Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Utah; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans, 3558-3578 [2020-00495]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
3558
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0463; FRL–10003–
90–Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Utah;
Regional Haze State and Federal
Implementation Plans
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
action pursuant to section 110 of the
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) on State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions
submitted by the State of Utah on July
3, 2019, as supplemented on December
3, 2019, to satisfy certain regional haze
requirements for the program’s first
implementation period. The EPA is
proposing to approve the July 2019 SIP
revision that provides an alternative to
best available retrofit technology
(BART) controls for nitrogen oxides
(NOX) at the PacifiCorp Hunter and
Huntington power plants. The EPA
proposes to find that the Utah NOX
BART Alternative for Hunter and
Huntington would provide greater
reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART, in
accordance with the requirements of the
CAA and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
(RHR). In conjunction with this
proposed approval, we propose to
withdraw the federal implementation
plan (FIP) that addresses NOX BART for
the Hunter and Huntington power
plants. The EPA also proposes to
approve the December 3, 2019 SIP
supplement that would require
reporting of all deviations from
compliance with the applicable
requirements under BART and the
BART Alternative, including the
emission limits for Hunter and
Huntington.
SUMMARY:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
Comments: Written comments must
be received on or before March 23, 2020.
Public Hearing: A public hearing for
this proposal is scheduled to be held on
Wednesday, February 12, 2020, in Price,
Utah from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., and again
from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. mountain
standard time (MST). See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below for the venue address.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2015–0463, to the Federal
Rulemaking Portal: https://
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, will be publicly
available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available
either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129. The EPA requests that, if at
all possible, you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy
of the docket. You may view the hard
copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Aaron Worstell, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129, (303) 312–6073,
worstell.aaron@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held at the
Jennifer Leavitt Student Center (JLSC),1
Utah State University Eastern, 400
North 410 East, Price, UT 84501, on
Wednesday, February 12, 2020. The
1 See https://usueastern.edu/about/map/_
documents/PriceCampusMap.pdf for a detailed
campus map.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
hearing will convene at 1 p.m. and run
from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., and again from
6 p.m. until 8 p.m. (MST). Persons
wishing to preregister may be assigned
a time according to this schedule. Please
register at https://utah-regional-haze2020.eventbrite.com to speak at the
hearing. The last day to preregister in
advance to speak at the hearing is
February 3, 2020. Additionally, requests
to speak may be taken the day of the
hearing at the hearing registration desk
on a first come first serve basis, as time
allows. The EPA will make every effort
to accommodate all walk-in speakers,
however we highly encourage the public
to preregister for the hearing in order to
be guaranteed speaking time. For
questions regarding the public hearing,
please contact Clayton Bean at
bean.clayton@epa.gov or (303) 312–
6143.
The public hearing will provide
interested parties the opportunity to
present data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed action. The
EPA may ask clarifying questions during
the oral presentations, but will not
respond to the presentations at that
time. Written statements and supporting
information submitted during the
comment period will be considered
with the same weight as oral comments
and supporting information presented at
the public hearing. The hearing officer
may limit the time available for each
commenter to address the proposal to 5
minutes or less if the hearing officer
determines it to be appropriate. The
limitation is to ensure that everyone
who wants to make a comment has the
opportunity to do so. We will not be
providing equipment for commenters to
show overhead slides or make
computerized slide presentations. Any
person may provide written or oral
comments and data pertaining to our
proposal at the public hearings.
Verbatim transcripts, in English, of the
hearings and written statements will be
included in the rulemaking docket.
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and
the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
C. BART Alternatives
D. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting
F. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
G. Summary of State Regional Haze
Submittals and EPA Actions
1. 2008 and 2011 Utah Regional Haze SIP
Submissions
2. 2012 EPA Action on 2011 and 2008 Utah
Regional Haze SIP Submissions
3. Petitions for Review of the EPA’s
Approval of the SO2 Backstop Trading
Program
4. 2015 Utah Regional Haze SIP
Submissions
5. 2016 EPA Action on 2015 Utah RH SIP
Submissions
6. Petitions for Review of EPA’s 2016 SIP
Disapproval and FIP
7. 2019 Utah RH SIP Revisions
III. Utah’s Regional Haze SIP Revisions
A. Summary of the Utah NOX BART
Alternative SIP Revision
1. Utah NOX BART Alternative
B. Summary of Utah’s Demonstration for
Alternative Program
1. List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within
the State
2. List of All BART-Eligible Sources and
All BART Source Categories Covered by
the Alternative Program
3. Analysis of BART and Associated
Emission Reductions Achievable
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions
Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
5. A Determination That the Alternative
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than Would Be Achieved Through the
Installation and Operation of BART
6. Requirement That Emission Reductions
Take Place During Period of First LongTerm Strategy
7. Demonstration That Emissions
Reductions From Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting
D. Consultation With FLMs
IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed Approval
of Utah’s Regional Haze SIP
A. Basis for Proposed Approval
B. Demonstration of Greater Reasonable
Progress for the Alternative Program
1. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources
Within the State
2. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources and
All BART Source Categories Covered by
the Alternative Program
3. Analysis of BART and Associated
Emission Reductions
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions
Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
5. A Determination That the Alternative
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than Would Be Achieved Through the
Installation and Operation of BART
6. Requirement That Emission Reductions
Take Place During Period of First LongTerm Strategy
7. Demonstration That Emission
Reductions From Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
D. Consultation With FLMs
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
VI. The EPA’s Proposed Action
A. 2019 Utah Regional Haze SIP Revision
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
B. FIP Withdrawal
C. Clean Air Section 110(l)
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On July 5, 2016, the EPA promulgated
a final rule titled ‘‘Approval,
Disapproval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Partial
Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air
Quality Implementation Plans and
Federal Implementation Plan; Utah;
Revisions to Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional
Haze,’’ which approved, in part, a
regional haze SIP revision submitted by
the State of Utah on June 4, 2015.2 In
the July 2016 final rule, the EPA also
disapproved, in part, the Utah regional
haze SIP submission, including the NOX
BART Alternative (also ‘‘BART
Alternative’’ or ‘‘Alternative’’) for
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington
Units 1 and 2, which are BART units as
explained in more detail below. The
BART Alternative relied on sulfur
dioxide (SO2), NOX, and particulate
matter (PM) emission reductions
stemming from the 2015 closure of
PacifiCorp’s Carbon power plant, as
well as NOX reductions achieved
through combustion control upgrades at
Hunter Units 1, 2, and 3 and Huntington
Units 1 and 2. (Hunter Unit 3 is not a
BART unit.) The combustion control
upgrades for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2 include an
Alstom TSF 2000TM low-NOX firing
system and two elevations of separated
overfire air (SOFA). The combustion
2 81
PO 00000
FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3559
upgrades for Hunter Unit 3 include
upgraded low-NOX burners (LNB) and
overfire air (OFA). Concurrent with
disapproving the NOX BART
Alternative, EPA promulgated a FIP in
the July 2016 final rule that imposed a
NOX BART emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for each
of the four BART units based on the
emission reductions achievable through
the installation and operation of
selective-catalytic reduction (SCR) plus
upgraded combustion controls.
On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a
revised SIP that, based on new technical
information and a different regulatory
test, seeks to demonstrate that the
previously submitted NOX BART
Alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART. The SIP revision
also includes amendments to Utah’s SO2
milestone reporting requirements under
the SO2 Backstop Trading Program
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 so that SO2
emission reductions resulting from the
closure of the Carbon plant are not
counted under both the SO2 Backstop
Trading Program and the NOX BART
Alternative. The EPA is proposing to
approve the State’s July 3, 2019 SIP
revision based on this new information
and to incorporate the following into
Utah’s SIP:
• A NOX emission limit of 0.26 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) each for
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington 1
and 2.
• A NOX emission limit of 0.34 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for
Hunter Unit 3.
• A requirement to permanently close
and cease operation of the Carbon
power plant by August 15, 2015.
• The associated amendments to the
SO2 milestone reporting requirements.
Because approval of the NOX BART
Alternative would satisfy Utah’s BART
obligation for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2, we are also
proposing to withdraw the FIP for NOX
BART at these units.
The EPA is also proposing to approve
a December 3, 2019 SIP supplement to
the July 3, 2019 SIP revision that
includes monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting (MRR) requirements for the
units subject to the NOX BART
Alternative and PM BART. The
supplement also includes amendments
that require each source to submit a
report of any deviation from applicable
emission limits and operating practices,
including deviations attributable to
upset conditions, the probable cause of
such deviations, and any corrective
actions or preventive measures taken.
Finally, contingent on our approval of
these two SIP revisions, we propose to
find that Utah’s SIP fully satisfies the
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3560
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
requirements of section 309 of the RHR
and, therefore, that the State has fully
complied with the requirements for
reasonable progress, including BART,
for the first implementation period.
EPA is requesting comment on its
proposed approval of Utah’s regional
haze SIP elements related to the NOX
BART Alternative under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 51.308(e)(2)–(3), as
well as the MRR elements for the units
subject to that BART Alternative and to
PM BART. EPA previously approved
Utah’s regional haze SIP as meeting all
other requirements of 40 CFR 51.309,3
and we are neither reopening nor
requesting comment on previously
approved elements here.
II. Background
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and the EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977
Amendments to the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in the nation’s national parks
and wilderness areas. This section of the
CAA establishes ‘‘as a national goal the
prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing, impairment
of visibility in mandatory Class I
Federal areas which impairment results
from manmade air pollution.’’ 4 Section
169A directs the EPA to establish
regulations for states to submit SIPs to
make ‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the
national visibility goal through longterm strategies and to implement BART
at certain BART-eligible sources.
Recognizing the complexity of
addressing visibility impacts, Congress
enacted section 169B in the 1990
Amendments to the CAA, which, among
other things, dedicated greater resources
to ‘‘regional haze’’ and the problem of
visibility impairment due to pollution
3 See 77 FR 74355 (Dec. 14, 2012); 81 FR 43894
(July 5, 2016).
4 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as
mandatory Class I Federal 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). In accordance
with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list
of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an
important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979).
The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and
tribes may designate as Class I additional areas
whose visibility they consider to be an important
value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to
‘‘mandatory Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory
Class I Federal area is the responsibility of a
‘‘Federal Land Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When
we use the term ‘‘Class I area’’ in this section, we
mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’ The list
of mandatory Class I Federal areas is located in 40
CFR part 81 subpart D.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
transport over large distances. Section
169B provided for the creation of
‘‘visibility transport’’ regions and
commissions, and specifically directed
the establishment of a Grand Canyon
visibility transport commission at
section 169B(f).
The EPA promulgated a rule to
address regional haze on July 1, 1999.5
This RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations 6 to integrate provisions
addressing regional haze and
established a comprehensive visibility
protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at
40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR 51.309, are
included in the EPA’s visibility
protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300
through 40 CFR 51.309. As discussed in
more detail below, section 309 is
available to certain western states,
including Utah, in lieu of certain
requirements in section 308. The EPA
revised the RHR most recently on
January 10, 2017.7
The CAA requires each state to
develop a SIP to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility.8 Regional haze SIPs must
assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions in Class I areas,
which, for the first implementation
period, includes satisfying the BART
requirements. A state must submit its
SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA for
approval. EPA reviews SIP submissions
against the requirements of the CAA and
applicable regulations. If EPA finds that
a state has failed to make a required
submission or that a submission does
not satisfy the minimum criteria for
completeness, or if EPA disapproves a
SIP submission in whole or in part, EPA
is required to promulgate a FIP within
two years of such finding or disapproval
unless the State corrects the deficiency,
and the Administrator approves the
plan or plan revision, before the
Administrator promulgates such FIP.9
Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by
the EPA and citizens under the CAA;
that is, the SIP is federally enforceable.
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs
states as part of their SIPs, or the EPA
5 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR
part 51, subpart P).
6 The EPA had previously promulgated
regulations to address visibility impairment in Class
I areas that is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources, i.e., reasonably
attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR
80084 (December 2, 1980).
7 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
8 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA
sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B.
9 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
when developing a FIP in the absence
of an approved regional haze SIP, to
evaluate the use of retrofit controls at
certain larger, often uncontrolled, older
stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources.
Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of
the CAA requires states’ implementation
plans to contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 procure, install, and operate
the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit
Technology’’ as determined by the states
through their SIPs, or as determined by
the EPA when it promulgates a FIP.
Under the RHR, states (or the EPA) are
directed to conduct BART
determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to any
visibility impairment in a Class I area.10
Sources that are determined to cause or
contribute to such impairment pursuant
to the BART Guidelines are referred to
as ‘‘subject-to-BART’’ sources and must
undergo a BART determination
applying the five BART factors.11 Rather
than requiring source-specific BART
controls, states also have the flexibility
to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program for their
subject-to-BART sources, so long as the
alternative provides greater reasonable
progress towards improving visibility
than BART (sometimes referred to as the
‘‘better-than-BART’’ test).12
C. BART Alternatives
States opting to submit an alternative
program in lieu of source-specific
BART, whether for a SIP submitted
under 40 CFR 51.308 or 51.309,13 must
meet requirements under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) and, if applicable, (e)(3).
These requirements for alternative
programs relate to the ‘‘better-thanBART’’ test and fundamental elements
of any alternative program.
In order to demonstrate that the
alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress than source-specific
10 40 CFR 51.308(e). The EPA designed the
Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the
RHR (Guidelines), 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, ‘‘to
help States and others (1) identify those sources
that must comply with the BART requirement, and
(2) determine the level of control technology that
represents BART for each source.’’ Guidelines,
Section I.A. Section II of the Guidelines describes
the four steps to identify BART sources, and
Section III explains how to identify BART sources
(i.e., sources that are ‘‘subject to BART’’).
11 CAA section 169A(g)(2); 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
12 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2); WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 770 F.3d 919 (10th Cir. 2014).
13 See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
BART, a state, or the EPA if developing
a FIP, must demonstrate that its SIP
meets the requirements, as applicable,
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i) through (vi).
Among other things, the state or the
EPA must conduct an analysis of the
best system of continuous emission
control technology available and the
associated emission reductions
achievable for each source subject to
BART covered by the alternative
program, termed a ‘‘BART benchmark.’’
Where the alternative program has been
designed to meet requirements other
than BART, simplifying assumptions
may be used to establish a BART
benchmark. The BART benchmark is the
basis for comparison in the ‘‘better-thanBART’’ test for BART alternatives.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
the state or the EPA must provide a
determination that the alternative
program achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the
clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), in turn, provides specific
tests applicable under specific
circumstances for determining whether
the alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART. If the
distribution of emissions under the
alternative program is not substantially
different than for BART, and the
alternative program results in greater
emissions reductions of each relevant
pollutant than BART, then the
alternative program may be deemed to
achieve greater reasonable progress. If
the distribution of emissions is
significantly different, the differences in
visibility improvement between BART
and the alternative program must be
determined by conducting dispersion
modeling for each impacted Class I area
for the best and worst 20 percent of
days. This modeling demonstrates
‘‘greater reasonable progress’’ if both of
the two following criteria are met: (1)
Visibility does not decline in any Class
I area; and (2) there is overall
improvement in visibility when
comparing the average differences
between BART and the alternative
program across all the affected Class I
areas.
Alternately, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), a third test is available
under which States may show that the
BART alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART ‘‘based
on the clear weight of evidence.’’ As
stated in in the EPA’s revisions to the
RHR governing alternative to sourcespecific BART determinations, such
demonstrations
attempt to make use of all available
information and data which can inform a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
decision while recognizing the relative
strengths and weaknesses of that information
in arriving at the soundest decision possible.
