQ also included
visibility progress made from the
closure of certain stationary sources,
existing federal and state regulations,
and the State’s Enhanced Smoke
Management Program.15
1. Subject-to-BART Sources
Under the RHR, states are directed to
conduct BART determinations for
BART-eligible 16 sources that may be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area
(known as ‘‘subject-to-BART’’
sources).17 States also have the
flexibility to adopt alternatives that
provide greater reasonable progress
towards natural visibility conditions
than BART for one or more subject-toBART sources (commonly known as
‘‘better-than-BART’’ alternatives).18 The
Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona
Regional Haze FIP identified seven
subject-to-BART facilities (i.e., facilities
that include one or more BART-eligible
units and were determined to be subject
to BART): AEPCO Apache Generating
Station; APS Cholla Generating Station;
SRP Coronado Generating Station;
Freeport-McMoRan Miami, Inc. Miami
Smelter; ASARCO, Inc., (‘‘Asarco’’)
Hayden Smelter; Tucson Electric Power
(TEP) Sundt Generating Station; and the
Nelson Lime Plant. The Arizona
Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional
Haze FIP establish BART or better-thanBART alternative controls for NOX,
particulate matter (PM), and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) for each of these sources.
a. Apache Generating Station
The Apache Generating Station
(‘‘Apache’’) has three BART-eligible
units: ST1, ST2, and ST3. Unit ST1 is
a wall-fired boiler with a net unit output
of 85 megawatts (MW) that burns
pipeline-quality natural gas as its
primary fuel and can operate alone or in
combined-cycle mode with an adjacent
Gas Turbine (GT1). Units ST2 and ST3
are both dry-bottom, Riley Stoker turbofired boilers, operating on subbituminous coal, each with a gross unit
output of 204 MW.
On December 5, 2012, the EPA
approved the State’s SO2 and PM BART
limits for Apache and established FIP
NOX emission limits for units ST2 and
ST3 based on installation and operation
of selective catalytic reduction (SCR).
On April 10, 2015, the EPA approved a
SIP revision for Apache (‘‘Apache SIP
Revision’’) that included a better-thanBART alternative for Apache units ST2
and ST3 (‘‘Apache BART Alternative’’)
and a revised NOX emission limit for
ST1 that applies when it operates in
combined-cycle mode with the adjacent
GT1.19 Under the Apache BART
Alternative, ST2 was converted from a
primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that
combusts pipeline-quality natural gas,
while ST3 remains as a coal-fired unit
and has been retrofitted with selective
non-catalytic reduction (SNCR). The
emission limits associated with the
Apache BART Alternative are
summarized in Table 3. The compliance
date for all limits was December 5, 2017,
except that a more stringent limit for
PM10 of 0.008 pounds per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) at ST2
that became effective on December 5,
2018.
TABLE 3—EMISSION LIMITS FOR APACHE BART ALTERNATIVE
Emission Limit
(lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler operating days)
Unit
NOX
ST2 ...........................
ST3 ...........................
0.085
0.23
PM10
0.01, then 0.008 (effective December 5, 2018) ...............................................................
0.03 ...................................................................................................................................
The Apache SIP Revision also
included a revised NOX emission limit
for the combined-cycle operation of ST1
with GT1 from 0.056 lb/MMBtu to 0.10
lb/MMBtu and set a 1,205 lb/day NOX
limit, based on a 30-calendar-day
average, for ST1 operating in standalone mode or in combined-cycle mode
with GT1. Finally, the Apache SIP
Revision incorporated monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for the existing ST1 BART
SIP limits of 0.00064 lb SO2/MMBtu and
0.0075 lb PM10/MMBtu into the SIP.
Upon approval of the Apache SIP
Revision, the EPA withdrew all
Regional Haze FIP requirements that
addressed BART for Apache.20
13 These sources were not subject to BART, but
the EPA determined that they were required to
implement controls under the reasonable progress
requirements of the RHR.
14 No tribe in Arizona has a tribal implementation
plan for regional haze.
15 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress
Report, 13–18.
16 A BART-eligible source is an existing stationary
source in any of 26 listed categories built between
1962 and 1977 with potential emissions of at least
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
SO2
Jkt 247001
b. Cholla Generating Station
Cholla Generating Station (‘‘Cholla’’)
consists of four coal-fired electric
generating units with a total plant-wide
generating capacity of 1150 MW. Unit 1
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.00064
0.15
is a 126 MW boiler that is not BARTeligible. Unit 2 (272 MW), Unit 3 (272
MW), and Unit 4 (410 MW) are
tangentially-fired dry bottom boilers
that are BART-eligible. On December 5,
2012, the EPA approved the State’s SO2
and PM BART limits for Cholla and
established FIP NOX emission limits for
all three units based on installation and
operation of SCR.
On March 27, 2017, the EPA approved
a SIP revision for Cholla (‘‘Cholla SIP
250 tons per year. 40 CFR 51.301 and 40 CFR part
51 appendix Y, section II.
17 40 CFR 51.308(e).
18 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
19 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
20 Id.
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Revision’’) that included a revised
BART analysis and determination for
NOX and a revision to Cholla’s operating
permit to implement both the revised
BART determination for NOX and
ADEQ’s prior BART determinations for
SO2 and PM10 at Cholla.21 Under the
revised NOX BART determination:
• Unit 2 was permanently shut down
by April 1, 2016.
• Unit 3 and Unit 4 continue to
operate with currently installed lowNOX burners and separated over fire air.
By April 30, 2025, the owners will
permanently cease burning coal at both
units with the option to convert to
pipeline-quality natural gas by July 31,
11459
2025, with an annual average capacity
factor of 20 percent or less.
Upon approval of the Cholla SIP
Revision, the EPA withdrew all
Regional Haze FIP requirements
applicable to Cholla.22 The current SIPapproved BART limits for Cholla are
shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4—CHOLLA BART EMISSION LIMITS
Unit
Emission limit
(lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler operating
days)
Dates
PM10
NOX
Unit 2 ..............
Unit 3 ..............
Unit 4 ..............
Unit shut down on April 1, 2016.
until April 30, 2025 ..........................................................................................
after April 30, 2025 .........................................................................................
until April 30, 2025 ..........................................................................................
after April 30, 2025 .........................................................................................
c. Coronado Generating Station
Coronado Generating Station
(‘‘Coronado’’) consists of two BARTeligible 456 MW coal-fired steam
boilers, known as Units 1 and 2. On
December 5, 2012, the EPA approved
the State’s SO2 and PM BART limits for
Coronado and established FIP NOX
emission limits for both units based on
installation and operation of SCR.
On October 10, 2017, the EPA
approved a SIP revision that included a
better-than-BART alternative for
Coronado (‘‘Coronado SIP Revision’’),
consisting of an interim operating
strategy (‘‘Interim Strategy’’), which is
in effect from December 5, 2017, to
December 31, 2025, and a final
operating strategy (‘‘Final Strategy’’),
which will take effect on January 1,
2026.23 The requirements associated
with the Interim and Final Strategies are
shown in Table 5 and summarized
briefly below.
The Interim Strategy includes three
different operating options (designated
IS2, IS3, and IS4), each of which
requires a period of seasonal
curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for
Unit 1. Each year, SRP must select and
implement one of the three options,
based on the NOX emissions
performance of Unit 1 and the SO2
emissions performance of Units 1 and 2
in that year. In particular, by October 21
of each year, SRP must notify ADEQ and
the EPA of its chosen option for that
calendar year (and for January of the
following year) and demonstrate that its
NOX and SO2 emissions for that year (up
to the date of the notification) have not
already exceeded the limits associated
with that option. SRP then must comply
with those limits for the remainder of
the year (and for January of the
following year) and curtail operation of
0.22
0.08
0.22
0.08
0.015
0.01
0.015
0.01
SO2
0.15
0.0006
0.15
0.0006
Unit 1 for the time period required
under that option. In addition, under
each option, the facility must comply
with an annual plant-wide SO2
emissions cap of 1,970 tons per year
(tpy) effective in each year, beginning in
2018.
The Final Strategy in the Coronado
SIP Revision requires installation of
SCR on Unit 1 or the permanent
cessation of operation of Unit 1 no later
than December 31, 2025. SRP is
required to notify ADEQ and the EPA of
its selection by December 31, 2022. The
Final Strategy includes two additional
features: An SO2 emission limit of 0.060
lb/MMBtu, calculated on a 30-boiler
operating day (BOD) rolling average and
applicable to Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1
if it continues operating), and an annual
plant-wide SO2 emissions cap of either
1,970 tpy if both units continue
operating or 1,080 tpy if Unit 1 shuts
down.
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF CORONADO BART ALTERNATIVE
Control strategy
Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu with 30–BOD
average)
NOX
Interim Strategy:
IS2 ................................
IS3 ................................
IS4 ................................
SO2
0.320
0.320
0.310
Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu with 30–BOD
average)
NOX
0.060
0.050
0.060
Interim Strategy
Timeline.
0.080
0.080
0.080
SO2
Annual plantwide SO2 cap
(tpy)
Unit 1 curtailment period
1,970
1,970
1,970
October 21–January 31
November 21–January 20
November 21–January 20
0.060
0.050
0.060
Notification date: October 21 of each year.
Operates December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025.
Final Strategy:
SCR Installation ...........
Shutdown .....................
21 82
0.065
N/A
FR 15139 (March 27, 2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
0.060
N/A
0.080
0.080
22 Id.
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00014
0.060
0.060
1,970
1,080
23 82
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
FR 46903.