Factors which can be used in a weight of
evidence determination in this context may
include, but not be limited to, future
projected emissions levels under the program
as compared to under BART, future projected
visibility conditions under the two scenarios,
the geographic distribution of sources likely
to reduce or increase emissions under the
program as compared to BART sources,
monitoring data and emissions inventories,
and sensitivity analyses of any models used.
This array of information and other relevant
data may be of sufficient quality to inform
the comparison of visibility impacts between
BART and the alternative program. In
showing that an alternative program is better
than BART and when there is confidence that
the difference in visibility impacts between
BART and the alternative scenarios are
expected to be large enough, a weight of
evidence comparison may be warranted in
making the comparison. The EPA will
carefully consider the evidence before us in
evaluating any SIPs submitted by States
employing such an approach.14
Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) and
(iv), all emission reductions for the
alternative program must take place
during the period of the first long-term
strategy for regional haze, and all the
emission reductions resulting from the
alternative program must be surplus to
those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the
SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(e)(2)(v),
states have the option of including a
provision that the emissions trading
program or other alternative measure
include a geographic enhancement to
the program to address the requirement
under 40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART
for RAVI from the pollutants covered
under the emissions trading program or
other alternative measure.
A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze
must include emission limits and
compliance schedules for each
visibility-impairing pollutant emitted
from each source subject to BART. In
addition to the RHR’s requirements,
general SIP requirements mandate that
the SIP or FIP include all regulatory
requirements related to MRR needed to
make emission limits practically
enforceable.15
D. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
EPA’s RHR provides two paths to
address regional haze for the first
implementation period of the regional
haze program. One is through 40 CFR
51.308, requiring, among other things,
SIPs to include source-specific BART
determinations or BART alternatives,
and to contain long-term strategies that
include enforceable emission
limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures as necessary to achieve
reasonable progress in Class I areas
inside the state and in Class I areas
outside the state that may be affected by
emissions from the state. In addition to
these requirements, each regional haze
SIP or FIP under section 308 must
contain measures as necessary to make
reasonable progress towards the
national visibility goal.16 The other
method for addressing regional haze for
the first implementation period is
through 40 CFR 51.309, which provides
an option for nine states termed the
‘‘Transport Region States’’: Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and
Wyoming. Among other things, by
meeting the requirements under 40 CFR
51.309, these states can be deemed to be
making reasonable progress toward the
national goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions for the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau.17
Section 309 requires those Transport
Region States that choose to participate
to adopt regional haze strategies that are
based on recommendations from the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC) established under
CAA 169B(f) for protecting the 16 Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The
purpose of the GCVTC was to assess
information about the adverse impacts
on visibility in and around the 16 Class
I areas on the Colorado Plateau and
provided policy recommendations to
the EPA to address such impacts. The
GCVTC determined that all Transport
Region States could potentially impact
the Class I areas on the Colorado
Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report
to the EPA in 1996 containing
recommendations for protecting
visibility for the Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau, and the EPA codified
these recommendations in section 309
as an option available to states as part
of the RHR.18
The EPA determined that the GCVTC
strategies would provide for reasonable
progress in mitigating regional haze if
supplemented by an annex containing
quantitative emission reduction
milestones and provisions for a trading
program or other alternative measure for
SO2.19 In September 2000, the Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP),
which is the successor organization to
the GCVTC, submitted an annex to EPA.
16 40
14 71
FR 60612, 60622 (Oct. 13, 2006).
15 CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51, subpart K;
40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3561
CFR 51.308(d), (f).
CFR 51.309(a).
18 64 FR 35714, 35749 (July 1, 1999).
19 64 FR 35714, 35749, 35756 (July 1, 1999).
17 40
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3562
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
The annex contained SO2 emissions
reduction milestones and detailed
provisions of a backstop trading
program to be implemented
automatically if voluntary measures
failed to achieve the SO2 milestones (the
SO2 Backstop Trading Program). The
EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003
at 40 CFR 51.309(h).20
Five western states, including Utah,
submitted implementation plans under
section 309 in 2003.21 However, the
EPA was challenged by the Center for
Energy and Economic Development
(CEED) on the validity of the annex
provisions contained in section 309(h).
In CEED v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals vacated the EPA approval of
the WRAP annex.22 In response to the
court’s decision, the EPA removed the
annex requirements from 40 CFR
51.309(h), but incorporated the
provisions allowing for an SO2 Backstop
Trading Program under the stationary
source requirements in 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4).23 The requirements under
40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general
requirements pertaining to stationary
sources and market trading, and allow
states to adopt alternatives to sourcespecific application of BART.
Under 40 CFR 51.309, states can
satisfy the SO2 BART requirements by
adopting SO2 emissions milestones and
the SO2 Backstop Trading Program as
described in 51.309(d)(4)(i)–(vi). Under
this approach, states must establish
declining SO2 emissions milestones for
each year of the program through 2018.
The milestones must be consistent with
the GCVTC’s goal of 50 to 70 percent
reduction in SO2 emissions by 2040.
The SO2 Backstop Trading Program
would be implemented if a milestone is
exceeded and the program is triggered.24
Section 51.309(d)(4) includes not only
provisions for stationary source
emissions of SO2, but also a requirement
that Transport Region States’
implementation plans contain any
necessary long-term strategies and
BART requirements for stationary
source PM and NOX emissions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii),
any BART provisions may be submitted
pursuant to either 51.308(e)(1) or
51.308(e)(2); that is, states may submit
either source-specific BART
20 68
FR 33764, 33767 (June 5, 2003).
states—Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah and Wyoming—and Albuquerque-Bernalillo
County, New Mexico, initially exercised this option
by submitting plans to the EPA in December 2003.
Oregon elected to cease participation in 2006, and
Arizona elected to cease participation in 2010.
22 Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d
653, 654 (DC Cir. 2005).
23 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
24 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
21 Five
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
determinations or BART alternatives for
PM and NOX.
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting
The CAA requires that SIPs, including
regional haze SIPs, contain elements
sufficient to ensure emission limits are
practically enforceable. CAA section
110(a)(2) states that the MRR provisions
of states’ SIPs must:
(A) include enforceable emission
limitations and other control measures,
means, or techniques (including economic
incentives such as fees, marketable permits,
and auctions of emissions rights), as well as
schedules and timetables for compliance, as
may be necessary or appropriate to meet the
applicable requirements of this chapter; . . .
(C) include a program to provide for the
enforcement of the measures described in
subparagraph (A), and 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,
including a permit program as required in
parts C and D of this subchapter; . . . (F)
require, as may be prescribed by the
Administrator—(i) the installation,
maintenance, and replacement of equipment,
and the implementation of other necessary
steps, by owners or operators of stationary
sources to monitor emissions from such
sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature
and amounts of emissions and emissionsrelated data from such sources, and (iii)
correlation of such reports by the State
agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this
chapter, which reports shall be available at
reasonable times for public inspection.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 51, subpart
K, Source Surveillance, requires the SIP
to provide for monitoring the status of
compliance with the regulations in it,
including ‘‘[p]eriodic testing and
inspection of stationary sources,’’ 25 and
‘‘legally enforceable procedures’’ for
recordkeeping and reporting.26
Furthermore, 40 CFR part 51, appendix
V, Criteria for Determining the
Completeness of Plan Submissions,
states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs
contain: ‘‘(g) Evidence that the plan
contains emission limitations, work
practice standards and recordkeeping/
reporting requirements, where
necessary, to ensure emission levels’’;
and ‘‘(h) Compliance/enforcement
strategies, including how compliance
will be determined in practice.’’
F. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers (FLMs)
The statute and the RHR require that
a state, or the EPA if promulgating a FIP
that fills a gap in the SIP with respect
to the applicable requirements, consult
with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP
revision, or a required FIP or FIP
revision.27 Further, the state when
considering a SIP revision (or EPA in a
FIP) must include in its proposal a
description of how it addressed any
comments provided by the FLMs.
G. Summary of State Regional Haze
Submittals and EPA Actions
1. 2008 and 2011 Utah Regional Haze
SIP Submissions
On May 26, 2011, the State of Utah
submitted to EPA a regional haze SIP
under 40 CFR 51.309 (‘‘2011 Utah RH
SIP’’). Consistent with 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii), this submittal
included BART determinations for NOX
and PM at Utah’s four subject-to-BART
sources: PacifiCorp’s Hunter Units 1 and
2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. All
four units are tangentially-fired fossilfuel electric generating units (EGUs),
each with a net generating capacity of
430 MW, permitted to burn bituminous
coal. This submittal also included
quantitative emissions milestones
through 2018 and a backstop trading
program for SO2 intended to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(i)–
(vi). The SO2 backstop trading program
covers Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico
and the City of Albuquerque.
Utah had also previously submitted
SIPs on December 12, 2003, August 8,
2004, and September 9, 2008, to meet
the requirements of the RHR. These
submittals were, for the most part,
superseded and replaced by the May 26,
2011 submittal as further explained in
the next section.
2. 2012 EPA Action on 2011 and 2008
Utah Regional Haze SIP Submissions
On December 14, 2012, EPA partially
approved and partially disapproved the
2011 Utah RH SIP.28 We approved the
2011 Utah RH SIP as meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the
exception of the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX
and PM BART. EPA’s partial
disapproval action was based on the
following: (1) Utah did not take into
account the five statutory factors in its
BART analyses for NOX and PM; and (2)
the 2011 Utah RH SIP submission did
not contain the provisions necessary to
make the BART limits practically
enforceable as required by section
110(a)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51,
appendix V.29
27 CAA
25 40
CFR 51.212(a).
26 40 CFR 51.211.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
28 77
section 169A(d); 40 CFR 51.308(i).
FR 74355, 74357 (Dec. 14, 2012).
29 Id.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
We also approved two sections of the
2008 Utah RH SIP submission in the
December 13, 2012 action. Specifically,
we approved state rules UAR R307–
250—Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide
Trading Program and R307–150—
Emission Inventories. We took no action
on the rest of the 2008 submittal as the
2011 submittal superseded and replaced
all other sections. We also took no
action on the December 12, 2003 and
August 8, 2004 submittals as these were
superseded by the 2011 submittal.
On November 8, 2011, we separately
proposed approval of Section G—LongTerm Strategy for Fire Programs of the
May 26, 2011 submittal and finalized
our approval of that action on January
18, 2013.30
practically enforceable and included
additional information pertaining to the
PM BART determinations for Hunter
and Huntington to address deficiencies
identified by EPA in our December 2012
partial disapproval.
On October 20, 2015, Utah submitted
to EPA another revision to its Regional
Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309
(‘‘October 2015 Utah RH SIP’’). This SIP
included an enforceable commitment to
provide an additional SIP revision by
mid-March 2018 to address concerns
raised in public comments that the State
would be double counting certain SO2
emissions reductions under both the
Utah NOX BART Alternative and the
milestone reporting for the SO2
Backstop Trading Program.
3. Petitions for Review of the EPA’s
Approval of the SO2 Backstop Trading
Program
In 2013, conservation organizations
challenged EPA’s 2012 approval of the
SO2 Backstop Trading Program as an
alternative to BART for certain
Transport Region States, including
Utah, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit. On October 21, 2014,
the Tenth Circuit upheld EPA’s action,
including EPA’s finding that the trading
program could serve as a BART
alternative under a ‘‘clear weight of
evidence’’ standard.31
5. 2016 EPA Action on 2015 Utah RH
SIP Submissions
On July 5, 2016, we partially
approved and partially disapproved the
revisions to the Utah SIP submitted by
the State of Utah on June 4, 2015.32 We
approved the following elements of the
State’s SIP submittals: 33
• BART determinations and emission
limits for PM at Hunter Units 1 and 2
and Huntington Units 1 and 2.
• MRR requirements for units subject
to the PM emission limits, including
conditional approval of the requirement
that the PM emission limits apply at all
times, subject to the state’s commitment
to adopt reporting requirements for
deviations from the emission limits.
We disapproved these aspects of the
State’s June 4, 2015 SIP:
• NOX BART Alternative, including
emission limits consistent with
upgraded combustion controls at Hunter
Units 1, 2, and 3 and Huntington Units
1 and 2, and the SO2, NOx, and PM
emission reductions resulting from the
shutdown of Carbon Units 1 and 2.
• MRR requirements for units subject
to the NOX BART Alternative.
As noted above, in June 2015 Utah
submitted the NOX BART Alternative
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E)’s clearweight-of-evidence test. To support its
conclusion that the NOX BART
Alternative makes greater reasonable
progress towards the national visibility
goal, the SIP submission relied on nine
metrics for comparing the Alternative to
the BART Benchmark: Aggregate
emission reductions, monitoring data,
timing of emission reductions, energy
4. 2015 Utah Regional Haze SIP
Submissions
On June 4, 2015, the State of Utah
submitted to EPA a revision to its
Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309
of the RHR (‘‘June 2015 Utah RH SIP’’)
to address the requirements under 40
CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to NOX
and PM BART. Utah developed the June
2015 Utah RH SIP in response to EPA’s
December 14, 2012 partial disapproval
of the 2011 Utah RH SIP submission.
The June 2015 Utah RH SIP evolved
from a draft SIP on which Utah sought
public comment in October 2014. After
receiving extensive public comments on
that draft, Utah decided to pursue a
NOX BART Alternative under the 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2) ‘‘clear weight of
evidence’’ standard that takes credit for
NOX reductions due to combustion
controls installed at PacifiCorp’s Hunter
and Huntington power plants in
addition to NOX, SO2, and PM
reductions from the August 2015
retirement of PacifiCorp’s nearby
Carbon power plant. The June 2015
Utah RH SIP submission also included
measures to make the SIP requirements
30 78
FR 4071, 4072 (Jan. 18, 2013).
Guardians v. United States EPA, 770
F.3d 919, 938 (10th Cir. 2014).
31 WildEarth
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
32 81
FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
had already approved elements satisfying
other applicable requirements in the December 14,
2012 action: Section XX.B.8, Figures 1 and 2,
Affected Class I Areas, pp. 8–9; Section XX.D.6.b,
Table 3, BART-Eligible Sources in Utah, p. 21;
Section XX.D.6.c, Sources Subject to BART, pp. 21–
23.
33 EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3563
and non-air quality impacts, cost, and
four visibility-related metrics based on
the results of a modeling exercise using
the CALPUFF model. In the July 2016
final rule, EPA determined that the
evidence provided did not clearly
demonstrate that the BART Alternative
achieves greater visibility improvement
than BART. As part of this evaluation,
we determined which metrics were
relevant to the assessment of relative
visibility benefit, evaluated the
strengths and weaknesses of each metric
in order to determine which merited
more or less weight, and collectively
considered the weights assigned to the
individual pieces of information in
determining whether, on balance, the
evidence demonstrated that the NOX
BART Alternative would clearly provide
for greater reasonable progress.34 Based
on this assessment, we determined that
the evidence before us did not satisfy
the standard articulated under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) and disapproved the
NOX BART Alternative.
We thus promulgated a FIP in the July
5, 2016 action to address the
deficiencies in the Utah regional haze
SIP submissions. EPA’s FIP includes the
following elements:
• NOX BART determinations and
corresponding emission limits for
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington
Units 1 and 2 of 0.07 lb/MMbtu (30-day
rolling average) each, reflecting
installation and operation of SCR plus
the existing upgraded combustion
controls.
• Monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements applicable to
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington
Units 1 and 2 as needed to implement
the NOX BART determinations and
emission limits.
We took no action on the enforceable
commitment to revise, at a minimum,
SIP Section XX.D.3.c and state rule
R307–150 addressing double counting
of SO2 emissions, because there was no
need to do so once the NOX BART
Alternative had been disapproved.
6. Petitions for Review of EPA’s 2016
SIP Disapproval and FIP
In September 2016, the State of Utah,
PacifiCorp, and several other parties
challenged EPA’s July 5, 2016
disapproval of the NOX BART
Alternative and promulgation of a FIP in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.35 In addition, the State and
PacifiCorp (on behalf of the co-owners
of Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington
Units 1 and 2) submitted letters to EPA
on June 30, 2017, identifying new
34 See
81 FR 43894, 43896–43902.
of Utah v. EPA, No. 16–9541 (10th Cir.).
35 State
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3564
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
information that was not available at the
time of EPA’s action on Utah’s 2015 SIP
submission, providing additional
explanation of existing information, and
stating an intent to develop and submit
to EPA additional technical analyses in
support of the NOX BART Alternative.36
On July 14, 2017, the EPA
Administrator sent letters to the State of
Utah and PacifiCorp announcing the
Agency’s intent to reconsider its
disapproval of the NOX BART
Alternative.37 On this basis, EPA asked
the Tenth Circuit to put the litigation in
abeyance; on September 11, 2017, the
court both granted EPA’s request to
abate the litigation and issued a stay of
EPA’s July 5, 2016 final rule.38
7. 2019 Utah RH SIP Revisions
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a SIP
revision intended to replace EPA’s 2016
FIP provisions for NOX BART. The
measures in the NOX BART Alternative
submitted in July 2019 are identical to
those in the Alternative submitted in
June 2015 (i.e., Utah submitted the same
NOX BART Alternative in the June 2015
and July 2019 SIPs). However, while the
State had previously relied on the clearweight-of-evidence test under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) to demonstrate that the
Alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART in the June 2015
submission,39 the July 2019 submission
relies solely on the application of the
two-prong test under 51.308(e)(3) using
photochemical grid modeling.
Background on these two approaches to
demonstrating greater reasonable
progress is provided in section II.C.
above.
The July 3, 2019 SIP submittal
includes the emission limitations and
control measures associated with the
NOX BART Alternative. It also includes
the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that EPA
previously approved for PM BART, but
disapproved as applied to the emission
limitations and control measures
associated with the NOX BART
Alternative.
36 See docket IDs EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0463–
0216 (letter from State of Utah) and EPA–R08–
OAR–2015–0463–0221 (letter from PacifiCorp).
37 See docket IDs EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0463–
0222 (letter to State of Utah) and EPA–R08–OAR–
2015–0463–0223 (letter to PacifiCorp).
38 State of Utah v. EPA, No. 16–9541 (10th Cir.),
Doc. No. 10496767.
39 For a summary of the weight-of-evidence
contained in Utah’s June 2015 SIP, and EPA’s
evaluation thereof, refer to the July 2016 final rule
at 81 FR 43897–43902.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
On December 3, 2019, Utah submitted
a supplement to the July 2019 SIP
submission that includes an amendment
to the monitoring, record keeping, and
reporting requirements submitted on
July 3, 2019. Specifically, the
amendments require each source to
submit a report of any deviation from
applicable emission limits and
operating practices, including
deviations attributable to upset
conditions, the probable cause of such
deviations, and any corrective actions or
preventive measures taken.
This proposed action pertains to the
July 3, 2019 SIP submittal as
supplemented on December 3, 2019.
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 51.102 and appendix
V to part 51 require that a state provide
reasonable notice and public hearing
before adopting a SIP revision and
submitting it to EPA. Utah, after
providing notice, accepted comments on
the July 2019 Utah RH SIP submission
from April 1, 2019 through May 15,
2019. Similarly, Utah accepted
comments on the December 3, 2019 RH
SIP supplement from October 1, 2019 to
October 31, 2019.
III. Utah’s Regional Haze SIP Revisions
A. Summary of the Utah NOX BART
Alternative SIP Revision
As noted elsewhere, the EPA
previously approved Utah’s SIP
elements satisfying the requirements of
40 CFR 51.309 to address the State’s
regional haze obligations for the first
implementation period, other than
emission limitations corresponding to
NOX BART or an alternative to BART
for NOX and the associated MRR
requirements, and certain requirements
for MRR related to PM BART.40
Therefore, in this action we are
addressing only these outstanding
elements and certain ancillary SIP
revisions necessary to effectuate them.
Utah’s July 3, 2019 SIP RH submittal,
as supplemented on December 3, 2019,
includes changes to the following
provisions, on which we are proposing
to take action:
• Revised SIP Section XX, Regional
Haze, Parts A, Executive Summary, and
D, Long-Term Strategy for Stationary
Sources (revised SIP narrative sections
including the BART Assessment for
NOX); adopted by the Utah Air Quality
Board on June 24, 2019.
40 EPA conditionally approved Utah’s MRR
requirements for the PM BART emission limitations
under CAA section 110(k)(4). 81 FR at 43921.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
• Revised R307–110–28, General
Requirements: State Implementation
Plan, Regional Haze (state rule that
incorporates by reference most recently
amended SIP Section XX); effective
August 15, 2019.
• SIP Section IX.H.21 General
Requirements: Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources, Emission
Limits and Operating Practices,
Regional Haze Requirements (SIP
section laying out MRR requirements for
control measures); adopted by the Utah
Air Quality Board on November 20,
2019.
• SIP Section IX.H.22 Source
Specific Emission Limitations: Regional
Haze Requirements, Best Available
Retrofit Technology (SIP section
containing emission limitations
necessary for NOX BART Alternative);
adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board
on November 20, 2019.
• Revised R307–110–17, General
Requirements: State Implementation
Plan. Section IX, Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources, Part H,
Emissions Limits (state rule that
incorporates by reference most recently
amended SIP Section IX, Part H);
effective on November 25, 2019.
• Revised R307–150–3, Emission
Inventories, Applicability (state rule
that addresses reporting of SO2
emissions for Carbon power plant under
the Western Backstop SO2 Trading
Program); effective June 25, 2018.
These six provisions are related to the
following two outstanding requirements
for the first implementation period: NOX
BART for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2; and MRR
requirements for the Utah NOX BART
Alternative and PM BART emission
limits to make the SIP requirements
practically enforceable.
1. Utah NOX BART Alternative
To satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii), Utah has opted to
establish an alternative to BART for
NOX under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The
State’s NOX BART Alternative consists
of upgraded combustion controls on all
four subject-to-BART units, upgraded
combustion controls on Hunter Unit 3,
and the shutdown of Carbon Units 1 and
2. The emission limits in the July 3,
2019 Utah RH SIP submittal, as
supplemented on December 3, 2019, are
provided in Table 1. We further explain
the components of the SIP submissions
below.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
3565
TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS AND SHUTDOWN IN THE UTAH BART ALTERNATIVE AND PM SIP 1
Source
Unit
PM limit 2 3
(lb/MMBtu, three-run
test average)
NOX limit 4
(lb/MMBtu, 30-day
rolling average)
Hunter ....................
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
0.015 ...........................................
0.015 ...........................................
NA ...............................................
0.015 ...........................................
0.015 ...........................................
Shutdown by August 15, 2015 ....
Shutdown by August 15, 2015 ....
0.26 .............................................
0.26 .............................................
0.34 .............................................
0.26 .............................................
0.26 .............................................
Shutdown by August 15, 2015 ....
Shutdown by August 15, 2015 ....
Huntington ..............
Carbon ...................
SO2 limit
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
NA.
Shutdown by August 15, 2015.
Shutdown by August 15, 2015.
1 Obtained
from the July 2019 Utah RH SIP, Section IX.H.22.
on annual stack testing.
BART PM emission limits were previously approved by in our July 2016 final rule. 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
4 Based on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) measurement.
2 Based
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3 The
The State compared the NOX BART
Alternative against a BART Benchmark
that consists of SCR plus upgraded
combustion controls on all four BART
units. The State noted SCR plus
upgraded combustion controls would
require careful consideration through a
source-specific five-factor analysis
before determining it is BART for these
units. However, the State used those
controls as a stringent benchmark for
comparison with the NOX BART
Alternative. The State remarked that its
use of SCR plus upgraded combustion
controls as a benchmark is not a
determination that this technology is
BART; it is merely a conservative
approach to evaluating the effectiveness
of the alternative program. The Utah
NOX BART Alternative is generally
described in SIP Section XX.D.6 with a
detailed demonstration included in the
Staff Review to support the State’s
assertion that the Alternative achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART.
In addition to combustion controls at
the Hunter and Huntington units, the
State intends to rely on the emission
reductions resulting from the shutdown
of a coal-fired power plant. Utah
indicated that PacifiCorp shut down the
Carbon Power Plant in 2015, due to the
high cost to control mercury to meet the
requirements of EPA’s Mercury and Air
Toxics Standards (MATS).41 The State
noted that the MATS rule was finalized
in 2011, and the Utah RH SIP contains
the requirement for the Carbon Power
Plant to shut down in August 2015. The
emission reductions occur after the 2002
base year for Utah’s RH SIP and thus,
Utah asserts, the reductions may be
considered as part of an alternative
strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
The State’s demonstration is
described in more detail in section III.B
below. The State’s estimates of
emissions for the Utah NOX BART
41 Utah Regional Haze State Implementation Plan,
Staff Review of Recommended Alternative to BART
for NOX, May 28, 2019, p. 24.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
Alternative and the BART Benchmark
are provided in Table 2 of section III.B.4
below. EPA developed a summary of the
emissions reductions based on Utah’s
emission estimates and this is presented
in Table 3 of section III.B.4 below.
B. Summary of Utah’s Demonstration
for Alternative Program
As discussed above in Section II, a
state may opt to implement an
alternative measure rather than to
require sources subject to BART to
install, operate, and maintain sourcespecific BART. BART alternatives such
as the Utah NOX BART Alternative that
are not emissions trading programs must
meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)–(iv).42 Utah has included
the following information in its July
2019 SIP revision to address the
regulatory criteria for an alternative
program: 43
1. List of All BART-Eligible Sources
Within the State
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A),
the SIP must include a list of all BARTeligible sources within the State. Utah
included a list of BART-eligible sources
and noted the following sources are all
covered by the alternative program:
• PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 1
• PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 2
• PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 1
• PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 2
2. List of All BART-Eligible Sources and
All BART Source Categories Covered by
the Alternative Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B),
each BART-eligible source in the State
must be subject to the requirements of
the alternative program, have a federally
enforceable emission limitation
determined by the State and approved
by EPA as meeting BART, or be
otherwise addressed under paragraphs
42 States may address 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(v) at
their option.
43 See Staff Review.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51.308(e)(1) or (e)(4). In this instance,
the alternative program covers all the
BART-eligible sources in the state—
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington
Units 1 and 2—in addition to three nonBART units—PacifiCorp’s Hunter Unit 3
and Carbon Units 1 and 2.
3. Analysis of BART and Associated
Emission Reductions Achievable
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C),
the SIP must include an analysis of
BART and associated emission
reductions achievable at the subject-toBART units covered by the alternative
program, here Hunter Units 1 and 2 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2. In the July
2019 Utah RH SIP, the State compared
the Utah NOX BART Alternative to the
most stringent NOX controls, SCR plus
upgraded combustion controls, at the
four BART units, referred to here as the
BART Benchmark. This is consistent
with the BART determination made by
EPA in our July 2016 final rule.44
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions
Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51. 308(e)(2)(i)(D),
the SIP must include ‘‘[a]n analysis of
the projected emissions reductions
achievable through the . . . alternative
measure.’’ A summary of the State’s
estimates of emissions in tons per year
(tpy) for the Baseline, NOX BART
Alternative and the BART Benchmark is
provided in Table 2. A summary of the
emissions reductions based on those
emission estimates is presented in Table
3. The emissions and emission
reductions were projected for the year
44 In the July 2016 FIP, EPA determined these
same controls—SCR plus LNB/SOFA—constitute
BART for each of the four subject-to-BART units.
Utah’s July 2019 SIP submittal thus refers to the
BART Benchmark controls as the ‘‘EPA FIP’’; while
the controls represented by the BART Benchmark
and EPA’s FIP are indeed the same, the relevant
comparison for the purpose of this analysis is
between the BART Benchmark and the BART
alternative.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3566
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
2025 to align with the future year
modeling scenarios used to calculate
visibility benefits under the BART
Benchmark and BART Alternative, as
described in the section that follows.45
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED EMISSIONS IN 2025 UNDER THE BASELINE SCENARIO, BART BENCHMARK (BART BENCHMARK),
AND THE BART ALTERNATIVE 45
NOX
(tpy)
SO2
(tpy)
PM
(tpy)
Combined
Units
Baseline
BART
benchmark
BART
alt.
Baseline
BART
benchmark
BART
alt.
BART
benchmark
Baseline
BART
alt.
Baseline
BART
benchmark
Carbon 1 ..............................
Carbon 2 ..............................
Hunter 1 ...............................
Hunter 2 ...............................
Hunter 3 ...............................
Huntington 1 ........................
Huntington 2 ........................
1,312
1,977
6,380
6,092
6,530
5,944
5,816
1,312
1,977
796
798
6,530
793
753
0
0
3,166
3,028
4,490
3,147
3,366
2,286
3,528
2,535
2,531
1,204
2,380
12,308
2,286
3,528
1,153
1,408
1,230
1,254
1,201
0
0
1,153
1,408
1,230
1,254
1,201
120
183
733
717
531
517
1,033
120
183
733
717
531
517
1,033
0
0
733
717
531
517
1,033
3,718
5,688
9,648
9,340
8,265
8,841
19,157
3,718
5,688
2,682
2,923
8,291
2,564
2,987
0
0
5,052
5,153
6,251
4,918
5,600
Total .............................
34,051
12,959
17,197
26,772
12,060
6,246
3,834
3,834
3,531
64,657
28,853
26,974
TABLE 3—EPA SUMMARY OF 2025 PROJECTED EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVABLE WITH THE UTAH NOX BART
ALTERNATIVE AS COMPARED TO THE BART BENCHMARK
Combined emissions for all units
(tpy)
Description
NOX
BART Benchmark ............................................................................................
BART Alternative .............................................................................................
Emission Reduction (BART Benchmark Minus BART Alternative) 1 ...............
1A
12,959
17,197
¥4,238
PM
12,060
6,246
5,814
Combined
3,834
3,531
303
28,853
26,974
1,879
negative value indicates the BART Alternative results in more emissions of the specified pollutant in comparison to the BART Benchmark.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E),
the State must provide a determination
that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than BART
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise
based on the clear weight of evidence.
Utah noted that the Hunter,
Huntington, and Carbon plants are all
located within 40 miles of each other in
central Utah. Because of the close
proximity of the three plants, the
geographic distribution of emissions
will not be substantially different under
the alternative program. The combined
emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM are
1,879 tons/yr lower under the
alternative measure. However, the NOX
BART Alternative measure does not
result in greater emission reductions of
all pollutants—SO2 emissions are lower
by 5,814 tons/yr, PM are lower by 303
tons/yr, but NOX emissions are higher
by 4,238 tons/yr. Therefore, because the
NOX BART Alternative relies on SO2
reductions, and to a lesser extent PM
reductions, in lieu of NOX reductions,
Utah determined that greater reasonable
progress must be demonstrated through
the two-prong test based on dispersion
modeling in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or a
clear weight of evidence analysis. The
State chose to make this demonstration
in the July 3, 2019 submittal using the
two-prong test allowed for under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3). To evaluate the two
prongs, Utah relied on air quality
modeling performed by a contractor for
PacifiCorp using the Comprehensive Air
Quality Model with Extensions
(CAMx).46
The CAMx model is a photochemical
grid model that uses and produces
complex scientific data, including
emissions from all sources, with a
realistic representation of formation,
transport, and processes that cause
visibility degradation, estimating
downwind concentrations paired in
space and time. The EPA’s guidance
supports use of this particular model for
evaluation of visibility impacts from
sources or source categories, such as
application of the two-prong test under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).47 The CAMx model
simulates air quality over many
geographic scales and treats a wide
variety of inert and chemically active
pollutants, including ozone, PM,
inorganic and organic PM2.5/PM10, and
mercury and other toxics. CAMx also
has plume-in-grid and source
apportionment capabilities.48 CAMx has
a scientifically current treatment of
chemistry to simulate transformation of
emissions into visibility-impairing
particles of species such as ammonium
nitrate and ammonium sulfate, and is
often employed in large-scale modeling
when many sources of pollution and/or
long transport distances are involved.