27MRP1
N/A.
N/A.
11460
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF CORONADO BART ALTERNATIVE—Continued
Control strategy
Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu with 30–BOD
average)
NOX
SO2
Final Strategy Timeline .......
d. Miami Smelter
The Arizona Regional Haze SIP and
Arizona Regional Haze FIP include
BART requirements for Converters 2
through 5 and the electric furnace at the
Miami Smelter. For SO2 from the
converters, the BART emission limit is
a control efficiency of 99.7 percent on
a 365-day rolling average. For SO2 from
the electric furnace, the BART emission
limit is a work practice standard
prohibiting active aeration. For NOX, a
40 tpy limit applies to the converters
and electric furnace. For PM10, the FIP
incorporates by reference provisions of
the national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants for primary
copper smelters. Compliance with the
SO2 emission limit for the converters
was required by January 1, 2018, and
compliance with all other provisions
was required by September 2, 2016.
e. Hayden Smelter
The Arizona Regional Haze SIP and
Arizona Regional Haze FIP include
BART requirements for converters 1, 3,
4, and 5, and anode furnaces 1 and 2 at
the Hayden Smelter. Pursuant to a
consent decree with the United States,
Asarco was required to cease operations
at the existing converters by May 1,
2018.25 Accordingly, the anode furnaces
are the only subject-to-BART units still
in operation at the Hayden copper
smelter. As of September 4, 2017, these
units were required to meet an annual
NOX emission limit of 40 tpy and only
be charged with blister copper or higher
purity copper in order to limit SO2
emissions.
24 Id.
25 Consent Decree No. CV–15–02206–PHX–DLR
(D. Ariz) (entered December 30, 2015), paragraph 8.
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
NOX
SO2
Annual plantwide SO2 cap
(tpy)
Unit 1 curtailment period
Notification date: December 31, 2022.
Shutdown or install & operate SCR: December 31, 2025.
The Coronado SIP revision also
included PM10 limits of 0.030 lb/MMBtu
for each unit, as well as compliance
deadlines and monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for NOX, PM and SO2.
Upon approval of the Coronado SIP
revision, the EPA withdrew all Regional
Haze FIP requirements applicable to
Coronado.24
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu with 30–BOD
average)
Jkt 247001
f. Sundt Unit 4
The Arizona Regional Haze FIP
includes BART emissions limits and the
option of a better-than-BART alternative
based on a switch from coal to natural
gas for TEP Sundt Unit 4. On March 14,
2016, TEP notified the EPA that it had
selected the alternative option and
would comply with the associated
emission limits by the compliance date
of December 31, 2017.26 These limits are
0.25 lb/MMBtu for NOX, 0.054 lb/
MMBtu for SO2, and 0.010 lb/MMBtu
(or an alternative limit determined by
testing) for PM10.
g. Nelson Lime Plant
The Arizona Regional Haze FIP
includes BART emissions limits for
Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant.
The limits for NOX are 3.80 lb/ton of
lime for Kiln 1 and 2.61 lb/ton of lime
for Kiln 2 on a 12-month rolling average
with a compliance date of September 4,
2017. The limits for SO2 are 9.32 lb/ton
of lime for Kiln 1 and 9.73 lb/ton of lime
for Nelson Kiln 2 on a 12-month rolling
average, and 10.1 tons/day for both kilns
combined with a compliance date of
March 3, 2016.
2. Reasonable Progress Sources
The Arizona Regional Haze FIP
includes NOX emission limits and
related requirements for CPC Rillito
Kiln 4 and PCC Clarkdale Kiln 4 under
the reasonable progress requirements of
the RHR. Both kilns are subject to 30day rolling average NOX limits
achievable with installation and
operation of SNCR, with a compliance
date of December 31, 2018. The limit for
Rillito Kiln 4 is 3.46 lb NOX/ton of
clinker, and the limit for Clarkdale Kiln
4 is 2.12 lb NOX/ton of clinker.27
3. Closure of Existing Facilities
In its Progress Report, ADEQ
explained that Catalyst Paper, which
was a subject-to-BART source, closed
permanently in 2012. The total
26 Letter dated March 14, 2016, from Erik Bakken,
TEP, to Kathleen Johnson, EPA Region IX.
27 The FIP provided an alternative limit of 810
tons NOX/year for Clarkdale Kiln 4, but PCC elected
to comply with the lb/ton limit. Letter dated May
25, 2018 from Brett Lindsay, Environmental and
Energy Manager, PCC, to EPA Region IX
Enforcement Division and Air Division.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
emissions from its boiler unit were more
than 250 tons per year of NOX and SO2.
ADEQ noted in the Arizona Regional
Haze State Plan that this boiler had a
visibility impact of 0.739 deciviews on
the Sierra Ancha Wilderness area and
0.523 deciviews on the Superstition
Wilderness area. The closure of this
facility eliminated its emissions and
corresponding visibility impacts.
4. Existing Federal and State
Regulations
ADEQ’s Progress Report identified
several federal and State programs that
contributed to emissions reductions in
visibility-impairing pollutants.
The federal programs included in the
Progress Report were: The Heavy-Duty
Highway Rule, which reduced pollution
from heavy-duty engines and diesel
fuel; the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Vehicle and
Gasoline Sulfur Program, which
reduced emissions from passenger and
light-duty vehicles and gasoline; the
Non-Road Engine Program, which
reduced emissions from non-road
engines; the Mercury and Air Toxics
Rule, which reduced pollution from
power plants; and requirements to
implement the national ambient air
quality standards.
The state regulations described in the
Progress Report were: The Arizona State
Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program,
which reduces emissions from cars; and
Arizona’s New Source Review Program,
which addresses emissions from
stationary sources.
5. Smoke Management
In the Progress Report, ADEQ noted
that it implements a certified Enhanced
Smoke Management Program that works
toward a reduction in smoke impacts
due to prescribed/controlled burning of
nonagricultural fuels with particular
regard to heavy forest fuels. All State
lands, parks, and forests, as well as any
federally-managed lands in Arizona, are
under the jurisdiction of ADEQ in
matters relating to air pollution from
prescribed burning. The EPA has
approved the state and local rules that
comprise the Enhanced Smoke
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
11461
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
Management Program into the Arizona
SIP.28
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
The Arizona Progress Report also
includes a summary of the emissions
reductions achieved throughout the
State through implementation of the
control measures relied upon to achieve
reasonable progress. ADEQ examined
the emissions of SO2, NOX, primary
organic aerosols (POA), elemental
carbon (EC), fine soil, fine particulate
matter, coarse particulate matter (PMC),
ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and determined its
emissions reductions are adequate to
achieve Arizona’s RPGs. For the
statewide emissions inventory, ADEQ
used WRAP TSS data and other
information from WRAP to analyze
emissions for 2002 (the baseline year),
2008, and 2011 (the most current year
for which data were available). ADEQ
stated in its Progress Report that these
years were selected because they
provided the most comprehensive data.
For BART sources, EGUs, and other
facilities that were subject to reasonable
progress controls, ADEQ provided
annual emissions data from 2002–2013.
The sources of that information were the
EPA’s CAMD,29 the 2008 and 2011
National Emissions Inventories, and
ADEQ’s point source emissions
database.
ADEQ provided statewide emissions
trends for SO2, NOX, POA, EC, Fine
Soil, PMC, NH3, and VOCs. The
emissions trends are summarized in
Table 6.
TABLE 6—STATEWIDE EMISSIONS TRENDS OF VISIBILITY-IMPAIRING POLLUTANTS (TONS/YEAR)
2002 ..................................................................
2008 ..................................................................
2011 ..................................................................
Percent (%) Change 2002 to 2011 ...................
SO2
NOX
POA
111,709
86,314
77,657
¥30%
368,498
293,114
264,708
¥28%
57,754
23,972
50,057
¥13%
EC
14,745
10,789
18,054
22%
Fine soil
PMC
25,294
48,288
50,352
99%
NH3
158,099
240,570
381,306
141%
42,203
42,457
49,131
16%
VOC
1,889,682
894,010
1,272,342
¥33%
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 19, page 48.
VOC emissions decreased by
approximately 33 percent from 2002 to
2011. However, changes to WRAP
modeling techniques over time
improved the accuracy of biogenic
emissions, which makes this direct
comparison of VOC emissions across
years uncertain. These changes included
different meteorological models,
variability of land cover, and improved
emissions factors based on better
sources of data.30 Table 7 summarizes
VOC emissions by source.
TABLE 7—VOC EMISSIONS BY SOURCE (TONS/YEAR)
2002
2008
2011
Point .............................................................................................................................................
Anthropogenic Fire ......................................................................................................................
Natural Fire ..................................................................................................................................
Biogenic .......................................................................................................................................
Area .............................................................................................................................................
WRAP Area O&G ........................................................................................................................
On-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Off-Road Mobile ...........................................................................................................................
Fugitive/Road Dust ......................................................................................................................
WB Dust .......................................................................................................................................
5,464
855
36,377
1,576,698
102,918
46
110,424
56,901
0.00
0.00
3,490
5,781
1,330
686,255
100,256
12
54,589
42,297
0.00
0.00
3,414
10,053
222,314
880,219
67,622
65
49,387
39,268
0.00
0.00
Total ......................................................................................................................................
1,889,682
894,010
1,272,342
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, page 50.
As shown in Table 6, total emissions
of SO2 and NOX decreased consistently
from 2002 to 2011. The approximately
30 percent reduction in SO2 from 2002
to 2011 was mainly attributed to
controls on point source facilities. The
approximately 29 percent reduction in
NOX was mainly attributed to point
sources and on-road mobile sources.