Photochemical grid models like CAMx
45 Staff Review, Table 2, p. 12. Values rounded to
the nearest ton.
46 CAMx modeling software and User’s Guide are
available at https://www.camx.com/download/
default.aspx. CAMx version 6.10 was used for April
to December, and CAMx version 6.40 was used for
January to March.
47 Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating
Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5,
and Regional Haze, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park,
NC (November 2018). The main regional haze
section of the guidance is related to setting
reasonable progress goals. However, the guidance
methods may also be applicable to other regional
haze related modeling, including, but not limited
to, evaluation of visibility impacts from sources
and/or source sectors. See id. at 143–145. https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/O3-PMRH-Modeling_Guidance-2018.pdf. 40 CFR pt. 51,
app. Y: IV.D.5 (how to determine visibility impacts
from the BART determination); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)
(use of dispersion modeling for BART alternatives).
48 Photochemical Air Quality Modeling (https://
www.epa.gov/scram/photochemical-air-qualitymodeling). CAMx is a photochemical grid model,
which the EPA describes as follows: Photochemical
air quality models have become widely recognized
and routinely utilized tools for regulatory analysis
and attainment demonstrations by assessing the
effectiveness of control strategies. These
photochemical models are large-scale air quality
models that simulate the changes of pollutant
concentrations in the atmosphere using a set of
mathematical equations characterizing the chemical
and physical processes in the atmosphere. These
models are applied at multiple spatial scales,
including from local, regional, national and global.
5. A Determination That the Alternative
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than Would Be Achieved Through the
Installation and Operation of BART
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SO2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
include all emissions sources and have
realistic representation of formation,
transport, and removal processes of the
particulate matter that causes visibility
degradation. The use of the CAMx
model for analyzing potential
cumulative air quality impacts has been
well established: The model has been
used for previous visibility modeling
studies in the U.S., including SIPs.49
The modeling followed a modeling
protocol that was reviewed by the
EPA.50
The Western Air Quality Study
(WAQS) 51 developed and evaluated a
photochemical modeling platform for
calendar year 2011 52 for use in air
quality planning studies in the western
U.S. The modeling data sets, called the
‘‘WAQS 2011b platform,’’ are available
to the public and served as the starting
point for the CAMx modeling exercise.
The WAQS 2011b modeling included a
2025 future year scenario that was used
here to assess visibility impacts from the
Baseline, BART Benchmark, and NOX
BART Alternative emissions scenarios.
Because regional haze is affected by
natural and anthropogenic emissions
from international sources, the WAQS
2011b modeling platform used a series
of nested model simulations from the
global to the regional scale. Global scale
modeling was performed by the
National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) using the Model for
OZone And Related chemical Tracers
(MOZART).53 The WAQS 2011b used
boundary concentrations data from the
NCAR MOZART simulation to perform
regional scale CAMx simulations using
a coarse grid 36x36 km grid resolution
for a model domain that included most
of North America, a nested 12x12 km
grid for a model domain that included
all of the western U.S., and a fine scale
49 See, e.g., 84 FR 22711 (May 20, 2019) (Final
action for the Laramie River Station in the Regional
Haze Plan for Wyoming); 82 FR 46903 (October 10,
2017) (Final action for the Coronado Generating
Station in the Regional Haze Plan for Arizona); 81
FR 296 (January 5, 2016) (Final action for Texas and
Oklahoma Regional Haze Plans).
50 Photochemical Modeling Protocol to Assess
Visibility Impacts for PacifiCorp Power Plants
Located in Utah. AECOM Environment, January
2018.
51 Memorandum: Recommendations on Use of
Intermountain West Data Warehouse for Air Quality
2011b Model Platform. Intermountain West Data
Warehouse—Western Air Quality Study Oversight
Committee. July 6, 2016. Available https://
views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/Attachments/
Modeling/IWDW-WAQS_2011b_ModelingPlatform_
Release_Memo%20July6_2016final.pdf.
52 ‘‘Western Air Quality Modeling Study
Photochemical Grid Model Final Model
Performance Evaluation’’, available in the docket
and at: https://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/
Attachments/Modeling/WAQS_Base11b_MPE_
Final.pdf.
53 The MOZART model formulation is described
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOZART_.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
4x4 grid for a model domain that
included the intermountain west region.
The three nested CAMx modeling
domains are illustrated in Figure 3.1 of
WAQS 2011b model evaluation
report.54
The PacifiCorp CAMx modeling was
based on the WAQS 2011b 4x4 grid
modeling domain, but PacifiCorp
initially used a smaller modeling
domain designed to focus on the nine
Class I areas within 300 km of the
Hunter and Huntington BART sources
that had been used in previous Utah
DEQ CALPUFF modeling.55 In response
to comments from the EPA Region 8,
PacifiCorp expanded the size of their
proposed 4x4 km grid modeling domain
to ensure that air parcel trajectories
would remain within the model domain
as they were transported from the BART
sources to the nine Class I areas. The
expanded PacifiCorp 4x4 km model
domain included 15 Class I areas, as
shown in Figure 6 of the Utah DEQ staff
report.56 While some Class I areas are
more than 300 km from the BART
sources, CAMx is accurate for long
range transport and has been used by
the EPA for analysis of long range
transport of ozone and fine particulates
at distances greater than 1,000 km. For
completeness, the EPA recommended
that PacifiCorp evaluate model results
for all 15 Class I areas in the CAMx
modeling domain.
The EPA provides guidance for the
use of photochemical grid models such
as CAMx for evaluating source
contributions to regional haze. Because
this notice addresses requirements for
BART sources as part of the first
regional haze planning period, the
model results are being evaluated using
procedures designed specifically for
these requirements as outlined in the
RHR and in a EPA Guidance published
in 2007.57 The RHR, 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3), requires that greater
reasonable progress demonstrations for
BART alternatives be evaluated for the
best and worst 20% total haze days,
which are selected for Class I areas
using data from the IMPROVE
monitoring network.58 The IMPROVE
54 Id.
56, p. 5.
applications using CALPUFF for BART
sources typically—but not in all cases—have
included Class I areas only up to a distance 300 km
because uncertainty in CALPUFF results increases
at distances greater than 300 km.
56 Staff Review, Figure 6, p. 18.
57 Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals
Under the Regional Haze Program, available at:
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/
collection/cp2/20070601_wehrum_reasonable_
progress_goals_reghaze.pdf.
58 The IMPROVE monitoring network is described
at: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/improveprogram/.
55 Model
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3567
network consists of 110 monitoring sites
designed to measure visibility
impairment at the 155 mandatory Class
I areas. While not all Class I areas have
an IMPROVE monitor, the network was
designed so that, where needed,
measurements of one monitor would be
representative of the regional haze
conditions at more than one nearby
Class I area.59
Because models can be subject to bias
and error in the simulation of the
individual components of PM2.5 that
contribute to regional haze, the EPA
guidance recommends that
photochemical model results be used by
multiplying the model simulated change
in each component of PM2.5 by the PM2.5
concentration measured by the
IMPROVE monitoring network. The
EPA has developed software, the
Speciated Model Attainment Test
(SMAT), that can be used to calculate
the model relative response factor (RRF)
for each PM2.5 species in an emissions
control simulation compared to a base
case simulation, and to multiply the
model RRF by the observed IMPROVE
PM2.5 concentrations for a five year
period at the representative monitor for
each Class I area.
As described in the model
performance evaluation report for the
WAQS 2011b platform, the model
generally performed well at most sites
in the western U.S. However, CAMx
was biased low for ammonia and
ammonium nitrate at some sites on the
Colorado Plateau, i.e., CAMx predicted
lower concentrations of ammonia and
ammonium nitrate than were measured
at some monitoring sites. Because model
predictions for ammonium nitrate at
these sites are directly relevant to the
comparison of the ammonium nitrateand ammonium sulfate-related visibility
benefits of the BART and BART
Alternative scenarios, the EPA
recommended that PacifiCorp perform
additional model sensitivity simulations
and performance evaluation to improve
model performance for ammonia and
ammonium nitrate on the Colorado
Plateau. The EPA recommended that
ammonia concentration be increased at
the northern boundary of the model
domain, located in the Salt Lake City
area. Previous winter PM2.5 modeling
studies performed by Utah DEQ found
that winter ammonia emissions were
underestimated in the Cache Valley in
northern UT, and that model
performance for ammonium nitrate
improved when ammonia emissions
59 The use of a representative IMPROVE monitor
for groups of nearby Class I areas is described at:
https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/wp-content/
uploads/2016/04/Chapter1.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3568
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
were increased so that the modelsimulated ammonia matched observed
ammonia concentrations. For the
sensitivity study, PacifiCorp used the
Utah DEQ winter PM2.5 model results to
define the ammonia concentrations at
the northern boundary of the PacifiCorp
modeling domain. Additionally, the
EPA recommended changes to a model
parameter that affects ammonia dry
deposition to surfaces.60
PacifiCorp adopted both of these
recommendations and performed a new
base case model simulation and
performance evaluation. This resulted
in substantial improvements in model
performance for ammonia and
ammonium nitrate on the Colorado
Plateau. Because the new base case
model more accurately simulates the
observed ammonia and ammonium
nitrate concentrations, it is also
expected to provide more accurate
predictions of the visibility benefits of
changes in NOX emissions for the EPA
BART Benchmark and Utah NOX BART
Alternative. These model results are
described in Appendix A of the Utah
DEQ Staff Review. The revised base case
model configuration was then used for
the 2011 Typical Year model
simulation, the 2025 Baseline model
simulation, and for the 2025 BART
Benchmark and 2025 Utah NOX BART
Alternative model simulations,
described below.
Using the WAQS 2011b platform,
CAMx was configured to simulate the
following modeling scenarios:
• 2011 Typical Year. This 2011
scenario allows for the development of
RRFs that are applied to observed
concentrations in order to predict future
visibility conditions. The Carbon,
Hunter and Huntington power plants
were modeled at levels representative of
the period 2001 to 2003, while all other
sources remain at the levels of the 2011
WAQS base year simulation.
• 2025 Baseline. Emissions from
Carbon, Hunter and Huntington are
identical to the Typical Year modeling
Scenario (i.e., 2001–2003). All other
emissions sources remain at the levels
of the 2025 WAQS future-year
simulation.
60 In an email dated 9/26/2017, Chris Emery of
Ramboll, the developer of the CAMx model,
identified an error in the model settings that caused
it to overestimate the deposition and removal of gas
phase ammonia in the model. The default model
configuration included a setting that specified zero
surface resistance to ammonia deposition which
tends to overestimate ammonia deposition to
surfaces and to underestimate the ambient
concentrations of ammonia and ammonium nitrate.
Mr. Emery recommended changing the model
configuration to include surface resistance to
ammonia deposition.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
• BART Benchmark. This 2025
scenario represents the BART
Benchmark and simulates the emission
control strategy for Hunter and
Huntington units required in the 2016
FIP. Specifically, emissions for the four
BART units reflect a 30-day rolling
average NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu consistent with the installation
and operation of SCR plus upgraded
combustion controls. SO2 emissions for
the Hunter and Huntington units reflect
representative emissions from 2014–
2016 in order to match the BART
Alternative scenario. The BART
Benchmark scenario also includes the
Carbon power plant using the same
level of emissions as the Baseline
scenario (i.e., 2001–2003). All other
emissions sources remain at the levels
of the 2025 WAQS future-year
simulation.
• Utah NOX BART Alternative. This
2025 scenario simulates the emission
control strategy for Carbon, Hunter and
Huntington units required by the BART
Alternative SIP as represented in Table
2 above. This scenario simulates
representative emissions of NOX and
SO2 from Hunter and Huntington units
during the period 2014 to 2016, which
include the emissions controls required
under the Alternative (i.e., the upgraded
combustion controls). For this scenario,
the Carbon power plant emissions were
zero since the power plant was
decommissioned in April 2015, as
required under the Alternative. All
other emissions sources remain at the
levels of the 2025 WAQS future-year
simulation.
All other model inputs, including
other regional emissions sources, were
held constant for the future-year
(Baseline, BART Benchmark, and BART
Alternative) scenarios. Thus, any
differences in the visibility impacts
between the modeled control scenarios
and the Baseline, and between the two
control scenarios (i.e., BART and the
BART Alternative), are attributable
solely to differences in the associated
emission inputs for the seven PacifiCorp
units. The CAMx-modeled
concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, and
other chemical species were tracked for
the Hunter, Huntington, and Carbon
power plants using the CAMx
Particulate Source Apportionment
Technology (PSAT) so that the
concentrations and visibility impacts
due to the seven PacifiCorp units could
be separated out from those due to the
total of all other modeled sources.
Visibility impacts were assessed at the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
15 Class I areas contained inside of the
modeling domain.61 62
The visibility impacts derived from
the CAMx modeling results are
summarized in Tables 4 and 5 of this
notice.63 The tables show the projected
contribution to visibility impairment
due to emissions from the seven EGUs
covered by the Alternative on the 20
percent best days and worst days
respectively for the Baseline, the BART
Benchmark, and the proposed BART
Alternative scenarios at each of the
Class I areas analyzed. The last two
columns show the predicted visibility
benefits from the BART Alternative
scenario relative to both the Baseline
and the BART Benchmark. At the
bottom of each table are the average
visibility values from all the Class I
areas. Negative values in the last two
columns indicate that the BART
Alternative has smaller modeled
contributions to visibility impairment
relative to the Baseline and the BART
Benchmark.
Column D in Table 4 shows that
emissions from the seven EGUs under
the BART Alternative will not result in
degradation of visibility on the 20
percent best days compared to the
Baseline at any one of the 15 Class I
areas. Similarly, Column D in Table 5
shows that, on the 20 percent worst
days, visibility impairment is less under
the BART Alternative than the Baseline
in each of the Class I areas. Based on
these results, the State concluded that
visibility does not decline at any of the
15 Class I areas and therefore the BART
Alternative meets prong 1 of the
‘‘greater reasonable progress using
dispersion modeling’’ test found in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3).
The State next made a determination
that the BART Alternative meets prong
2 of the ‘‘greater reasonable progress
using dispersion modeling’’ test found
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) by comparing the
average difference between the BART
Alternative and the BART Benchmark.
61 Staff Review, pp. 17–18. Specifically, see
rectangular CAMx modeling domain with 4kilometer grid resolution in Figure 4–1.
62 By contrast, in the CALPUFF modeling
supporting EPA’s 2016 FIP, visibility impacts were
assessed for the nine Class I areas within 300
kilometers of the BART units. The rectangular
CAMx modeling domain was designed to be large
enough to include these nine Class I areas and to
include air parcel trajectories from those sources to
the Class I areas. In response to EPA Region 8
comments on a draft modeling protocol, the
rectangular CAMx model domain was expanded
further to the east, north and south to ensure that
emissions from the sources would remain within
the model domain as they were transported from
the sources to the affected Class I areas. For
completeness, results for all Class I areas located
within the rectangular CAMx domain were
included in the analysis.
63 Staff Review, pp. 16–21.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The last row of column E in Tables 4
and 5 show the average difference in
visibility between the BART Alternative
and the BART Benchmark for the 20
percent best and worst days
respectively. The negative number
indicates that the average visibility
improvement of the BART Alternative is
better than the BART Benchmark in
both cases. Relative to the BART
Benchmark, the BART Alternative
achieves an average visibility
improvement of 0.00494 dv across all
Class I areas on the 20 percent best days,
and of 0.00058 dv on the 20 percent
worst days. Therefore, Utah determined
that the BART Alternative meets prong
2 of the 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) test.
Utah noted that the language in 40
CFR 51.308(e)(3)(i) and (ii) indicates
allowance of a straight numerical test.
The State explained that the regulation
does not specify that a minimum
difference in deciview between the
scenarios must be achieved to determine
that a BART Alternative achieves greater
3569
reasonable progress. Because the
modeling results show that visibility
under the BART Alternative does not
decline at any of the 15 affected Class
I areas compared to the Baseline (prong
1) and will result in improved visibility,
on average, across all 15 Class I areas
compared to the BART Benchmark
(prong 2), Utah asserted that the BART
Alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress than the BART
Benchmark under the two-prong
modeling test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
TABLE 4—VISIBILITY IMPACTS IN 2025 FOR THE BASELINE, BART BENCHMARK AND BART ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ON
THE 20 PERCENT BEST DAYS 64
Class I area
Arches NP ............................................................................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison NM .....................................
Bryce Canyon NP ................................................................
Canyonlands NP ..................................................................
Capitol Reef NP ...................................................................
Flat Tops WA .......................................................................
Grand Canyon NP ...............................................................
La Garita WA .......................................................................
Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA ..............................................
Mesa Verde NP ...................................................................
Mount Zirkel WA ..................................................................
San Pedro Parks WA ...........................................................
Weminuche WA ...................................................................
West Elk WA ........................................................................
Zion NP 1 ..............................................................................
All Class I area Average ......................................................
1 Results
Baseline
(dv)
BART
Benchmark
(dv)
BART
alternative
(dv)
BART
alternative—
baseline
BART
alternative—
BART
benchmark
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[E]
0.10300
0.02769
0.00528
0.10300
0.14218
0.02834
0.07136
0.02769
0.02834
0.06356
0.04209
0.03627
0.02769
0.02834
0.00612
0.04940
0.05607
0.01611
0.00254
0.05607
0.07222
0.01488
0.03567
0.01611
0.01488
0.03381
0.02060
0.01742
0.01611
0.01488
0.00291
0.02602
0.03851
0.01162
0.00228
0.03851
0.07140
0.01115
0.03611
0.01162
0.01115
0.02749
0.01471
0.01593
0.01162
0.01115
0.00300
0.02108
¥0.06449
¥0.01607
¥0.00300
¥0.06449
¥0.07078
¥0.01719
¥0.03525
¥0.01607
¥0.01719
¥0.03607
¥0.02738
¥0.02034
¥0.01607
¥0.01719
¥0.00312
N/A
¥0.01756
¥0.00449
¥0.00026
¥0.01756
¥0.00082
¥0.00373
0.00044
¥0.00449
¥0.00373
¥0.00632
¥0.00589
¥0.00149
¥0.00449
¥0.00373
0.00009
¥0.00494
based on incomplete dataset. Zion NP monitor did not meet the 75% data completion SMAT requirement for year 2011.
TABLE 5—VISIBILITY IMPACTS IN 2025 FOR THE BASELINE, BART BENCHMARK, AND BART ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS ON
THE 20 PERCENT WORST DAYS 65
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Class I area
Arches NP ............................................................................
Black Canyon of the Gunnison NM .....................................
Bryce Canyon NP ................................................................
Canyonlands NP ..................................................................
Capitol Reef NP ...................................................................
Flat Tops WA .......................................................................
Grand Canyon NP ...............................................................
La Garita WA .......................................................................
Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA ..............................................
Mesa Verde NP ...................................................................
Mount Zirkel WA ..................................................................
San Pedro Parks WA ...........................................................
Weminuche WA ...................................................................
West Elk WA ........................................................................
Zion NP1 ..............................................................................
All Class I area Average ......................................................
1 Results
Baseline
(dv)
BART
Benchmark
(dv)
BART
alternative
(dv)
BART
alternative—
baseline
BART
alternative—
BART
benchmark
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
[E]
0.25740
0.01265
0.04945
0.25740
0.26010
0.02703
0.00186
0.01265
0.02703
0.06203
0.03312
0.00154
0.01265
0.02703
0.00155
0.06957
0.13780
0.00682
0.02184
0.13780
0.11672
0.01387
0.00089
0.00682
0.01387
0.02524
0.01705
0.00074
0.00682
0.01387
0.00051
0.03471
0.12584
0.00540
0.02470
0.12584
0.14568
0.01011
0.00056
0.00540
0.01011
0.02959
0.01198
0.00073
0.00540
0.01011
0.00051
0.03413
¥0.13156
¥0.00725
¥0.02475
¥0.13156
¥0.11442
¥0.01692
¥0.00130
¥0.00725
¥0.01692
¥0.03244
¥0.02114
¥0.00081
¥0.00725
¥0.01692
¥0.00104
N/A
based on incomplete dataset. Zion NP monitor did not meet the 75% data completion SMAT requirement for year 2011.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
¥0.01196
¥0.00142
0.00286
¥0.01196
0.02896
¥0.00376
¥0.00033
¥0.00142
¥0.00376
0.00435
¥0.00507
¥0.00001
¥0.00142
¥0.00376
0.00000
¥0.00058
3570
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
6. Requirement That Emission
Reductions Take Place During Period of
First Long-Term Strategy
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii),
the State must ensure that all necessary
emission reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze. The RHR further
provides that, ‘‘[t]o meet this
requirement, the State must provide a
detailed description of the . . .
alternative measure, including
schedules for implementation, the
emission reductions required by the
program, all necessary administrative
and technical procedures for
implementing the program, rules for
accounting and monitoring emissions,
and procedures for enforcement.’’ 66
As noted above, the December 3, 2019
supplement includes revisions to R307–
110–17, the State rule that in turn
incorporates Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part H, Emissions Limits, which
includes provisions for implementing
the Utah NOX BART Alternative. In
addition to the emission limitations for
NOX and PM at Hunter and
Huntington 67 and the requirement for
shutdown of the Carbon Plant listed in
Table 1 above (which the State notes
was made enforceable by August 15,
2015), the SIP submission includes
compliance dates, operation and
maintenance requirements, and MRR
requirements. Utah asserts that the
alternative measure was fully
implemented prior to 2018.
7. Demonstration That Emissions
Reductions From Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv),
the SIP must demonstrate that the
emissions reductions resulting from the
alternative measure will be surplus to
those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the
SIP. The baseline date for regional haze
SIPs is 2002.68 Utah developed the 2002
baseline inventory in its 2008 RH SIP
for regional modeling, evaluating the
impact on Class I areas outside of the
Colorado Plateau, and BART as outlined
in the EPA Guidance and the BART
Guidelines, issued on July 6, 2005. Utah
noted that 2002 is the baseline
inventory that was used by other states
throughout the country when evaluating
BART under the provisions of 40 CFR
51.308 and that any measure adopted
after 2002 is considered ‘‘surplus’’
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). Utah
referenced other EPA actions that are
consistent with this interpretation.69
Utah stated that the BART Benchmark
scenario includes measures required
before the baseline date of the SIP (i.e.,
2002) but does not include later
measures that are credited as part of the
BART Alternative scenario.
Utah explained that, to address
potential concerns with double counting
SO2 emission reductions from the
Carbon plant closure under both the 308
and 309 programs, the July 2019 SIP
submission includes revisions to the
applicability provisions of State Rule
State Rule R307–150, Emission
Inventories, to prevent double counting.
Utah also provided explanation why the
emission reductions counted towards
the NOX BART Alternative are surplus
to those needed to satisfy the
requirements of the SO2 Backstop
Trading Program.70 The State explained
that the WRAP modeling done to
support the Utah RH backstop trading
program SIP included regional SO2
emissions based on the 2018 SO2
milestone and also included NOX and
PM emissions from the Carbon plant.
Actual emissions in the three-state
region (Utah, Wyoming, and New
Mexico) are calculated each year and
compared to the milestones. Utah
provided the information in Table 6
below to show that since 2011, SO2
emissions in the three-state region have
been below the 2018 milestone (141,849
tpy). Utah noted that the most recent
milestone report for 2016 demonstrates
that SO2 emissions are currently 36
percent lower than the 2018 milestone.
Utah stated that the Carbon plant was
fully operational in the years 2011–2013
when the 2018 milestone was initially
achieved for those years. The State
noted that the SO2 emission reductions
from the closure of the Carbon plant are
surplus to what is needed to meet the
2018 milestone established in Utah’s RH
SIP.
TABLE 6—SO2 MILESTONE TRENDS 71
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
1 The
Three-year
average SO2
emissions 1
(tpy)
Carbon plant
SO2 emissions
(tpy)
214,780
223,584
220,987
218,499
203,569
186,837
165,633
146,808
130,935
115,115
105,084
96,302
91,310
90,591
..........................
..........................
5,488
5,642
5,410
6,779
6,511
5,057
5,494
7,462
7,740
8,307
7,702
9,241
2,816
0
..........................
..........................
Milestone
(tpy)
Year
303,264
303,264
303,264
303,264
303,264
269,083
234,903
200,722
200,722
200,722
185,795
170,868
155,940
155,940
155,940
141,849
three-year average is based on the emissions averaged for the current and two preceding years.
64 Staff
Review, Table 4, p. 19.
Review, Table 5, p. 20.
66 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
67 EPA previously approved the BART PM
emission limits in our July 2016 final rule. 81 FR
43894 (July 5, 2016).
65 Staff
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
68 See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and
Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory
SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
Programs (Nov. 18, 2002), available at https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
20021118_wegman_2002_base_year_emission_sip_
planning.pdf.
69 E.g., 79 FR 33438, 33441–33442 (June 11,
2014); 79 FR 56322, 56328 (Sept. 9, 2014).
70 Staff Review at 23–25.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
For Hunter Unit 3, Utah also
explained that PacifiCorp upgraded the
LNB controls in 2008 and that the
upgrade was not required under any
applicable requirements of the CAA as
of the 2002 baseline date of the SIP; the
emission reductions from the upgrade
are therefore considered surplus and
creditable for the BART Alternative
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). Utah
noted that prior to the 2008 upgrade, the
emission rate for Hunter Unit 3 was 0.46
lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average as
required by Phase II of the Acid Rain
Program.72
To address potential concerns that
Utah would be double counting SO2
emissions reductions for the Carbon
plant closure under both the 40 CFR
51.308 and 309 programs, the July 2019
SIP revisions require that the State
continue to report the historical
emissions for the Carbon plant in the
annual milestone reports. Specifically,
revisions to the applicability provisions
of State rule R307–150 (‘‘Emission
Inventories Program’’) require that Utah
include emissions of 8,005 tons/yr 73 of
SO2 for the Carbon Power Plant in the
annual milestone reports.
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and
Reporting
To address EPA’s partial disapproval
of the 2011 Utah RH SIP for lack of
enforceable measures and MRR
requirements,74 in 2015 Utah added two
new subsections to SIP Sections IX,
H.21 (General Requirements: Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Emission Limits and Operating
Practices, Regional Haze Requirements)
and H.22 (Source Specific Emission
Limitations: Regional Haze
Requirements, Best Available Retrofit
Technology).
Specifically, to remedy the SIP’s lack
of provisions for ensuring that emission
71 Staff
Review, p 24.
is an error on page 25 of the Staff Review.
The reference to Hunter Unit 2 should be Unit 3
based on the section heading as well as confirmed
emission limits in Utah Approval Order DAQE–
AN0102370012–08.
73 Note that this value is based on the 2012–2013
actual annual average SO2 emissions for the Carbon
power plant as used in Utah’s June 4, 2015 SIP
submission. By contrast, Utah’s July 3, 2019 SIP
submission uses a consistent baseline for Hunter,
Huntington and Carbon based on actual annual
average emissions from 2001–2003 when the SO2
emissions for Carbon were 5,814 tons/year. That is,
the revisions to the SO2 milestone reporting
requirements attribute a greater amount of tons of
SO2 to the Carbon plant than the State assumed will
be reduced from the plant’s retirement, for purposes
of making the demonstration that the BART
Alternative achieves greater reasonable progress
than BART. As such, Utah’s analysis of its
compliance with the SO2 milestone as well as its
demonstration of greater reasonable progress for the
BART Alternative are both conservative.
74 77 FR 28825, 28842 (May 16, 2012).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
72 There
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
limits are practically enforceable, under
H.21 Utah added a new definition for
boiler operating day. Utah noted that
state rules R307–107–1 and R307–107–
2 (applicability, timing, and reporting of
breakdowns) apply to sources subject to
regional haze requirements under H.22.
Utah required that information used to
determine compliance shall be recorded
for all periods when the source is in
operation, and that such records shall be
kept for a minimum of five years. Under
H.21, Utah specified that emission
limitations listed in H.22 shall apply at
all times and identified stack testing
requirements to show compliance with
those emission limitations. Finally, H.21
also specifies the requirements for
continuous emission monitoring by
listing the requirements and crossreferencing the State’s rule for
continuous emission monitoring system
requirements, R307–170, as well as 40
CFR 13 75 and 40 CFR 60, appendix B—
Performance Specifications. Utah
included the requirements to calculate
hourly average NOX concentrations for
any hour in which fuel is combusted
and a new 30-day rolling average
emission rate at the end of each boiler
operating day. Utah also noted that the
hourly average NOX emission rate is
valid only if the minimum number of
data points specified in R307–170 is
acquired for both the pollutant
concentration monitor and diluent
monitor.
Under H.22, Utah provided the
emission limitations associated with the
NOX BART Alternative and PM BART
for Hunter Units 1 through 3 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2, a requirement
to perform annual stack testing for PM,
and a requirement to measure NOX via
continuous emission monitoring for the
sources covered under the Utah NOX
BART Alternative. Under H.22, Utah
also listed the enforceable conditions
related to closing Carbon Units 1 and 2
by August 15, 2015, including
PacifiCorp’s and Utah’s notification and
permit rescission obligations.
In our 2016 final rule, EPA approved
subsection H.21 and H.22 as they
pertain to PM BART, including
conditional approval of the reporting
requirements. We did not act on the
elements of those subsections relating to
the NOX BART Alternative, as EPA
disapproved the Alternative in that
action. Utah resubmitted subsections
H.21 and H.22 as part of their July 3,
2019 SIP submittal. In its December 3,
2019 supplemental submission, to
address the issue implicated in the
conditional approval, under H.21(e)
75 This appears to be a typo, and the correct
reference should be to 40 CFR 60.13.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3571
Utah required each source to submit a
report of any deviation from applicable
emission limits and operating practices,
including deviations attributable to
upset conditions, the probable cause of
such deviations, and any corrective
actions or preventive measures taken.
D. Consultation With FLMs
Utah’s SIP submittals do not
specifically discuss how it addressed
the requirements of 40 CFR 308(i)(2) for
providing the FLMs with an opportunity
for consultation at least 60 days prior to
holding the public hearing for the July
2019 RH SIP. However, we are aware
that Utah consulted with the FLMs as
explained in section IV.D, and the
relevant exchange is included in the
docket for this action.
IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Approval of Utah’s Regional Haze SIP
A. Basis for Proposed Approval
For the reasons described below, EPA
proposes to approve the Utah 2019 RH
SIP revisions. Our proposed action is
based on an evaluation of Utah’s
regional haze SIP submittals against the
regional haze requirements at 40 CFR
51.300–51.309 and CAA sections 169A
and 169B. The revisions were also
evaluated against the general SIP
requirements contained in CAA section
110, other provisions of the CAA, and
our regulations applicable to this action.
The EPA proposes to approve these SIP
revisions as meeting the relevant CAA
requirements. Where appropriate, we
provide additional rationale to
supplement to the state’s analysis and to
support our conclusions below.