Reported total PM emissions
(categorized as PMC, fine soil, EC, and
POA) increased consistently from 2002
to 2011. The total increase from 2002 to
2011 was approximately 92 percent. The
largest contributor to this increase was
PMC, which was primarily made up of
windblown dust and fugitive/road dust.
Not only did the amount of reported
PMC increase at each inventory year,
but the percentage of PMC within the
total particulate matter emissions also
increased over time. Some of this
change may be due to improvements in
WRAP methodologies for estimating
PMC emissions. As we noted in our
supplemental Phase 2 proposal on the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP, emissions
inventories for particulate matter may
be uncertain, largely because emissions
of fugitive/road dust and windblown
dust are difficult to calculate
accurately.31 Therefore, for purposes of
Regional Haze, we generally consider
IMPROVE monitoring data for these
pollutants to be more informative than
emissions inventories. As described
below, the overall monitoring data for
all Class I areas in Arizona have shown
improvements in visibility for the 20
percent most and least impaired days
between the baseline (2000–2004) and
current (2009–2013) visibility periods.
However, as shown in Table 8, speciesspecific monitoring data show that
visibility impairment from coarse mass
and fine soil increased in some Class I
areas and decreased in other areas
between the baseline and progress
28 71 FR 28270 (May 16, 2006) and 72 FR 25973
(May 8, 2007).
29 CAMD provides emissions and other data for
certain large stationary sources through the Air
Markets Program Data tool available at https://
ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
30 WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress
Report Support Document. Table 3.2–1. https://
www.wrapair2.org/documents/
SECTIONS%201.0%20-%203.0/WRAP_RHRPR_
Sec_1-3_Background_Info.pdf.
31 78 FR 29292, 29297 (May 20, 2013).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
11462
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
periods. Therefore, while the
monitoring data generally show
progress, as we noted in the
supplemental Phase 2 proposal on the
Arizona Regional Haze SIP, it will be
necessary to more closely examine the
potential visibility impacts of fugitive
and road dust on Arizona’s Class I areas
in the second and future planning
periods.32
TABLE 8—VISIBILITY IMPAIRMENT FROM FINE SOIL AND PMC ON 20 PERCENT WORST DAYS (Mm¥1)
Fine soil
IMPROVE
monitor
Class I area
BALD1 ..........
CHIR1 ...........
Mount Baldy Wilderness ........................................................
Chiricahua National Monument, Chiricahua Wilderness &
Galiuro Wilderness.
Grand Canyon National Park .................................................
Mazatzal Wilderness & Pine Mountain Wilderness ...............
Petrified Forest National Park ................................................
Saguaro National Monument—East Unit ...............................
Saguaro National Monument—West Unit ..............................
Sierra Ancha Wilderness .......................................................
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness ..............................................
GRCA2 .........
IKBA1 ............
PEFO1 ..........
SAGU1 ..........
SAWE1 .........
SIAN1 ...........
SYCA2 ..........
Baseline
2000–2004
PMC
Current
2009–2013
Baseline
2000–2004
Difference a
Current
2009–2013
Difference
1.1
2.7
1.3
1.9
0.2
¥0.8
2.8
8.6
3.5
7.4
0.7
¥1.2
1.3
2.6
2.0
3.4
5.8
2.2
6.8
1.2
2.3
2.1
2.5
3.6
1.8
5.6
¥0.1
¥0.3
0.1
¥0.9
¥2.2
¥0.4
¥1.2
3.5
6.2
7.3
7.1
12.8
5.9
9.4
3.2
6.2
6.4
8.0
11.2
4.4
9.8
¥0.3
0.0
¥0.9
0.9
¥1.6
¥1.5
0.4
a Calculated as the difference between the baseline period (2000–04) and current conditions (2009–13). A negative difference indicates a reduction in haze, i.e., improved visibility.
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, pages 26–44.
Under the Arizona Regional Haze SIP
and FIP, stationary sources were
required to reduce SO2, NOX, and PM10.
Arizona’s Progress Report included
annual emissions data from 2002–2013
for BART sources that are EGUs, BART
sources that are not EGUs, and nonBART sources that were subject to
reasonable progress controls for
visibility-impairing emissions. Although
there was variation in emissions during
the years between 2002 and 2013, the
emissions for all sources in 2013 were
lower than emissions in 2002. For BART
EGU sources, ADEQ noted that although
emissions had decreased from 2002–
2013, heat input had increased,
indicating that the emissions reductions
were the result of pollution controls, not
reduced operations. ADEQ also noted
that for all these facilities, further
reductions were expected to occur by
2018, either due to BART controls or to
reasonable progress controls.33 Table 9
summarizes stationary source
emissions.
TABLE 9—STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS (TONS/YEAR)
BART sources—EGUs
BART sources—non-EGUs
Non-BART, non-EGU
Year
2002
2013
SO2
NOX
PM10
SO2
NOX
PM10
SO2
NOX
PM10
46,798
11,025
32,714
25,337
a 1,215
26,330
23,364
3,080
1,826
996
607
292
10
8,895
2,649
1,600
301
1,322
a PM
10 data were not available for Sundt (Irvington) Generating Station.
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Tables 13–15.
Arizona’s Progress Report also
described PM2.5 emissions that were
averted from 2009–2014 through its
Enhanced Smoke Management Program.
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
ADEQ’s Progress Report provided
visibility data for each of the State’s
Class I areas during the baseline period
(2000–2004), the current period for the
progress report (2009–2013), and for the
rolling 5-year periods between the
baseline and current periods. The
Report compared those data with the
2018 RPGs for each area. The Report
also compared the visibility progress to
the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP) 34
for the worst days. However, the RHR
does not require a progress report to
compare current or projected visibility
conditions to the URP.35 Consequently,
the RPGs are the relevant comparison
points for evaluating whether the
progress report meets the RHR
requirements for reporting visibility
progress during this first planning
period. These RPGs are listed in Table
10 along with the baseline and current
(as of the submission of the Progress
Report) visibility conditions.
TABLE 10—ARIZONA CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20 PERCENT MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS a
Best days
(deciviews)
Improve monitor
Baseline
2000–2004
BALD1 ...........................
CHIR1 ............................
GRCA2 ..........................
Mount Baldy Wilderness .......................................
Chiricahua National Monument, Chiricahua Wilderness & Galiuro Wilderness.
Grand Canyon National Park ................................
32 Id.
at 29298.
section III.A above for a summary of these
controls and the associated compliance dates.
33 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Worst days
(deciviews)
Class I area
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
2018 RPG
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Baseline
2000–2004
2018 RPG
Current
2009–2013
3.0
4.9
2.8
4.8
2.7
4.1
b 11.8
13.4
11.4
13.2
10.5
12.1
2.2
2.0
1.8
11.7
11.0
10.9
34 The URP is a straight line from the baseline
visibility condition (5-year annual average from
2000–2004) to the estimated natural background
condition in 2064, as measured on the 20 percent
PO 00000
Current
2009–2013
Sfmt 4702
best and worst days. The URP values for 2018 are
the number of deciviews where the lines drawn to
2064 for best and worst days intersect 2018.
35 79 FR 52419, 52426 (September 3, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
11463
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 10—ARIZONA CLASS I AREA VISIBILITY CONDITIONS ON THE 20 PERCENT MOST AND LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS a—
Continued
Best days
(deciviews)
Improve monitor
Class I area
Baseline
2000–2004
IKBA1 ............................
PEFO1 ...........................
SAGU1 ..........................
SAWE1 ..........................
SIAN1 ............................
SYCA2 ...........................
TONT1 ...........................
Worst days
(deciviews)
Mazatzal Wilderness & Pine Mountain Wilderness.
Petrified Forest National Park ...............................
Saguaro National Monument—East Unit ..............
Saguaro National Monument—West Unit .............
Sierra Ancha Wilderness ......................................
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness .............................
Superstition Wilderness ........................................
2018 RPG
Current
2009–2013
Baseline
2000–2004
2018 RPG
Current
2009–2013
5.4
5.1
4.4
13.3
12.6
12.0
5.0
6.9
8.6
6.2
5.6
6.5
4.6
6.9
8.2
5.78
5.39
6.09
4.1
6.1
7.5
4.9
5.1
5.2
13.2
14.8
16.2
13.7
15.3
14.2
12.6
14.7
15.9
13.05
14.92
13.72
11.9
12.6
14.2
12.2
14.6
12.7
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 17.
a Due to rounding, some values in this table differ slightly from those in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP.
b The baseline worst days value for BALD1 was incorrectly listed as 11.95 deciviews in Tables 9 and 10 in the EPA’s Phase 3 FIP final rule. 79 FR 52469–52470
(September 3, 2014). The correct value of 11.85 deciviews is found in Arizona’s 2011 Submittal, Table 6.3.
Based on the information in Chapter
4 of the Progress Report, Arizona
demonstrated that all Class I areas
experienced improvements in visibility
(i.e., reductions in deciviews) for the 20percent most and least impaired days
between the baseline (2000–2004) and
current (2009–2013) visibility periods,
as summarized in Table 10 above and
shown in Table 17 of the Progress
Report. The same table also shows that
the five-year average worst days and
best days during the current (2009–
2013) period were below (i.e., better
than) the 2018 RPGs. Thus, all of the
State’s Class I areas are on track to meet
or surpass their 2018 RPGs. As part of
a comprehensive SIP revision due by
July 31, 2021, the State will be required
to adopt 2028 RPGs, which will reflect
new control measures adopted to meet
the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule and other CAA requirements.36
In addition, the Progress Report
explains that the significant reductions
in NOX and SO2 emissions discussed in
the previous section have also mitigated
Arizona’s contribution to visibility
impairment in Class I areas in nearby
states.37
The Progress Report also contains a
review of Arizona’s visibility
monitoring strategy. In the Progress
Report, ADEQ notes that the Grand
Canyon—Indian Garden IMPROVE
monitoring station shut down in 2013.