B. Demonstration of Greater Reasonable
Progress for the Alternative Program
As provided under 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii), Utah has opted to
establish an alternative measure (or
program) for NOX emissions from the
four subject-to-BART units in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). A
description of the Utah NOX BART
Alternative is provided above in section
III.A.1. The RHR requires that a SIP
revision establishing a BART alternative
meet three key requirements (in
addition to other elements in section
308(e)(2)) as listed below. We have
evaluated the Utah NOX BART
Alternative with respect to each of these
requirements.
• A demonstration that the emissions
trading program or other alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable
progress than would have resulted from
the installation and operation of BART
at all sources subject to BART in the
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3572
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
State and covered by the alternative
program.76
• A requirement that all necessary
emissions reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze.77
• A demonstration that the emissions
reductions resulting from the alternative
measure will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures
adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.78
As discussed above in section II.C,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i), Utah
must demonstrate that the alternative
measure will achieve greater reasonable
progress than would have resulted from
the installation and operation of BART
at all sources subject to BART in the
State and covered by the alternative
program. This demonstration has five
parts, each of which is addressed in the
July 2019 SIP submittal, including the
Staff Review support document.
1. List of All BART-Eligible Sources
Within the State
As discussed above in section III.B.1,
Utah included a list of all BART-eligible
sources:
• PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 1
• PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 2
• PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 1
• PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 2
EPA previously approved Utah’s
BART eligibility determinations in our
2012 rulemaking,79 and we are now
proposing that this same list satisfies the
requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2. List of All BART-Eligible Sources and
All BART Source Categories Covered by
the Alternative Program
As discussed above in section III.B.2,
the Utah NOX BART Alternative covers
all of the BART-eligible sources in the
State, Hunter Units 1 and 2 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2, in addition
to three non-BART units, PacifiCorp’s
Hunter Unit 3 and Carbon Units 1 and
2. We propose that Utah has satisfied
the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
3. Analysis of BART and Associated
Emission Reductions
As noted above in section III.B.3, in
the July 2019 Utah RH SIP submittal,
the State compared the Utah NOX BART
Alternative to a BART Benchmark that
included the most stringent NOX BART
controls, SCR plus upgraded
combustion controls, at the four BART
76 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
78 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
79 77 FR 74355, 74357 (Dec. 14, 2012).
units. While the State explicitly noted
that it was not determining that SCR
plus upgraded combustion controls
would constitute source-specific BART
at the four subject-to-BART units, it
explained that this technology ‘‘can be
used as a stringent benchmark for
comparison with an alternative
program’’ and it is ‘‘a conservative
approach.’’ 80 We are proposing to find
that this is a reasonable approach to
setting the BART Benchmark for
purposes of comparison to a BART
alternative program, and is consistent
with the streamlined approach
described in Step 1 of the BART
Guidelines. The BART Guidelines note
that a comprehensive BART analysis
can be forgone if a source adopts the
most stringent controls available for the
purpose of implementing BART.81
Moreover, when EPA established NOX
BART in our 2016 FIP, we also selected
SCR plus upgraded combustion controls
(with an emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu as a 30-day rolling average),
which further reinforces the
reasonableness of Utah’s decision to
treat the most stringent controls as the
BART Benchmark.
Utah then used modeling projections
for the year 2025 to determine the
associated emission reductions that
would result under the BART
Benchmark. These results are provided
above in Table 2 of this notice. The EPA
proposes to find that the methodology
Utah used to develop the projection of
emissions under the BART Benchmark
is reasonable because it reflects the most
stringent control option.
We propose to find that Utah has met
the requirement for an analysis of BART
and associated emission reductions
achievable at Hunter Units 1 and 2 and
Huntington Units 1 and 2 under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions
Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
Utah’s NOX BART Alternative
consists of the following enforceable
measures:
• A NOX emission limit of 0.26 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) each for
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington 1
and 2.
• A NOX emission limit of 0.34 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for
Hunter Unit 3.
• A requirement to permanently close
and cease operation of the Carbon
power plant by August 15, 2015.
As discussed above in section III.B.4,
a summary of Utah’s estimates of
77 40
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
80 Staff
81 40
PO 00000
Review at 12.
CFR 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.1.9.
emissions for the Utah NOX BART
Alternative and the BART Benchmark is
provided above in Table 2. Note that the
values in Table 2 differ from the
analogous table in our 2016 proposed
rule 82 for the following reasons. First, in
addition to the BART Benchmark and
BART Alternative, the table now
includes projections for the Baseline
emissions scenario. All three of these
projected 2025 scenarios relate to the
CAMx modeling used to demonstrate
that the BART Alternative will achieve
greater progress than BART under the
two-prong test of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), as
discussed in sections III.B.5 and IV.B.5
of this notice. The 2025 Baseline is used
in the first prong of the two-prong test
to demonstrate that visibility under the
BART Alternative does not decline at
any of the 15 affected Class I areas.
Second, to ensure that the selection of
baseline emissions does not bias the
determination of whether the BART
Alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress, the projected emissions for all
three 2025 scenarios are calculated from
a consistent baseline of 2001–2003 for
all BART-eligible and non-BART units
covered by the BART Alternative. That
is, when establishing emission
assumptions for the 2011 Typical Year
modeling scenario, annual emission
rates for the seven units were set equal
to 2001–2003 actual average emissions,
and these annual emission rates were
then projected to 2025 to reflect the
NOX controls anticipated under each
future year scenario. Note that although
the 2025 Baseline scenario is a
projection of 2025 emissions for all
other sources in the modeling domain,
the Baseline emissions for the seven
units in Table 2 reflect 2001–2003
emissions. This approach was chosen so
that the 2025 Baseline reflects emissions
at the subject-to-BART units at the
Hunter and Hunter power plants prior
to the installation of any controls or
other measures intended to meet BART
requirements. Finally, the 2001–2003
baseline period also aligns with that
used by EPA in our evaluation of BART
under the FIP in our 2016 final rule.
Relative to the 2025 Baseline, the
BART Benchmark and BART
Alternative include actual SO2
reductions from Hunter and Huntington
that occurred after the 2001–2003
baseline due to scrubber upgrades.
Thus, the CAMx modeling results for
the BART Benchmark and BART
Alternative shown in Tables 4 and 5 of
this notice reflect these SO2 reductions.
The treatment of these SO2 reductions
in the modeling does not affect the
determination of greater reasonable
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82 Table
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
3; 81 FR 2015.
22JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
progress under the two-prong test.
Under prong 1, while the SO2
reductions from Hunter and Huntington
increase the apparent overall visibility
benefit of the BART Alternative relative
to the Baseline, there would not be an
anticipated decline in visibility relative
to the Baseline in the absence of those
SO2 reductions from Hunter and
Huntington because the BART
Alternative would still result in overall
NOX, SO2, and PM emissions decreases
compared to the Baseline. Under prong
2, because the SO2 reductions from
Hunter and Huntington are equal under
the BART Alternative and BART
Benchmark, they do not advantage
either control scenario. Accordingly, the
EPA proposes to find that the
methodology Utah used to develop the
modeling scenarios, including the
projection of emissions under the Utah
NOX BART Alternative, is reasonable
and that Utah has met the requirement
for an analysis of the projected
emissions reductions achievable
through the alternative measure under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
5. Determination That the Alternative
Achieves Greater Reasonable Progress
Than Would Be Achieved Through the
Installation and Operation of BART
As discussed above in section III.B.5,
Utah used CAMx modeling to assess
whether the NOX BART alternative will
achieve greater reasonable progress than
the BART Benchmark under the twoprong quantitative test provided for in
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(i) and (ii). The
CAMx modeling results in Tables 4 and
5 show both prongs of the two-prong
test are satisfied: Visibility does not
decline in any Class I area under the
BART Alternative relative to the
Baseline on both the 20% best or 20%
worst days, and the average visibility
improvement across all affected Class I
areas is greater under the BART
Alternative than under the BART
Benchmark. EPA reviewed the CAMx
protocol before the modeling was
undertaken. PacifiCorp revised the
modeling methods and assumptions to
address EPA’s concerns. Notably, as
discussed above in section III.B.5,
PacifiCorp revised the ammonia
emission inventory and related input
parameters to improve the model’s
ability to simulate ammonia and
ammonium nitrate concentrations on
the Colorado Plateau, thus also
improving the model’s ability to
estimate visibility impacts resulting
from NOX emissions. In addition, the
analysis was expanded to assess all 15
class I areas in the modeling domain.
As noted above, Utah submitted the
same proposed NOX BART Alternative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
in its June 2015 submission under the
qualitative clear-weight-of-evidence test
in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). In July
2016, EPA determined that, based on
the weight-of-evidence demonstration
before us at that time, Utah had not
demonstrated that the BART Alternative
resulted in greater visibility
improvement than would BART.
However, as noted by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, under
EPA’s interpretation of its regulations a
state can choose either the quantitative
tests (as applicable) in 51.308(e)(3) or
the qualitative test in
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).83 We believe it
follows that a reasonable interpretation
of our regulatory scheme allows for a
situation in which certain evidence
would not be sufficient to make a
showing under one ‘‘better-than-BART’’
test, but different evidence could
support that showing under a separate
test. That is, we believe that just because
a certain set of evidence failed to show
that a BART alternative would achieve
greater visibility improvement under the
‘‘clear weight of evidence’’ test, that
does not necessarily mean that the
alternative does not in fact make greater
reasonable progress than BART, as
demonstrated through dispersion
modeling under the two-prong test in
section 308(e)(3). Accordingly, we
propose to approve Utah’s
determination that the Utah NOX BART
Alternative would achieve greater
reasonable progress than BART under
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
6. Requirement That Emission
Reductions Take Place During Period of
First Long-Term Strategy
As discussed above in section III.B.6,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), the
State must ensure that all necessary
emission reductions take place during
the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze. The RHR further
provides that, to meet this requirement,
the State must provide a detailed
description of the alternative measure,
including schedules for
implementation, the emission
reductions required by the program, all
necessary administrative and technical
procedures for implementing the
program, rules for accounting and
monitoring emissions, and procedures
for enforcement.84
The NOX controls on which the BART
Alternative relies were installed at
Hunter and Huntington over a period of
years starting in 2006 and finishing in
83 WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 934
(10th Cir. 2014).
84 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3573
2014.85 The associated emissions limits
were effective upon installation of the
NOX controls.86 Carbon shut down in
2015 and its Approval Order has been
revoked.87 Further, as noted above, the
Utah SIP submittals include revisions to
R307–110–17 and Section IX, Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,
Part H, Emissions Limits, which include
enforceable provisions for implementing
the Utah NOX BART Alternative. In
addition to the emission limitations for
NOX and PM, and the requirement for
shutdown of the Carbon plant listed in
Table 1 above, the SIP includes
compliance dates, operation and
maintenance requirements, and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. We propose to
find that these provisions meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
7. Demonstration That Emission
Reductions From Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
As discussed above in section III.B.7,
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the
SIP must demonstrate that the emissions
reductions resulting from the alternative
measure will be surplus to those
reductions resulting from measures
adopted to meet requirements of the
CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP.
The baseline date for regional haze SIPs
is 2002.88 As discussed in section
III.B.7, all of the emission reductions
required by the Utah NOX BART
Alternative result from measures
applicable to Hunter, Huntington and
Carbon that were required pursuant to
measures adopted after 2002.
Furthermore, the State’s SIP explains
that the WRAP modeling for the 2018
Reasonable Progress Goals that was
done to support the Utah RH SIP
assumed that Carbon would still be
operating and emitting SO2 when it
85 Refer to the Staff Report, Table 6,
Implementation Schedule.
86 Hunter Power Plant Approval Order:
Installation of Pollution Control Equipment,
Established Plantwide Applicability Limitations
and Approval Orders Consolidation, Emery
County—CDS A; NSPS; PSD; Title IV; Title V
Major; HAPs, March 13, 2018; Huntington Plant
Approval Order: Installation of Pollution Control
Equipment and Establishing Plant-wide
Applicability Limitations, Emery County; CDS A;
NSPS (Part 60), PSD, Title IV (Part 72/Acid Rain),
Title V (Part 70), Project Number: N010238–0019
(August 6, 2009).
87 Letter from Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, Division of Air Quality, to PacifiCorp, Re:
Revocation of Approval Order DAQE–ANO
100810005–08 dated May 16, 2008, Project Number:
N10081–0007, January 8, 2016.
88 See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and
Peter Tsirigotis, 2002 Base Year Emission Inventory
SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze
Programs, November 18, 2002. https://
www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/
20021118_wegman_2002_base_year_emission_sip_
planning.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3574
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
modeled the 2018 SO2 milestone; the
modeling also included NOX and PM
emissions from the Carbon plant. Thus,
WRAP did not rely on post-2002
emission reductions from the Carbon
plant in establishing the 2018 SO2
milestone.
The State’s SIP also includes SO2
trend data that further demonstrate
emission reductions from the Carbon
plant are most likely not needed for
meeting the three-state 2018 milestone
of 141,849 tpy. Actual emissions in the
three-state region are calculated each
year and compared to the milestones. As
can be seen in Table 6 above, SO2
emissions reported each year since 2011
were below the 2018 milestone and the
most recent milestone report for 2016
demonstrates that SO2 emissions are
currently 36 percent lower than the
2018 milestone. The Carbon plant was
fully operational in the years 2012–2014
when the emissions from the three-state
region were below the milestone for
those years. In its amendments to the
Backstop Trading Program to ensure
there would be no double-counting of
SO2 emission reductions from the
Carbon plant closure, the State
attributed 8,005 tons of SO2 emissions
to the Carbon plant for purposes of
demonstrating that even if Carbon
continued to emit at that level, the
three-state region would still be well
below the 2018 Milestone. Therefore,
the SO2 emission reductions from the
closure of the Carbon plant are surplus
to what is needed to meet the 2018
milestone established in Utah’s RH SIP,
and can therefore be credited to the
Utah NOX BART Alternative.
As discussed above in section III.B.7,
the amendments to the applicability
provisions of State rule R307–150–3,
Emissions Inventories, Applicability,
ensure that there is no double counting
SO2 emissions reductions for the Carbon
plant closure under both the 40 CFR
51.308 and 309 programs.
We propose to concur that the
reductions from Carbon are surplus and
can be considered as part of an
alternative strategy under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). We also propose to
approve Utah’s revision to R307–150–3,
amending the SO2 emissions reported
under the milestone, which ensures that
these reductions are not double
counted.
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and
Reporting
EPA has reviewed the MRR measures
in Utah’s July 3, 2019 SIP submittal, as
supplemented on December 3, 2019,
which revises Section IX, Part H, of
Utah’s SIP, and which apply for units
subject to the NOX BART Alternative
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
and PM BART. EPA proposes to
approve these measures as meeting the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA and 40 CFR part 51, subpart K,
Source Surveillance, and 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. Generally, these
provisions require that SIPs must
contain enforceable emission limitations
and schedules for compliance,
including MRR provisions that allow for
the enforcement of those emission
limitations. EPA previously approved
state rule provisions that Utah has crossreferenced in these new regional haze
measures, including terms, conditions
and definitions in R307–101–1 (General
Requirements—Forward), R307–101–2
General Requirements—Definitions),
and R307–170–4 (Continuous Emission
Monitoring Program—Definitions), as
well as other continuous emission
monitoring system (CEMS) requirements
referenced in R307–107. These
measures contain the requirements that
were missing from Utah’s prior regional
haze submittals 89 and are furthermore
consistent with similar MRR
requirements that EPA has approved for
other states RH SIPs or that we have
adopted in federal implementation
plans.90 As described above in section
III.C, Utah has provided the emission
limitations, MRR requirements for all
the units that are part of Utah’s BART
Alternative for the Hunter, Huntington,
and Carbon plants, and we are
proposing to approve these provisions
as satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2), 40
CFR part 51, subpart K, and 40 CFR part
51, appendix V with regard to MRR
requirements to make emission
limitations in the SIP practically
enforceable.
D. Consultation With FLMs
On December 19, 2018, the State
provided the opportunity for the FLMs
to review the preliminary draft SIP
documents. This was approximately 120
days prior to the public hearing that was
held on April 17, 2019, and prior to the
public comment period for the proposed
SIP revisions submitted to EPA in July
2019, which ran from April 1 through
May 15, 2019. The FLMs did not submit
comments prior to or during the public
comment period. Copies of the
correspondence documenting the State’s
outreach to the FLMs are included in
the docket. We propose to find that Utah
has met the requirements of 40 CFR
308(i)(2).
89 77
FR 74365–74366 (Dec. 14, 2012).
e.g., 77 FR 57864 (Sept. 18, 2012); 79 FR
5032 (Jan. 30, 2014).
90 See,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA
cannot approve a plan revision ‘‘if the
revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 7501 of
this title), or any other applicable
requirement of this chapter.’’ 91 We
propose to find that these revisions
satisfy section 110(l). The previous
sections of the notice explain how the
proposed SIP revision and FIP
withdrawal will comply with applicable
regional haze requirements and general
implementation plan requirements such
as enforceability. With respect to
requirements concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress, the Utah
Regional Haze SIP, as revised by this
action, will allow for greater NOX
emissions at the four subject-to-BART
units as compared to the 2016 FIP
(which is currently judicially stayed).
The change in these emissions
compared to the FIP, however, is not
anticipated to interfere with any
applicable requirements under the CAA.
The geographic area where the BART
units are located is not part of a
nonattainment area for any National
Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). The approved portions of the
PM2.5 attainment demonstrations and
clean data determinations (CDD) for the
Salt Lake City, Provo, and Logan, UT–
ID nonattainment areas (NAAs) do not
rely on the installation of SCR at Hunter
or Huntington to achieve attainment of
the NAAQS. Similarly, the approved
PM10 attainment demonstrations for Salt
Lake County and Utah County NAAs,
and CDD for Ogden City NAA do not
rely on the installation of SCR at Hunter
or Huntington to achieve attainment of
the NAAQS. In addition, there are no
other approved attainment
demonstrations in other areas of the
State or outside of the State that rely on
the installation of SCR at Hunter or
Huntington to achieve attainment of any
of the NAAQS.
91 Note that ‘‘reasonable further progress’’ as used
in CAA section 110(l) is a reference to that term as
defined in section 301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)),
and as such means reductions required to attain the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
set for criteria pollutants under CAA section 109.
This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in
section 301(a)) is not synonymous with ‘‘reasonable
progress’’ as that term is used in the regional haze
program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that EPA
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with
regional haze requirements (including reasonable
progress requirements) insofar as they are ‘‘other
applicable requirement[s]’’ of the Clean Air Act.
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
VI. The EPA’s Proposed Action
C. Clean Air Section 110(l)
A. 2019 Utah Regional Haze SIP
Revision
We are proposing to approve these
aspects of the 2019 Utah RH SIP
revisions:
• NOX BART Alternative, including
NOX emission reductions from Hunter
Units 1, 2, and 3 and Huntington Units
1 and 2, and SO2, NOX and PM emission
reductions from Carbon Units 1 and 2.
• A NOX emission limit of 0.26 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) each for
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington 1
and 2.
• A NOX emission limit of 0.34 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for
Hunter Unit 3.
• A requirement to permanently close
and cease operation of the Carbon
power plant by August 15, 2015.
• The associated amendments to the
SO2 milestone reporting requirements.
• MRR requirements for units subject
to the NOX BART Alternative and the
PM BART emission limits.
We also note that the regulatory text
amendments contained in this notice
include incorporation of additional
parts of SIP section XX (XX.B–C and
XX.E–N) and section XXIII, which were
not addressed in this proposed action.
EPA approved these SIP sections as
meeting the requirements of the CAA
and applicable regulations in previous
actions; 92 however, we inadvertently
did not incorporate all approved
sections in 40 CFR 52.2320(e). We are
remedying this oversight and
reorganizing 40 CFR 52.2320(e) to better
reflect the structure of Utah’s SIP
submissions here; however, we are not
reopening any of these previously
approved SIP sections for comment.
Finally, contingent on our approval of
Utah’s July 2019 and December 2019
SIP submissions, we propose to find
that Utah’s SIP fully satisfies the
requirements of section 309 of the RHR
and therefore the State has fully
complied with the requirements for
reasonable progress, including BART,
for the first implementation period.
We are proposing to find that an
approval of the 2019 Utah RH SIP
revisions and concurrent withdrawal of
the corresponding the FIP, as proposed,
complies with the CAA’s 110(1)
provisions.
We are requesting comment on the
proposed actions in section VI.A–C, i.e.,
on our proposed approval of Utah’s NOX
BART Alternative and of the MRR
elements for the units subject the BART
Alternative and to PM BART. We are
not reopening or requesting comment on
any of the previously approved
elements of Utah’s regional haze SIP,
except to the extent expressly reopened
in this notice. If we finalize our
approval of the July 2019 and December
2019 regional haze SIP submittals,
Utah’s regional haze SIP for the first
implementation period will be fully
approved.
B. FIP Withdrawal
Because we are proposing to find that
Utah’s July 2019 and December 2019
SIP submissions satisfy the NOX BART
and MRR requirements currently
addressed by EPA’s 2016 FIP, we are
also proposing to withdraw in whole the
Utah Regional Haze FIP at 40 CFR
52.2336 that imposes NOX BART
requirements on Hunter Units 1 and 2
and Huntington Units 1 and 2.
92 73 FR 16543 (Mar. 28, 2008); 77 FR 74355 (Dec.
14, 2012); 78 FR 4072 (Jan. 18, 2013); 81 FR 43894
(July 5, 2016).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to
include regulatory text in an EPA final
rule that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with the
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the SIP amendments described in
Sections III.A and VI.A of this preamble
and set forth below. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov (refer to docket
EPA–R08–OAR–2015–0463) and at the
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 93 and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review. This proposed rule applies to
only 7 units at three facilities in Utah
that are individually named in this
action. It is therefore not a rule of
general applicability.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not an Executive Order
13771 regulatory action because this
action is not significant under Executive
Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose
an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA).94 A ‘‘collection of
information’’ under the PRA means ‘‘the
obtaining, causing to be obtained,
soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to
an agency, third parties or the public of
information by or for an agency by
means of identical questions posed to,
or identical reporting, recordkeeping, or
disclosure requirements imposed on,
ten or more persons, whether such
collection of information is mandatory,
voluntary, or required to obtain or retain
a benefit.’’ 95 Because this proposed rule
revises regional haze requirements
reporting requirements for three
facilities, the PRA does not apply.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small
business as defined by the Small
Business Administration’s (SBA)
regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this proposed rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create
impacts on small entities as no small
entities are subject to the requirements
of this rule.
94 44
93 58
PO 00000
FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3575
95 5
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added).
22JAP1
3576
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for final rules with ‘‘Federal
mandates’’ that may result in
expenditures to state, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
Before promulgating an EPA rule for
which a written statement is needed,
section 205 of UMRA generally requires
the EPA to identify and consider a
reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly,
most cost-effective, or least burdensome
alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section
205 of UMRA do not apply when they
are inconsistent with applicable law.
Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows
the EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
was not adopted. Before the EPA
establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect
small governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of UMRA a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
actions with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, the EPA has
determined that this proposed rule does
not contain a federal mandate that may
result in expenditures that exceed the
inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of
$100 million 96 by state, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector in any
one year. The proposed revisions to the
2014 FIP would reduce private sector
expenditures. Additionally, we do not
foresee significant costs (if any) for state
and local governments. Thus, because
the proposed revisions to the 2014 FIP
reduce annual expenditures, this
proposed rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA. This proposed rule is also not
subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no
regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,97
revokes and replaces Executive Orders
12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires the EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.’’ 98 ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ 99 Under
Executive Order 13132, the EPA may
not issue a regulation ‘‘that has
federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, . . .
and that is not required by statute,
unless [the federal government provides
the] funds necessary to pay the direct
[compliance] costs incurred by the State
and local governments,’’ or the EPA
consults with state and local officials
early in the process of developing the
final regulation.100 The EPA also may
not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that
preempts state law unless the agency
consults with state and local officials
early in the process of developing the
final regulation.
This action does not have federalism
implications. The proposed FIP
revisions will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
97 64
98 64
96 Adjusted to 2019 dollars, the UMRA threshold
becomes $164 million.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
FR 43255, 43255–43257 (August 10, 1999).
FR 43255, 43257.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments,’’ requires
the EPA to develop an accountable
process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and
timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have tribal implications.’’ 101 This
proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). The EPA interprets Executive
Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern
environmental health or safety risks that
the EPA has reason to believe may
disproportionately affect children, per
the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
executive order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology
Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal
agencies to evaluate existing technical
standards when developing a new
regulation. Section 12(d) of NTTAA,
Public Law 104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs the EPA to consider
and use ‘‘voluntary consensus
standards’’ in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent
with applicable law or otherwise
impractical. Voluntary consensus
standards are technical standards (e.g.,
materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business
practices) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to
99 Id.
100 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
101 65
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
22JAP1
3577
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not
involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any
voluntary consensus standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, establishes
federal executive policy on
environmental justice.102 Its main
provision directs federal agencies, to the
greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make
environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
I certify that the approaches under
this proposed rule will not have
potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low-income or
Rule No.
indigenous/tribal populations. As
explained previously, the Utah Regional
Haze SIP, as revised by this action, will
ensure a significant reduction in
emissions compared to regional haze
baseline levels (2002). In addition, the
area where the Hunter, Huntington, and
Carbon power plants are located has not
been designated nonattainment for any
NAAQS. The proposed SIP revisions
will not create a disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effect on minority, lowincome, or indigenous/tribal
populations. The EPA, however, will
consider any input received during the
public comment period regarding
environmental justice considerations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
Sulfur oxides.
Dated: January 9, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is proposed to
be amended as follows:
State
effective
date
Rule title
*
*
*
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT—Utah
2. Section 52.2320 paragraph (c) is
amended as follows:
■ a. Under the heading ‘‘R307–110.
General Requirements: State
Implementation Plan,’’ revise the table
entry ‘‘R307–110–17.’’
■ b. Under the heading ‘‘R307–110.
General Requirements: State
Implementation Plan,’’ add, in
numerical order, the table entry ‘‘R307–
110–28.’’
■ c. Under the heading ‘‘R307–150.
Emission Inventories,’’ revise the table
entry ‘‘R307–150–3.’’
The amendments read as follows:
■
§ 52.2320
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
Final rule citation, date
*
*
Comments
*
*
*
R307–110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan
*
R307–110–17 .........
*
*
Section IX. Control Measures for
Area and Point Sources, Part
H, Emission Limits.
*
11/25/2019
*
[Insert Federal Register citation]
1/22/2020.
*
*
*
R307–110–28 .........
*
*
Section XX. Regional Haze ........
*
8/15/2019
*
[Insert Federal Register citation]
1/22/2020.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
R307–150. Emission Inventories
*
R307–150–3 ...........
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
*
*
*
Applicability .................................
*
*
3. In § 52.2320 amend paragraph (e)
by:
■ a. Under the heading ‘‘IX. Control
Measures for Area and Point Sources,’’
adding, in numerical order, table entries
‘‘IX.H.21. General Requirements:
■
102 59
*
6/25/2019
*
[Insert Federal Register citation]
1/22/2020.
*
*
Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Emission Limits and Operating
Practices, Regional Haze Requirements,’’
and ‘‘IX.H.22. Source Specific Emission
Limitations: Regional Haze
Requirements, Best Available Retrofit
Technology.’’
■ b. Under the heading ‘‘XVII. Visibility
Protection,’’ removing the table entries
‘‘Section XX.D.6. Best Available Retrofit
Technology (BART) Assessment for
FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
3578
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 14 / Wednesday, January 22, 2020 / Proposed Rules
NOX and PM,’’ and ‘‘Section XX.G.
Long-Term Strategy for Fire Programs.’’
■ c. Adding a centered heading ‘‘XX.
Regional Haze’’ after the table entry
‘‘Section XXIII. Interstate Transport.’’
■ d. Under the heading ‘‘XX. Regional
Haze’’ adding the table entries ‘‘Section
XX.A. Executive Summary,’’ ‘‘Section
XX.B. Background on the Regional Haze
Rule,’’ ‘‘Section XX.C. Long-Term
Strategy for the Clean-Air Corridor,’’
‘‘Section XX.D. Long-Term Strategy for
Stationary Sources,’’ ‘‘Section XX.E.
Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop
Trading Program,’’ ‘‘Section XX.F. LongTerm Strategy for Mobile Sources,’’
‘‘Section XX.G. Long-Term Strategy for
Fire Programs,’’ ‘‘Section XX.H.
Assessment of Emissions from Paved
and Unpaved Road Dust,’’ ‘‘Section
XX.I. Pollution Prevention and
Renewable Energy Programs,’’ ‘‘Section
XX.J. Other GCVTC Recommendations,’’
‘‘Section XX.K. Projection of Visibility
Improvement Anticipated from LongTerm Strategy,’’ ‘‘Section XX.L. Periodic
State
effective
date
Rule title
*
*
Implementation Plan Revisions,’’
‘‘Section XX.M. State Planning/
Interstate Coordination and Tribal
Implementation,’’ and ‘‘Section XX.N.
Enforceable Commitments for the Utah
Regional Haze SIP.’’
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
§ 52.2320
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
Final rule citation, date
*
*
Comments
*
*
*
*
*
*
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
*
IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources
*
*
*
IX.H.21. General Requirements: Control Measures for Area
and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices, Regional Haze Requirements.
IX.H.22. Source Specific Emission Limitations: Regional Haze
Requirements, Best Available Retrofit Technology.
*
*
*
Section XXIII. Interstate Transport ...........................................
11/25/2019
11/25/2019
2/9/2007
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
*
*
*
73 FR 16543, 3/28/2008 .........................
*
XX. Regional Haze
Section XX.A. Executive Summary ..........................................
8/15/2019
Section XX.B. Background on the Regional Haze Rule ...........
8/15/2019
Section XX.C. Long-Term Strategy for the Clean-Air Corridor
8/15/2019
Section XX.D. Long-Term Strategy for Stationary Sources .....
8/15/2019
Section XX.E. Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop Trading Program.
Section XX.F. Long-Term Strategy for Mobile Sources ...........
8/15/2019
Section XX.G. Long-Term Strategy for Fire Programs .............
Section XX.H. Assessment of Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Road Dust.
Section XX.I. Pollution Prevention and Renewable Energy
Programs.
Section XX.J. Other GCVTC Recommendations .....................
4/7/2011
8/15/2019
Section XX.K. Projection of Visibility Improvement Anticipated
from Long-Term Strategy.
Section XX.L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions ...........
8/15/2019
Section XX.M. State Planning/Interstate Coordination and
Tribal Implementation.
Section XX.N. Enforceable Commitments for the Utah Regional Haze SIP.
*
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 52.2336
■
*
8/15/2019
8/15/2019
8/15/2019
8/15/2019
8/15/2019
8/15/2019
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] ............
1/22/2020 .................................................
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
78 FR 4071, 1/18/2013 ...........................
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
[Insert Federal Register citation] 1/22/
2020.