The Report states that Arizona uses the
GRCA2 monitoring station for Grand
Canyon National Park, so the closure of
the Indian Gardens monitor will not
affect the reliability of the IMPROVE
network in Arizona.
D. Determination of Adequacy
Within the Progress Report, the State
of Arizona provided a negative
36 40
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress
Report, Table 17.
declaration stating that further revision
of the existing implementation plan is
not needed in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1). The basis for the State’s
negative declaration is the information
in the Progress Report and the
determination that Arizona is currently
on track to achieve all 2018 RPGs for the
State’s Class I areas. Given the large
reductions in SO2 and NOX emissions
and the significant improvements in
visibility at the State’s Class I areas
achieved during the planning period,
the EPA proposes to approve Arizona’s
determination that the existing Arizona
SIP requires no substantive revisions at
this time to achieve the established 2018
RPGs for Class I areas. As mentioned
above, the State is required to submit a
comprehensive SIP revision for the next
planning period, including RPGs for
2028, by July 31, 2021.38
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
The State of Arizona invited the FLMs
to comment on its draft progress report
on August 24, 2015. Arizona received
comments from one FLM, the National
Park Service, which indicated that the
Progress Report met the applicable
requirements and requested additional
information and other minor changes.
ADEQ responded to the FLM comments
and revised the Progress Report
accordingly, as documented in
Appendix A of the Progress Report. The
EPA proposes to find that Arizona has
addressed the requirements for FLM
consultation in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
IV. The EPA’s Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the
Arizona Regional Haze Progress Report
submitted to the EPA on November 12,
2015, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the CAA and RHR, as
set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g). The EPA
proposes to approve Arizona’s
determination that the existing regional
haze implementation plan is adequate to
meet the State’s 2018 visibility goals
and requires no substantive revision at
this time. We also propose to find that
Arizona fulfilled the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(i) regarding state
coordination with FLMs.
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable federal
regulations.39 Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this proposed action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because actions such as SIP
approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
37 2015
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
38 40
PO 00000
CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
39 42
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
27MRP1
11464
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 59 / Wednesday, March 27, 2019 / Proposed Rules
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this rulemaking does not involve
technical standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does
not apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where the EPA
or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that
a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).
certain changes to the Michigan State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This action
relates to changes to the Permit to Install
requirements for public participation of
permitting actions. Additionally, the
action contains changes to the rule
which address permit emission limits
that are enforceable as a practical
matter.
Comments must be received on
or before April 26, 2019.
DATES:
Dated: March 14, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2007–1092 at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
damico.genevieve@epa.gov. For
comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for
submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed
from Regulations.gov. For either manner
of submission, EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
[FR Doc. 2019–05769 Filed 3–26–19; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Constantine Blathras, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0671,
blathras.constantine@epa.gov.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2007–1092; FRL–9991–39–
Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Permit To
Install Public Hearing Provisions
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:45 Mar 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
ADDRESSES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. Review of State Submittal
III. What Action is EPA Taking?
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
I. Background
Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Clean Air
Act requires that the SIP include a
program to provide for the ‘‘regulation
of the modification and construction of
any stationary source within the areas
covered by the plan as necessary to
assure that national ambient air quality
standards are achieved.’’ This includes
a program for permitting construction
and modification of both major and
minor sources that the state deems
necessary to protect air quality. The
State of Michigan’s minor source permit
to install rules are contained in Part 2
(Air Use Approval) of the Michigan
Administrative Code. Changes to the
Part 2 rules were submitted on
November 12, 1993; May 16, 1996; April
3, 1998; September 2, 2003; March 24,
2009; and February 28, 2017.
Michigan originally submitted its
Michigan R 336.1205 (rule 205) as a
revision to its Part 2 SIP on May 16,
1996. The most recent version of rule
205 was submitted to EPA on March 24,
2009 and has a state effective date of
June 20, 2008. EPA published a
proposed approval of all Part 2 changes,
except rule 205, on August 15, 2017 (82
FR 38651). EPA took no action to
approve rule 205 at that time. Most
recently, EPA approved changes to the
Part 2 rules (except rule 205) in a final
approval dated August 31, 2018 (83 FR
44485). In this action, EPA is proposing
approval to revisions to the SIP for
Michigan rule 205 and 324.5511(3) of
the Michigan Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act. Rule 205
is titled ‘‘Permit to install; approval.’’
and is a section of the Part 2 air use
approval rules of the Michigan
Administrative Code that specifies the
requirements for issuance of air
pollutant construction permits.
Michigan Act 451, Part 55, section
324.5511(3) defines the permitting
actions requiring public comment and
public hearing opportunities.
II. Review of State Submittal
(1) R 336.1205 (Rule 205) of
Michigan’s Part 2 Air Permit Rules
The provisions of rule 205 require a
permit to install that includes
limitations which restrict the potential
to emit from a stationary source,
process, or process equipment to a
quantity below that which would
otherwise constitute a major source or
major modification under any part of
the Part 2 air permit rules. The permit
to install must contain adequate
emission limits that are enforceable as a
practical matter; with a consideration to
the time-period, production, emission,
usage and/or operational limits that
E:\FR\FM\27MRP1.SGM
27MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11455-11464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-05769]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0761; FRL-9991-30-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; Arizona; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Arizona's Regional Haze Progress Report (``Progress Report'' or
``Report''), submitted by the State of Arizona on November 12, 2015, as
a revision to its state implementation plan (SIP). Arizona submitted
its Progress Report and a negative declaration stating that further
revision of the existing regional haze implementation plan is not
needed at this time. The Progress Report addresses the federal Regional
Haze Rule requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to submit a report
describing progress in achieving reasonable progress goals (RPGs)
established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of
the state's existing implementation plan addressing regional haze.
Arizona's Progress Report notes that Arizona has implemented the
measures in the regional haze implementation plan due to be in place by
the date of the Progress Report and that visibility in Class I areas
affected by emissions from Arizona is improving. The EPA is proposing
approval of Arizona's determination that the State's regional haze
implementation plan is adequate to meet RPGs in Class I areas affected
by emissions from Arizona for the first implementation period, which
extended through 2018, and requires no substantive revision at this
time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2018-0761 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from 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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
[[Page 11456]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Panah Stauffer, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3247, stauffer.panah@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
C. Arizona's Regional Haze Plan
II. Context for Understanding Arizona's Progress Report
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
B. Data Sources for Arizona's Progress Report
III. The EPA's Review of Arizona's Progress Report
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the
Regional Haze Implementation Plan
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
D. Determination of Adequacy
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Description of Regional Haze
Fine particles impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light,
thereby reducing the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can
see. Regional haze is visibility impairment produced by emissions of
fine particles by numerous sources and activities located across a
broad geographic area. These fine particles can also cause serious
health effects and mortality in humans and contribute to environmental
impacts, such as acid deposition and eutrophication of water bodies.
B. History of Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A(a)(1) of the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress
created a program to protect visibility in designated national parks
and wilderness areas, establishing 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.'' In accordance with section 169A of the
CAA and after consulting with the Department of the Interior, the EPA
promulgated a list of 156 mandatory Class I federal areas where
visibility is identified as an important value.\1\ In this notice, we
refer to mandatory Class I federal areas on this list as ``Class I
areas.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Class I areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
Areas designated as Class I areas consist of national parks
exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks that were in
existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the CAA Amendments of 1990, Congress added section 169B to
address regional haze issues. The EPA promulgated the Regional Haze
Rule (RHR) on July 1, 1999.\2\ In the RHR, the EPA revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate provisions addressing regional haze
impairment and to establish a comprehensive visibility protection
program for Class I areas. As defined in the RHR, the RPGs must provide
for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days (``worst
days'') over the period of the implementation plan and ensure no
degradation in visibility for the least impaired days (``best days'')
over the same period.\3\ The first regional haze implementation plan
generally covers the period from 2000-2018 (also known as the first
planning period).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999). The rule was subsequently
revised on July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39103), October 13, 2006 (71 FR
60611), and January 10, 2017 (82 FR 3078).
\3\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan,
states were required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress
towards the RPGs for each Class I area within the state and in each
Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from
within the state.\4\ States were also required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the
state's existing regional haze plan.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(g).
\5\ 40 CFR 51.308(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Arizona's Regional Haze Plan
Arizona submitted its initial regional haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.308
to the EPA on February 28, 2011 (hereinafter ``2011 Submittal'').\6\
The EPA actions in Table 1 followed the 2011 Submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ On December 23, 2003, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a Regional Haze plan under 40
CFR 51.309 (``309 Plan''). Letter dated December 23, 2003, from
Stephen A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional
Administrator, EPA, Region IX. On December 30, 2004, ADEQ submitted
a revision to its 309 Plan, consisting of rules on emissions trading
and smoke management, and a correction to the State's regional haze
statutes. Letter dated December 30, 2004, from Stephen A. Owens,
Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, EPA. On
December 24, 2008, ADEQ sent a letter resubmitting the 309 Plan
revisions to the EPA. Letter dated December 24, 2008, from Stephen
A. Owens, Director, ADEQ, to Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator,
EPA. On May 16, 2006 (71 FR 28270) and May 8, 2007 (72 FR 25973),
the EPA approved the smoke management rules that were part of these
submittals. On August 8, 2013 (78 FR 48326), the EPA disapproved the
remainder of the State's submittals under 40 CFR 309. Therefore,
these prior submittals are not relevant for purposes of the Progress
Report, unless otherwise noted.
Table 1--Arizona Regional Haze--Summary of EPA Actions Under CAA Section
308
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date EPA action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 5, 2012..................... ``Phase 1'' partial approval and
partial disapproval of certain
provisions of the 2011 Submittal
and promulgation of partial
federal implementation plan
(FIP).\a\
July 30, 2013........................ ``Phase 2'' partial approval and
partial disapproval of remaining
portions of Arizona Regional
Haze 2011 Submittal.\b\
September 3, 2014.................... ``Phase 3'' promulgation of FIP
for remaining portions of
Arizona Regional Haze
program.\c\
April 10, 2015....................... Approval of SIP revision for the
Arizona Electric Power
Cooperative (AEPCO) Apache
Generating Station.\d\
April 17, 2015....................... FIP revision replacing the
control technology demonstration
requirements for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) at Lhoist North America of
Arizona, Inc. Nelson Lime Plant
with revised recordkeeping and
reporting requirements.\e\
April 13, 2016....................... FIP revision revising NOX
requirements for the Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement
and Power District (SRP)
Coronado Generating Station.\f\
November 21, 2016.................... FIP revision replacing the
control technology demonstration
requirements for NOX at
CalPortland Cement (CPC) Rillito
Plant Kiln 4 and Phoenix Cement
Company (PCC) Clarkdale Plant
Kiln 4 with revised
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.\g\
March 27, 2017....................... Approval of SIP revision to
replace FIP for Arizona Public
Service (APS) Cholla Generating
Station.\h\
October 10, 2017..................... Approval of SIP revision to
replace FIP for the SRP Coronado
Generating Station.\i\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ 77 FR 72511 (December 5, 2012).
\b\ 78 FR 461421 (July 30, 2013).
\c\ 79 FR 52419 (September 3, 2014).
\d\ 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
\e\ 80 FR 21176 (April 17, 2015).
\f\ 81 FR 21735 (April 13, 2016).
\g\ 81 FR 83144 (November 21, 2016).
\h\ 82 FR 15139 (March 27, 2017).
\i\ 82 FR 46903 (October 10, 2017).
[[Page 11457]]
On November 12, 2015, the State of Arizona submitted its Progress
Report to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).\7\ In
accordance with these requirements, the Progress Report describes the
status of implementation of measures included in the regional haze
implementation plan, emissions reductions from these measures, and
improvements in visibility conditions at the State's Class I areas. The
Progress Report also includes a negative declaration stating that
further revision of the existing implementation plan is not needed in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Letter dated November 12, 2015, from Eric C. Massey,
Director, Air Quality Division, ADEQ, to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Context for Understanding Arizona's Progress Report
To facilitate a better understanding of Arizona's Progress Report
as well as the EPA's evaluation of it, this section provides background
on the regional haze program in Arizona.
A. Framework for Measuring Progress
The EPA has established a metric for determining visibility
conditions at Class I areas referred to as the ``deciview index,''
which is measured in deciviews, as defined in 40 CFR 51.301. A deciview
expresses uniform changes in haziness in terms of common increments
across the entire range of visibility conditions (i.e., pristine (low
deciview) to extremely hazy (high deciview)). Deciviews are determined
by using air quality data collected from the Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network monitors to estimate
light extinction, and then transforming the value of light extinction
using a logarithmic function. Arizona has 12 Class I areas within its
borders: The Chiricahua National Monument, Chiricahua Wilderness Area,
Galiuro Wilderness Area, Grand Canyon National Park, Mazatzal
Wilderness Area, Mount Baldy Wilderness Area, Petrified Forest National
Park, Pine Mountain Wilderness, Saguaro National Park, Sierra Ancha
Wilderness Area, Superstition Wilderness Area, and Sycamore Canyon
Wilderness Area. For this Progress Report, monitoring data representing
visibility conditions in Arizona's 12 Class I areas were based on the
ten IMPROVE monitors identified in Table 2.
Table 2--Arizona IMPROVE Monitoring Sites and Represented Class I Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site code Class I area
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALD1............................. Mount Baldy Wilderness.
CHIR1............................. Chiricahua National Monument,
Chiricahua Wilderness & Galiuro
Wilderness.
GRCA2............................. Grand Canyon National Park.
IKBA1............................. Mazatzal Wilderness & Pine Mountain
Wilderness.
PEFO1............................. Petrified Forest National Park.
SAGU1............................. Saguaro National Monument--East
Unit.
SAWE1............................. Saguaro National Monument--West
Unit.
SIAN1............................. Sierra Ancha Wilderness.
SYCA2............................. Sycamore Canyon Wilderness.
TONT1............................. Superstition Wilderness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 17, 25.
Under the RHR, a state's initial regional haze plan must establish
two RPGs for each of its Class I areas: One for the 20 percent least
impaired days and one for the 20 percent most impaired days. The RPGs
must provide for an improvement in visibility on the 20 percent most
impaired days and ensure no degradation in visibility on the 20 percent
least impaired days, as compared to visibility conditions during the
baseline period. In establishing the RPGs, a state must consider the
uniform rate of visibility improvement from the baseline to natural
conditions in 2064 and the emission reduction measures needed to
achieve that uniform rate. The EPA's 2014 FIP set the RPGs for
Arizona's 12 Class I areas based on modeling performed by the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), scaled according to projected emission
reductions from the FIP's controls for best available retrofit
technology (BART) and reasonable progress. Arizona used these RPGs in
its Progress Report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The RPGs are shown in Table 10 of today's action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Progress Report addresses Arizona's potential
contribution to visibility impairment at twelve Class 1 areas located
in three other states: Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico.
B. Data Sources for Arizona's Progress Report
To demonstrate visibility progress, the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) used recent visibility information
available from the WRAP Technical Support System (TSS). It also used
the technical data and analyses in the ``Western Regional Air
Partnership Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Summary Report''
(``WRAP Report''), dated June 28, 2013.\9\ The WRAP Report was prepared
for WRAP ``on behalf of the 15 western state members in the WRAP
region, to provide the technical basis for the first of RHR individual
progress reports.'' \10\ ADEQ's Progress Report presented data for each
of its Class I areas comparing visibility conditions for the 20 percent
most impaired and 20 percent least impaired days during the baseline
period (2000-2004), the current period for the Progress Report (2009-
2013), and years between those periods. ADEQ also relied on WRAP TSS
data for its emissions inventory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, 2.
\10\ The WRAP Report is available at https://www.wrapair2.org/documents/Full%20Report/WRAP_RHRPR_Full_Report_without_Appendices.PDF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The emissions data for BART sources and non-BART electrical
generating units (EGUs) came from information the facilities report to
the EPA's Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database. Emissions data
for non-electric generating unit (non-EGU) sources came from the 2008
and 2011 National Emissions Inventory as well as ADEQ's internal point
source emission database. ADEQ also calculated emissions averted from
prescribed burning of nonagricultural fuels using WRAP-recommended
emission reduction techniques.
III. The EPA's Review of Arizona's Progress Report
This section describes the contents of Arizona's Progress Report,
the EPA's review of the report, the determination of adequacy required
by 40 CFR 51.308(h), and the requirement for state and federal land
manager coordination in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
A. Status of Implementation of All Measures Included in the Regional
Haze Implementation Plan
In its Progress Report, Arizona provided descriptions and
compliance dates for emissions limits on the seven BART sources
established through the Arizona Regional Haze SIP \11\ and the Arizona
Regional Haze FIP.\12\ The Progress Report also described controls and
compliance dates for two reasonable progress sources that the EPA
established in the Arizona Regional
[[Page 11458]]
Haze FIP.\13\ The Progress Report addressed the status of these sources
at the time of the Report's submittal in 2015. However, most of the
compliance dates for these sources had not yet passed at the time of
the Report's submittal, so information regarding compliance was not
available. Following submittal of the Progress Report, the EPA has
taken several actions to approve revisions to the Arizona Regional Haze
SIP and to revise the Arizona Regional Haze FIP, as shown in Table 1
above. These revisions superseded some of the SIP requirements
discussed in the Progress Report. The RHR requires a progress report to
address the ``implementation plan,'' defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as any
SIP, FIP, or tribal implementation plan.\14\ Accordingly, in the
following sections, we summarize the currently applicable requirements
of the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP, as
described in the Progress Report and revised by subsequent SIP and FIP
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ We refer to the approved provisions of the Arizona Regional
Haze Plan (including approved revisions) collectively as the
``Arizona Regional Haze SIP.''
\12\ We refer to the various FIP requirements promulgated by the
EPA collectively as the ``Arizona Regional Haze FIP.''
\13\ These sources were not subject to BART, but the EPA
determined that they were required to implement controls under the
reasonable progress requirements of the RHR.
\14\ No tribe in Arizona has a tribal implementation plan for
regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As described further below, beyond stationary source controls
required in the SIP and FIP, ADEQ also included visibility progress
made from the closure of certain stationary sources, existing federal
and state regulations, and the State's Enhanced Smoke Management
Program.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, 13-18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Subject-to-BART Sources
Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations
for BART-eligible \16\ sources that may be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area (known as
``subject-to-BART'' sources).\17\ States also have the flexibility to
adopt alternatives that provide greater reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions than BART for one or more subject-to-BART
sources (commonly known as ``better-than-BART'' alternatives).\18\ The
Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP identified
seven subject-to-BART facilities (i.e., facilities that include one or
more BART-eligible units and were determined to be subject to BART):
AEPCO Apache Generating Station; APS Cholla Generating Station; SRP
Coronado Generating Station; Freeport-McMoRan Miami, Inc. Miami
Smelter; ASARCO, Inc., (``Asarco'') Hayden Smelter; Tucson Electric
Power (TEP) Sundt Generating Station; and the Nelson Lime Plant. The
Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP establish BART
or better-than-BART alternative controls for NOX,
particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for each
of these sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ A BART-eligible source is an existing stationary source in
any of 26 listed categories built between 1962 and 1977 with
potential emissions of at least 250 tons per year. 40 CFR 51.301 and
40 CFR part 51 appendix Y, section II.
\17\ 40 CFR 51.308(e).
\18\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Apache Generating Station
The Apache Generating Station (``Apache'') has three BART-eligible
units: ST1, ST2, and ST3. Unit ST1 is a wall-fired boiler with a net
unit output of 85 megawatts (MW) that burns pipeline-quality natural
gas as its primary fuel and can operate alone or in combined-cycle mode
with an adjacent Gas Turbine (GT1). Units ST2 and ST3 are both dry-
bottom, Riley Stoker turbo-fired boilers, operating on sub-bituminous
coal, each with a gross unit output of 204 MW.
On December 5, 2012, the EPA approved the State's SO2
and PM BART limits for Apache and established FIP NOX
emission limits for units ST2 and ST3 based on installation and
operation of selective catalytic reduction (SCR). On April 10, 2015,
the EPA approved a SIP revision for Apache (``Apache SIP Revision'')
that included a better-than-BART alternative for Apache units ST2 and
ST3 (``Apache BART Alternative'') and a revised NOX emission
limit for ST1 that applies when it operates in combined-cycle mode with
the adjacent GT1.\19\ Under the Apache BART Alternative, ST2 was
converted from a primarily coal-fired unit to a unit that combusts
pipeline-quality natural gas, while ST3 remains as a coal-fired unit
and has been retrofitted with selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR).
The emission limits associated with the Apache BART Alternative are
summarized in Table 3. The compliance date for all limits was December
5, 2017, except that a more stringent limit for PM10 of
0.008 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) at ST2 that
became effective on December 5, 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 80 FR 19220 (April 10, 2015).
Table 3--Emission Limits for Apache BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission Limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30 boiler operating days)
Unit --------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ST2........................................ 0.085 0.01, then 0.008 (effective 0.00064
December 5, 2018).
ST3........................................ 0.23 0.03............................... 0.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Apache SIP Revision also included a revised NOX
emission limit for the combined-cycle operation of ST1 with GT1 from
0.056 lb/MMBtu to 0.10 lb/MMBtu and set a 1,205 lb/day NOX
limit, based on a 30-calendar-day average, for ST1 operating in stand-
alone mode or in combined-cycle mode with GT1. Finally, the Apache SIP
Revision incorporated monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements for the existing ST1 BART SIP limits of 0.00064 lb
SO2/MMBtu and 0.0075 lb PM10/MMBtu into the SIP.
Upon approval of the Apache SIP Revision, the EPA withdrew all Regional
Haze FIP requirements that addressed BART for Apache.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Cholla Generating Station
Cholla Generating Station (``Cholla'') consists of four coal-fired
electric generating units with a total plant-wide generating capacity
of 1150 MW. Unit 1 is a 126 MW boiler that is not BART-eligible. Unit 2
(272 MW), Unit 3 (272 MW), and Unit 4 (410 MW) are tangentially-fired
dry bottom boilers that are BART-eligible. On December 5, 2012, the EPA
approved the State's SO2 and PM BART limits for Cholla and
established FIP NOX emission limits for all three units
based on installation and operation of SCR.
On March 27, 2017, the EPA approved a SIP revision for Cholla
(``Cholla SIP
[[Page 11459]]
Revision'') that included a revised BART analysis and determination for
NOX and a revision to Cholla's operating permit to implement
both the revised BART determination for NOX and ADEQ's prior
BART determinations for SO2 and PM10 at
Cholla.\21\ Under the revised NOX BART determination:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 82 FR 15139 (March 27, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2 was permanently shut down by April 1, 2016.
Unit 3 and Unit 4 continue to operate with currently
installed low-NOX burners and separated over fire air. By
April 30, 2025, the owners will permanently cease burning coal at both
units with the option to convert to pipeline-quality natural gas by
July 31, 2025, with an annual average capacity factor of 20 percent or
less.
Upon approval of the Cholla SIP Revision, the EPA withdrew all
Regional Haze FIP requirements applicable to Cholla.\22\ The current
SIP-approved BART limits for Cholla are shown in Table 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Id.
Table 4--Cholla BART Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission limit (lb/MMbtu, averaged over 30
boiler operating days)
Unit Dates -----------------------------------------------
NOX PM10 SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2........................ Unit shut down on April 1, 2016.
Unit 3........................ until April 30, 2025............ 0.22 0.015 0.15
after April 30, 2025............ 0.08 0.01 0.0006
Unit 4........................ until April 30, 2025............ 0.22 0.015 0.15
after April 30, 2025............ 0.08 0.01 0.0006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Coronado Generating Station
Coronado Generating Station (``Coronado'') consists of two BART-
eligible 456 MW coal-fired steam boilers, known as Units 1 and 2. On
December 5, 2012, the EPA approved the State's SO2 and PM
BART limits for Coronado and established FIP NOX emission
limits for both units based on installation and operation of SCR.
On October 10, 2017, the EPA approved a SIP revision that included
a better-than-BART alternative for Coronado (``Coronado SIP
Revision''), consisting of an interim operating strategy (``Interim
Strategy''), which is in effect from December 5, 2017, to December 31,
2025, and a final operating strategy (``Final Strategy''), which will
take effect on January 1, 2026.\23\ The requirements associated with
the Interim and Final Strategies are shown in Table 5 and summarized
briefly below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 82 FR 46903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Interim Strategy includes three different operating options
(designated IS2, IS3, and IS4), each of which requires a period of
seasonal curtailment (i.e., temporary closure) for Unit 1. Each year,
SRP must select and implement one of the three options, based on the
NOX emissions performance of Unit 1 and the SO2
emissions performance of Units 1 and 2 in that year. In particular, by
October 21 of each year, SRP must notify ADEQ and the EPA of its chosen
option for that calendar year (and for January of the following year)
and demonstrate that its NOX and SO2 emissions
for that year (up to the date of the notification) have not already
exceeded the limits associated with that option. SRP then must comply
with those limits for the remainder of the year (and for January of the
following year) and curtail operation of Unit 1 for the time period
required under that option. In addition, under each option, the
facility must comply with an annual plant-wide SO2 emissions
cap of 1,970 tons per year (tpy) effective in each year, beginning in
2018.
The Final Strategy in the Coronado SIP Revision requires
installation of SCR on Unit 1 or the permanent cessation of operation
of Unit 1 no later than December 31, 2025. SRP is required to notify
ADEQ and the EPA of its selection by December 31, 2022. The Final
Strategy includes two additional features: An SO2 emission
limit of 0.060 lb/MMBtu, calculated on a 30-boiler operating day (BOD)
rolling average and applicable to Unit 2 (as well as Unit 1 if it
continues operating), and an annual plant-wide SO2 emissions
cap of either 1,970 tpy if both units continue operating or 1,080 tpy
if Unit 1 shuts down.
Table 5--Summary of Coronado BART Alternative
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1 (lb/MMBtu with 30-BOD Unit 2 (lb/MMBtu with 30-BOD
average) average) Annual plant-
Control strategy ---------------------------------------------------------------- wide SO2 cap Unit 1 curtailment period
NOX SO2 NOX SO2 (tpy)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Strategy:
IS2................................... 0.320 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 October 21-January 31
IS3................................... 0.320 0.050 0.080 0.050 1,970 November 21-January 20
IS4................................... 0.310 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 November 21-January 20
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interim Strategy Timeline............. Notification date: October 21 of each year.
Operates December 5, 2017 to December 31, 2025.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Strategy:
SCR Installation...................... 0.065 0.060 0.080 0.060 1,970 N/A.
Shutdown.............................. N/A N/A 0.080 0.060 1,080 N/A.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11460]]
Final Strategy Timeline................... Notification date: December 31, 2022.
Shutdown or install & operate SCR: December 31, 2025.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Coronado SIP revision also included PM10 limits of
0.030 lb/MMBtu for each unit, as well as compliance deadlines and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for
NOX, PM and SO2. Upon approval of the Coronado
SIP revision, the EPA withdrew all Regional Haze FIP requirements
applicable to Coronado.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. Miami Smelter
The Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP include
BART requirements for Converters 2 through 5 and the electric furnace
at the Miami Smelter. For SO2 from the converters, the BART
emission limit is a control efficiency of 99.7 percent on a 365-day
rolling average. For SO2 from the electric furnace, the BART
emission limit is a work practice standard prohibiting active aeration.
For NOX, a 40 tpy limit applies to the converters and
electric furnace. For PM10, the FIP incorporates by
reference provisions of the national emission standards for hazardous
air pollutants for primary copper smelters. Compliance with the
SO2 emission limit for the converters was required by
January 1, 2018, and compliance with all other provisions was required
by September 2, 2016.
e. Hayden Smelter
The Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP include
BART requirements for converters 1, 3, 4, and 5, and anode furnaces 1
and 2 at the Hayden Smelter. Pursuant to a consent decree with the
United States, Asarco was required to cease operations at the existing
converters by May 1, 2018.\25\ Accordingly, the anode furnaces are the
only subject-to-BART units still in operation at the Hayden copper
smelter. As of September 4, 2017, these units were required to meet an
annual NOX emission limit of 40 tpy and only be charged with
blister copper or higher purity copper in order to limit SO2
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Consent Decree No. CV-15-02206-PHX-DLR (D. Ariz) (entered
December 30, 2015), paragraph 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
f. Sundt Unit 4
The Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes BART emissions limits and
the option of a better-than-BART alternative based on a switch from
coal to natural gas for TEP Sundt Unit 4. On March 14, 2016, TEP
notified the EPA that it had selected the alternative option and would
comply with the associated emission limits by the compliance date of
December 31, 2017.\26\ These limits are 0.25 lb/MMBtu for
NOX, 0.054 lb/MMBtu for SO2, and 0.010 lb/MMBtu
(or an alternative limit determined by testing) for PM10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Letter dated March 14, 2016, from Erik Bakken, TEP, to
Kathleen Johnson, EPA Region IX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
g. Nelson Lime Plant
The Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes BART emissions limits for
Kilns 1 and 2 at the Nelson Lime Plant. The limits for NOX
are 3.80 lb/ton of lime for Kiln 1 and 2.61 lb/ton of lime for Kiln 2
on a 12-month rolling average with a compliance date of September 4,
2017. The limits for SO2 are 9.32 lb/ton of lime for Kiln 1
and 9.73 lb/ton of lime for Nelson Kiln 2 on a 12-month rolling
average, and 10.1 tons/day for both kilns combined with a compliance
date of March 3, 2016.
2. Reasonable Progress Sources
The Arizona Regional Haze FIP includes NOX emission
limits and related requirements for CPC Rillito Kiln 4 and PCC
Clarkdale Kiln 4 under the reasonable progress requirements of the RHR.
Both kilns are subject to 30-day rolling average NOX limits
achievable with installation and operation of SNCR, with a compliance
date of December 31, 2018. The limit for Rillito Kiln 4 is 3.46 lb
NOX/ton of clinker, and the limit for Clarkdale Kiln 4 is
2.12 lb NOX/ton of clinker.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The FIP provided an alternative limit of 810 tons
NOX/year for Clarkdale Kiln 4, but PCC elected to comply
with the lb/ton limit. Letter dated May 25, 2018 from Brett Lindsay,
Environmental and Energy Manager, PCC, to EPA Region IX Enforcement
Division and Air Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Closure of Existing Facilities
In its Progress Report, ADEQ explained that Catalyst Paper, which
was a subject-to-BART source, closed permanently in 2012. The total
emissions from its boiler unit were more than 250 tons per year of
NOX and SO2. ADEQ noted in the Arizona Regional
Haze State Plan that this boiler had a visibility impact of 0.739
deciviews on the Sierra Ancha Wilderness area and 0.523 deciviews on
the Superstition Wilderness area. The closure of this facility
eliminated its emissions and corresponding visibility impacts.
4. Existing Federal and State Regulations
ADEQ's Progress Report identified several federal and State
programs that contributed to emissions reductions in visibility-
impairing pollutants.
The federal programs included in the Progress Report were: The
Heavy-Duty Highway Rule, which reduced pollution from heavy-duty
engines and diesel fuel; the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Vehicle and Gasoline
Sulfur Program, which reduced emissions from passenger and light-duty
vehicles and gasoline; the Non-Road Engine Program, which reduced
emissions from non-road engines; the Mercury and Air Toxics Rule, which
reduced pollution from power plants; and requirements to implement the
national ambient air quality standards.
The state regulations described in the Progress Report were: The
Arizona State Vehicle Emissions Inspection Program, which reduces
emissions from cars; and Arizona's New Source Review Program, which
addresses emissions from stationary sources.
5. Smoke Management
In the Progress Report, ADEQ noted that it implements a certified
Enhanced Smoke Management Program that works toward a reduction in
smoke impacts due to prescribed/controlled burning of nonagricultural
fuels with particular regard to heavy forest fuels. All State lands,
parks, and forests, as well as any federally-managed lands in Arizona,
are under the jurisdiction of ADEQ in matters relating to air pollution
from prescribed burning. The EPA has approved the state and local rules
that comprise the Enhanced Smoke
[[Page 11461]]
Management Program into the Arizona SIP.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 71 FR 28270 (May 16, 2006) and 72 FR 25973 (May 8, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Summary of Emissions Reductions
The Arizona Progress Report also includes a summary of the
emissions reductions achieved throughout the State through
implementation of the control measures relied upon to achieve
reasonable progress. ADEQ examined the emissions of SO2,
NOX, primary organic aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC),
fine soil, fine particulate matter, coarse particulate matter (PMC),
ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
determined its emissions reductions are adequate to achieve Arizona's
RPGs. For the statewide emissions inventory, ADEQ used WRAP TSS data
and other information from WRAP to analyze emissions for 2002 (the
baseline year), 2008, and 2011 (the most current year for which data
were available). ADEQ stated in its Progress Report that these years
were selected because they provided the most comprehensive data. For
BART sources, EGUs, and other facilities that were subject to
reasonable progress controls, ADEQ provided annual emissions data from
2002-2013. The sources of that information were the EPA's CAMD,\29\ the
2008 and 2011 National Emissions Inventories, and ADEQ's point source
emissions database.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ CAMD provides emissions and other data for certain large
stationary sources through the Air Markets Program Data tool
available at https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADEQ provided statewide emissions trends for SO2,
NOX, POA, EC, Fine Soil, PMC, NH3, and VOCs. The
emissions trends are summarized in Table 6.
Table 6--Statewide Emissions Trends of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants (Tons/Year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX POA EC Fine soil PMC NH3 VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002............................................ 111,709 368,498 57,754 14,745 25,294 158,099 42,203 1,889,682
2008............................................ 86,314 293,114 23,972 10,789 48,288 240,570 42,457 894,010
2011............................................ 77,657 264,708 50,057 18,054 50,352 381,306 49,131 1,272,342
Percent (%) Change 2002 to 2011................. -30% -28% -13% 22% 99% 141% 16% -33%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 19, page 48.
VOC emissions decreased by approximately 33 percent from 2002 to
2011. However, changes to WRAP modeling techniques over time improved
the accuracy of biogenic emissions, which makes this direct comparison
of VOC emissions across years uncertain. These changes included
different meteorological models, variability of land cover, and
improved emissions factors based on better sources of data.\30\ Table 7
summarizes VOC emissions by source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ WRAP Regional Haze Rule Reasonable Progress Report Support
Document. Table 3.2-1. https://www.wrapair2.org/documents/SECTIONS%201.0%20-%203.0/WRAP_RHRPR_Sec_1-3_Background_Info.pdf.
Table 7--VOC Emissions by Source (Tons/Year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2008 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point........................................................... 5,464 3,490 3,414
Anthropogenic Fire.............................................. 855 5,781 10,053
Natural Fire.................................................... 36,377 1,330 222,314
Biogenic........................................................ 1,576,698 686,255 880,219
Area............................................................ 102,918 100,256 67,622
WRAP Area O&G................................................... 46 12 65
On-Road Mobile.................................................. 110,424 54,589 49,387
Off-Road Mobile................................................. 56,901 42,297 39,268
Fugitive/Road Dust.............................................. 0.00 0.00 0.00
WB Dust......................................................... 0.00 0.00 0.00
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 1,889,682 894,010 1,272,342
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, page 50.
As shown in Table 6, total emissions of SO2 and
NOX decreased consistently from 2002 to 2011. The
approximately 30 percent reduction in SO2 from 2002 to 2011
was mainly attributed to controls on point source facilities. The
approximately 29 percent reduction in NOX was mainly
attributed to point sources and on-road mobile sources.
Reported total PM emissions (categorized as PMC, fine soil, EC, and
POA) increased consistently from 2002 to 2011. The total increase from
2002 to 2011 was approximately 92 percent. The largest contributor to
this increase was PMC, which was primarily made up of windblown dust
and fugitive/road dust. Not only did the amount of reported PMC
increase at each inventory year, but the percentage of PMC within the
total particulate matter emissions also increased over time. Some of
this change may be due to improvements in WRAP methodologies for
estimating PMC emissions. As we noted in our supplemental Phase 2
proposal on the Arizona Regional Haze SIP, emissions inventories for
particulate matter may be uncertain, largely because emissions of
fugitive/road dust and windblown dust are difficult to calculate
accurately.\31\ Therefore, for purposes of Regional Haze, we generally
consider IMPROVE monitoring data for these pollutants to be more
informative than emissions inventories. As described below, the overall
monitoring data for all Class I areas in Arizona have shown
improvements in visibility for the 20 percent most and least impaired
days between the baseline (2000-2004) and current (2009-2013)
visibility periods. However, as shown in Table 8, species-specific
monitoring data show that visibility impairment from coarse mass and
fine soil increased in some Class I areas and decreased in other areas
between the baseline and progress
[[Page 11462]]
periods. Therefore, while the monitoring data generally show progress,
as we noted in the supplemental Phase 2 proposal on the Arizona
Regional Haze SIP, it will be necessary to more closely examine the
potential visibility impacts of fugitive and road dust on Arizona's
Class I areas in the second and future planning periods.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 78 FR 29292, 29297 (May 20, 2013).
\32\ Id. at 29298.
Table 8--Visibility Impairment From Fine Soil and PMC on 20 Percent Worst Days (Mm-1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fine soil PMC
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE monitor Class I area Baseline Current Difference Baseline Current
2000-2004 2009-2013 a 2000-2004 2009-2013 Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALD1........... Mount Baldy 1.1 1.3 0.2 2.8 3.5 0.7
Wilderness.
CHIR1........... Chiricahua 2.7 1.9 -0.8 8.6 7.4 -1.2
National
Monument,
Chiricahua
Wilderness &
Galiuro
Wilderness.
GRCA2........... Grand Canyon 1.3 1.2 -0.1 3.5 3.2 -0.3
National Park.
IKBA1........... Mazatzal 2.6 2.3 -0.3 6.2 6.2 0.0
Wilderness &
Pine Mountain
Wilderness.
PEFO1........... Petrified Forest 2.0 2.1 0.1 7.3 6.4 -0.9
National Park.
SAGU1........... Saguaro National 3.4 2.5 -0.9 7.1 8.0 0.9
Monument--East
Unit.
SAWE1........... Saguaro National 5.8 3.6 -2.2 12.8 11.2 -1.6
Monument--West
Unit.
SIAN1........... Sierra Ancha 2.2 1.8 -0.4 5.9 4.4 -1.5
Wilderness.
SYCA2........... Sycamore Canyon 6.8 5.6 -1.2 9.4 9.8 0.4
Wilderness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Calculated as the difference between the baseline period (2000-04) and current conditions (2009-13). A
negative difference indicates a reduction in haze, i.e., improved visibility.
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, pages 26-44.
Under the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and FIP, stationary sources
were required to reduce SO2, NOX, and
PM10. Arizona's Progress Report included annual emissions
data from 2002-2013 for BART sources that are EGUs, BART sources that
are not EGUs, and non-BART sources that were subject to reasonable
progress controls for visibility-impairing emissions. Although there
was variation in emissions during the years between 2002 and 2013, the
emissions for all sources in 2013 were lower than emissions in 2002.
For BART EGU sources, ADEQ noted that although emissions had decreased
from 2002-2013, heat input had increased, indicating that the emissions
reductions were the result of pollution controls, not reduced
operations. ADEQ also noted that for all these facilities, further
reductions were expected to occur by 2018, either due to BART controls
or to reasonable progress controls.\33\ Table 9 summarizes stationary
source emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See section III.A above for a summary of these controls and
the associated compliance dates.
Table 9--Stationary Source Emissions (Tons/Year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART sources--EGUs BART sources--non-EGUs Non-BART, non-EGU
Year -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 NOX PM10 SO2 NOX PM10 SO2 NOX PM10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 46,798 32,714 \a\ 1,215 26,330 3,080 996 292 8,895 1,600
2013 11,025 25,337 1,322 23,364 1,826 607 10 2,649 301
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a PM10 data were not available for Sundt (Irvington) Generating Station.
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Tables 13-15.
Arizona's Progress Report also described PM2.5 emissions
that were averted from 2009-2014 through its Enhanced Smoke Management
Program.
C. Summary of Visibility Conditions
ADEQ's Progress Report provided visibility data for each of the
State's Class I areas during the baseline period (2000-2004), the
current period for the progress report (2009-2013), and for the rolling
5-year periods between the baseline and current periods. The Report
compared those data with the 2018 RPGs for each area. The Report also
compared the visibility progress to the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP)
\34\ for the worst days. However, the RHR does not require a progress
report to compare current or projected visibility conditions to the
URP.\35\ Consequently, the RPGs are the relevant comparison points for
evaluating whether the progress report meets the RHR requirements for
reporting visibility progress during this first planning period. These
RPGs are listed in Table 10 along with the baseline and current (as of
the submission of the Progress Report) visibility conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ The URP is a straight line from the baseline visibility
condition (5-year annual average from 2000-2004) to the estimated
natural background condition in 2064, as measured on the 20 percent
best and worst days. The URP values for 2018 are the number of
deciviews where the lines drawn to 2064 for best and worst days
intersect 2018.
\35\ 79 FR 52419, 52426 (September 3, 2014).
Table 10--Arizona Class I Area Visibility Conditions on the 20 Percent Most and Least Impaired Days a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best days (deciviews) Worst days (deciviews)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve monitor Class I area Baseline Current Baseline Current
2000-2004 2018 RPG 2009-2013 2000-2004 2018 RPG 2009-2013
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BALD1...................................... Mount Baldy Wilderness....... 3.0 2.8 2.7 b 11.8 11.4 10.5
CHIR1...................................... Chiricahua National Monument, 4.9 4.8 4.1 13.4 13.2 12.1
Chiricahua Wilderness &
Galiuro Wilderness.
GRCA2...................................... Grand Canyon National Park... 2.2 2.0 1.8 11.7 11.0 10.9
[[Page 11463]]
IKBA1...................................... Mazatzal Wilderness & Pine 5.4 5.1 4.4 13.3 12.6 12.0
Mountain Wilderness.
PEFO1...................................... Petrified Forest National 5.0 4.6 4.1 13.2 12.6 11.9
Park.
SAGU1...................................... Saguaro National Monument-- 6.9 6.9 6.1 14.8 14.7 12.6
East Unit.
SAWE1...................................... Saguaro National Monument-- 8.6 8.2 7.5 16.2 15.9 14.2
West Unit.
SIAN1...................................... Sierra Ancha Wilderness...... 6.2 5.78 4.9 13.7 13.05 12.2
SYCA2...................................... Sycamore Canyon Wilderness... 5.6 5.39 5.1 15.3 14.92 14.6
TONT1...................................... Superstition Wilderness...... 6.5 6.09 5.2 14.2 13.72 12.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table 17.
a Due to rounding, some values in this table differ slightly from those in the Arizona Regional Haze SIP and Arizona Regional Haze FIP.
\b\ The baseline worst days value for BALD1 was incorrectly listed as 11.95 deciviews in Tables 9 and 10 in the EPA's Phase 3 FIP final rule. 79 FR
52469-52470 (September 3, 2014). The correct value of 11.85 deciviews is found in Arizona's 2011 Submittal, Table 6.3.
Based on the information in Chapter 4 of the Progress Report,
Arizona demonstrated that all Class I areas experienced improvements in
visibility (i.e., reductions in deciviews) for the 20-percent most and
least impaired days between the baseline (2000-2004) and current (2009-
2013) visibility periods, as summarized in Table 10 above and shown in
Table 17 of the Progress Report. The same table also shows that the
five-year average worst days and best days during the current (2009-
2013) period were below (i.e., better than) the 2018 RPGs. Thus, all of
the State's Class I areas are on track to meet or surpass their 2018
RPGs. As part of a comprehensive SIP revision due by July 31, 2021, the
State will be required to adopt 2028 RPGs, which will reflect new
control measures adopted to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze
Rule and other CAA requirements.\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Progress Report explains that the significant
reductions in NOX and SO2 emissions discussed in
the previous section have also mitigated Arizona's contribution to
visibility impairment in Class I areas in nearby states.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ 2015 Arizona Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report, Table
17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progress Report also contains a review of Arizona's visibility
monitoring strategy. In the Progress Report, ADEQ notes that the Grand
Canyon--Indian Garden IMPROVE monitoring station shut down in 2013. The
Report states that Arizona uses the GRCA2 monitoring station for Grand
Canyon National Park, so the closure of the Indian Gardens monitor will
not affect the reliability of the IMPROVE network in Arizona.
D. Determination of Adequacy
Within the Progress Report, the State of Arizona provided a
negative declaration stating that further revision of the existing
implementation plan is not needed in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(h)(1). The basis for the State's negative declaration is the
information in the Progress Report and the determination that Arizona
is currently on track to achieve all 2018 RPGs for the State's Class I
areas. Given the large reductions in SO2 and NOX
emissions and the significant improvements in visibility at the State's
Class I areas achieved during the planning period, the EPA proposes to
approve Arizona's determination that the existing Arizona SIP requires
no substantive revisions at this time to achieve the established 2018
RPGs for Class I areas. As mentioned above, the State is required to
submit a comprehensive SIP revision for the next planning period,
including RPGs for 2028, by July 31, 2021.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(3)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The State of Arizona invited the FLMs to comment on its draft
progress report on August 24, 2015. Arizona received comments from one
FLM, the National Park Service, which indicated that the Progress
Report met the applicable requirements and requested additional
information and other minor changes. ADEQ responded to the FLM comments
and revised the Progress Report accordingly, as documented in Appendix
A of the Progress Report. The EPA proposes to find that Arizona has
addressed the requirements for FLM consultation in 40 CFR 51.308(i).
IV. The EPA's Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve the Arizona Regional Haze Progress
Report submitted to the EPA on November 12, 2015, as meeting the
applicable requirements of the CAA and RHR, as set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g). The EPA proposes to approve Arizona's determination that the
existing regional haze implementation plan is adequate to meet the
State's 2018 visibility goals and requires no substantive revision at
this time. We also propose to find that Arizona fulfilled the
requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(i) regarding state coordination with
FLMs.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
federal regulations.\39\ Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's
role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law
as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because actions such as SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely
[[Page 11464]]
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this rulemaking does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Visibility, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 14, 2019.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2019-05769 Filed 3-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