*
*
*
*
[Removed]
4. Remove § 52.2336.
[FR Doc. 2020–00495 Filed 1–21–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:12 Jan 21, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\22JAP1.SGM
22JAP1
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3558-3578]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00495]
[[Page 3558]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0463; FRL-10003-90-Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Utah; Regional Haze State and Federal Implementation Plans
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to take
action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) on
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of
Utah on July 3, 2019, as supplemented on December 3, 2019, to satisfy
certain regional haze requirements for the program's first
implementation period. The EPA is proposing to approve the July 2019
SIP revision that provides an alternative to best available retrofit
technology (BART) controls for nitrogen oxides (NOX) at the
PacifiCorp Hunter and Huntington power plants. The EPA proposes to find
that the Utah NOX BART Alternative for Hunter and Huntington
would provide greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility
conditions than BART, in accordance with the requirements of the CAA
and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR). In conjunction with this
proposed approval, we propose to withdraw the federal implementation
plan (FIP) that addresses NOX BART for the Hunter and
Huntington power plants. The EPA also proposes to approve the December
3, 2019 SIP supplement that would require reporting of all deviations
from compliance with the applicable requirements under BART and the
BART Alternative, including the emission limits for Hunter and
Huntington.
DATES:
Comments: Written comments must be received on or before March 23,
2020.
Public Hearing: A public hearing for this proposal is scheduled to
be held on Wednesday, February 12, 2020, in Price, Utah from 1 p.m.
until 5 p.m., and again from 6 p.m. until 8 p.m. mountain standard time
(MST). See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for the venue
address.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2015-0463, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that, if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Worstell, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129, (303) 312-6073, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Hearing
A public hearing will be held at the Jennifer Leavitt Student
Center (JLSC),\1\ Utah State University Eastern, 400 North 410 East,
Price, UT 84501, on Wednesday, February 12, 2020. The hearing will
convene at 1 p.m. and run from 1 p.m. until 5 p.m., and again from 6
p.m. until 8 p.m. (MST). Persons wishing to preregister may be assigned
a time according to this schedule. Please register at https://utah-regional-haze-2020.eventbrite.com to speak at the hearing. The last day
to preregister in advance to speak at the hearing is February 3, 2020.
Additionally, requests to speak may be taken the day of the hearing at
the hearing registration desk on a first come first serve basis, as
time allows. The EPA will make every effort to accommodate all walk-in
speakers, however we highly encourage the public to preregister for the
hearing in order to be guaranteed speaking time. For questions
regarding the public hearing, please contact Clayton Bean at
[email protected] or (303) 312-6143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://usueastern.edu/about/map/_documents/PriceCampusMap.pdf for a detailed campus map.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public hearing will provide interested parties the opportunity
to present data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed action.
The EPA may ask clarifying questions during the oral presentations, but
will not respond to the presentations at that time. Written statements
and supporting information submitted during the comment period will be
considered with the same weight as oral comments and supporting
information presented at the public hearing. The hearing officer may
limit the time available for each commenter to address the proposal to
5 minutes or less if the hearing officer determines it to be
appropriate. The limitation is to ensure that everyone who wants to
make a comment has the opportunity to do so. We will not be providing
equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized
slide presentations. Any person may provide written or oral comments
and data pertaining to our proposal at the public hearings. Verbatim
transcripts, in English, of the hearings and written statements will be
included in the rulemaking docket.
Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
C. BART Alternatives
D. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR
51.309
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting
F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
[[Page 3559]]
G. Summary of State Regional Haze Submittals and EPA Actions
1. 2008 and 2011 Utah Regional Haze SIP Submissions
2. 2012 EPA Action on 2011 and 2008 Utah Regional Haze SIP
Submissions
3. Petitions for Review of the EPA's Approval of the
SO2 Backstop Trading Program
4. 2015 Utah Regional Haze SIP Submissions
5. 2016 EPA Action on 2015 Utah RH SIP Submissions
6. Petitions for Review of EPA's 2016 SIP Disapproval and FIP
7. 2019 Utah RH SIP Revisions
III. Utah's Regional Haze SIP Revisions
A. Summary of the Utah NOX BART Alternative SIP
Revision
1. Utah NOX BART Alternative
B. Summary of Utah's Demonstration for Alternative Program
1. List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within the State
2. List of All BART-Eligible Sources and All BART Source
Categories Covered by the Alternative Program
3. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions
Achievable
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through
the BART Alternative
5. A Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater
Reasonable Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation
and Operation of BART
6. Requirement That Emission Reductions Take Place During Period
of First Long-Term Strategy
7. Demonstration That Emissions Reductions From Alternative
Measure Will Be Surplus
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting
D. Consultation With FLMs
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Approval of Utah's Regional Haze
SIP
A. Basis for Proposed Approval
B. Demonstration of Greater Reasonable Progress for the
Alternative Program
1. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within the State
2. A List of All BART-Eligible Sources and All BART Source
Categories Covered by the Alternative Program
3. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through
the BART Alternative
5. A Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater
Reasonable Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation
and Operation of BART
6. Requirement That Emission Reductions Take Place During Period
of First Long-Term Strategy
7. Demonstration That Emission Reductions From Alternative
Measure Will Be Surplus
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
D. Consultation With FLMs
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
VI. The EPA's Proposed Action
A. 2019 Utah Regional Haze SIP Revision
B. FIP Withdrawal
C. Clean Air Section 110(l)
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
I. What action is the EPA proposing?
On July 5, 2016, the EPA promulgated a final rule titled
``Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation
Plans; Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plan; Utah; Revisions
to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan
for Regional Haze,'' which approved, in part, a regional haze SIP
revision submitted by the State of Utah on June 4, 2015.\2\ In the July
2016 final rule, the EPA also disapproved, in part, the Utah regional
haze SIP submission, including the NOX BART Alternative
(also ``BART Alternative'' or ``Alternative'') for Hunter Units 1 and 2
and Huntington Units 1 and 2, which are BART units as explained in more
detail below. The BART Alternative relied on sulfur dioxide
(SO2), NOX, and particulate matter (PM) emission
reductions stemming from the 2015 closure of PacifiCorp's Carbon power
plant, as well as NOX reductions achieved through combustion
control upgrades at Hunter Units 1, 2, and 3 and Huntington Units 1 and
2. (Hunter Unit 3 is not a BART unit.) The combustion control upgrades
for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 include an Alstom
TSF 2000\TM\ low-NOX firing system and two elevations of
separated overfire air (SOFA). The combustion upgrades for Hunter Unit
3 include upgraded low-NOX burners (LNB) and overfire air
(OFA). Concurrent with disapproving the NOX BART
Alternative, EPA promulgated a FIP in the July 2016 final rule that
imposed a NOX BART emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) for each of the four BART units based on the emission
reductions achievable through the installation and operation of
selective-catalytic reduction (SCR) plus upgraded combustion controls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a revised SIP that, based on new
technical information and a different regulatory test, seeks to
demonstrate that the previously submitted NOX BART
Alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. The SIP
revision also includes amendments to Utah's SO2 milestone
reporting requirements under the SO2 Backstop Trading
Program pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309 so that SO2 emission
reductions resulting from the closure of the Carbon plant are not
counted under both the SO2 Backstop Trading Program and the
NOX BART Alternative. The EPA is proposing to approve the
State's July 3, 2019 SIP revision based on this new information and to
incorporate the following into Utah's SIP:
A NOX emission limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) each for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington 1 and 2.
A NOX emission limit of 0.34 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) for Hunter Unit 3.
A requirement to permanently close and cease operation of
the Carbon power plant by August 15, 2015.
The associated amendments to the SO2 milestone
reporting requirements.
Because approval of the NOX BART Alternative would
satisfy Utah's BART obligation for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington
Units 1 and 2, we are also proposing to withdraw the FIP for
NOX BART at these units.
The EPA is also proposing to approve a December 3, 2019 SIP
supplement to the July 3, 2019 SIP revision that includes monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting (MRR) requirements for the units subject to
the NOX BART Alternative and PM BART. The supplement also
includes amendments that require each source to submit a report of any
deviation from applicable emission limits and operating practices,
including deviations attributable to upset conditions, the probable
cause of such deviations, and any corrective actions or preventive
measures taken.
Finally, contingent on our approval of these two SIP revisions, we
propose to find that Utah's SIP fully satisfies the
[[Page 3560]]
requirements of section 309 of the RHR and, therefore, that the State
has fully complied with the requirements for reasonable progress,
including BART, for the first implementation period.
EPA is requesting comment on its proposed approval of Utah's
regional haze SIP elements related to the NOX BART
Alternative under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) and 51.308(e)(2)-(3), as
well as the MRR elements for the units subject to that BART Alternative
and to PM BART. EPA previously approved Utah's regional haze SIP as
meeting all other requirements of 40 CFR 51.309,\3\ and we are neither
reopening nor requesting comment on previously approved elements here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 77 FR 74355 (Dec. 14, 2012); 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and the EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes ``as a national
goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' \4\ Section 169A
directs the EPA to establish regulations for states to submit SIPs to
make ``reasonable progress'' toward the national visibility goal
through long-term strategies and to implement BART at certain BART-
eligible sources. Recognizing the complexity of addressing visibility
impacts, Congress enacted section 169B in the 1990 Amendments to the
CAA, which, among other things, dedicated greater resources to
``regional haze'' and the problem of visibility impairment due to
pollution transport over large distances. Section 169B provided for the
creation of ``visibility transport'' regions and commissions, and
specifically directed the establishment of a Grand Canyon visibility
transport commission at section 169B(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a). Areas designated as mandatory Class I
Federal 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). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA,
EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a
list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important
value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory
Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park
expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may
designate as Class I additional areas whose visibility they consider
to be an important value, the requirements of the visibility program
set forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class
I Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this section, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.'' The list of mandatory Class I
Federal areas is located in 40 CFR part 81 subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1,
1999.\5\ This RHR revised the existing visibility regulations \6\ to
integrate provisions addressing regional haze and established a
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 40 CFR
51.309, are included in the EPA's visibility protection regulations at
40 CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309. As discussed in more detail below,
section 309 is available to certain western states, including Utah, in
lieu of certain requirements in section 308. The EPA revised the RHR
most recently on January 10, 2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part 51,
subpart P).
\6\ The EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084
(December 2, 1980).
\7\ 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\8\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas, which, for
the first implementation period, includes satisfying the BART
requirements. A state must submit its SIP and SIP revisions to the EPA
for approval. EPA reviews SIP submissions against the requirements of
the CAA and applicable regulations. If EPA finds that a state has
failed to make a required submission or that a submission does not
satisfy the minimum criteria for completeness, or if EPA disapproves a
SIP submission in whole or in part, EPA is required to promulgate a FIP
within two years of such finding or disapproval unless the State
corrects the deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or
plan revision, before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.\9\ Once
approved, a SIP is enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA;
that is, the SIP is federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492(a); CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
\9\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
Section 169A of the CAA directs states as part of their SIPs, or
the EPA when developing a FIP in the absence of an approved regional
haze SIP, to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger,
often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section
169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states' implementation plans to
contain such measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress
toward the natural visibility goal, including a requirement that
certain categories of existing major stationary sources built between
1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available
Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the states through their SIPs,
or as determined by the EPA when it promulgates a FIP. Under the RHR,
states (or the EPA) are directed to conduct BART determinations for
such ``BART-eligible'' sources that may reasonably be anticipated to
cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.\10\
Sources that are determined to cause or contribute to such impairment
pursuant to the BART Guidelines are referred to as ``subject-to-BART''
sources and must undergo a BART determination applying the five BART
factors.\11\ Rather than requiring source-specific BART controls,
states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program
or other alternative program for their subject-to-BART sources, so long
as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards
improving visibility than BART (sometimes referred to as the ``better-
than-BART'' test).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 40 CFR 51.308(e). The EPA designed the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the RHR (Guidelines), 40 CFR part 51, Appendix
Y, ``to help States and others (1) identify those sources that must
comply with the BART requirement, and (2) determine the level of
control technology that represents BART for each source.''
Guidelines, Section I.A. Section II of the Guidelines describes the
four steps to identify BART sources, and Section III explains how to
identify BART sources (i.e., sources that are ``subject to BART'').
\11\ CAA section 169A(g)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
\12\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2); WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d
919 (10th Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. BART Alternatives
States opting to submit an alternative program in lieu of source-
specific BART, whether for a SIP submitted under 40 CFR 51.308 or
51.309,\13\ must meet requirements under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and, if
applicable, (e)(3). These requirements for alternative programs relate
to the ``better-than-BART'' test and fundamental elements of any
alternative program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to demonstrate that the alternative program achieves
greater reasonable progress than source-specific
[[Page 3561]]
BART, a state, or the EPA if developing a FIP, must demonstrate that
its SIP meets the requirements, as applicable, in 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i) through (vi). Among other things, the state or the EPA
must conduct an analysis of the best system of continuous emission
control technology available and the associated emission reductions
achievable for each source subject to BART covered by the alternative
program, termed a ``BART benchmark.'' Where the alternative program has
been designed to meet requirements other than BART, simplifying
assumptions may be used to establish a BART benchmark. The BART
benchmark is the basis for comparison in the ``better-than-BART'' test
for BART alternatives.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the state or the EPA must
provide a determination that the alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise
based on the clear weight of evidence. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), in turn,
provides specific tests applicable under specific circumstances for
determining whether the alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART. If the distribution of emissions under the
alternative program is not substantially different than for BART, and
the alternative program results in greater emissions reductions of each
relevant pollutant than BART, then the alternative program may be
deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of
emissions is significantly different, the differences in visibility
improvement between BART and the alternative program must be determined
by conducting dispersion modeling for each impacted Class I area for
the best and worst 20 percent of days. This modeling demonstrates
``greater reasonable progress'' if both of the two following criteria
are met: (1) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area; and (2)
there is overall improvement in visibility when comparing the average
differences between BART and the alternative program across all the
affected Class I areas.
Alternately, pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), a third test is
available under which States may show that the BART alternative
achieves greater reasonable progress than BART ``based on the clear
weight of evidence.'' As stated in in the EPA's revisions to the RHR
governing alternative to source-specific BART determinations, such
demonstrations
attempt to make use of all available information and data which can
inform a decision while recognizing the relative strengths and
weaknesses of that information in arriving at the soundest decision
possible. Factors which can be used in a weight of evidence
determination in this context may include, but not be limited to,
future projected emissions levels under the program as compared to
under BART, future projected visibility conditions under the two
scenarios, the geographic distribution of sources likely to reduce
or increase emissions under the program as compared to BART sources,
monitoring data and emissions inventories, and sensitivity analyses
of any models used. This array of information and other relevant
data may be of sufficient quality to inform the comparison of
visibility impacts between BART and the alternative program. In
showing that an alternative program is better than BART and when
there is confidence that the difference in visibility impacts
between BART and the alternative scenarios are expected to be large
enough, a weight of evidence comparison may be warranted in making
the comparison. The EPA will carefully consider the evidence before
us in evaluating any SIPs submitted by States employing such an
approach.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ 71 FR 60612, 60622 (Oct. 13, 2006).
Under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii) and (iv), all emission reductions
for the alternative program must take place during the period of the
first long-term strategy for regional haze, and all the emission
reductions resulting from the alternative program must be surplus to
those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.309(e)(2)(v), states have the option of including a provision that
the emissions trading program or other alternative measure include a
geographic enhancement to the program to address the requirement under
40 CFR 51.302(c) related to BART for RAVI from the pollutants covered
under the emissions trading program or other alternative measure.
A SIP or FIP addressing regional haze must include emission limits
and compliance schedules for each visibility-impairing pollutant
emitted from each source subject to BART. In addition to the RHR's
requirements, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP or FIP
include all regulatory requirements related to MRR needed to make
emission limits practically enforceable.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ CAA section 110(a); 40 CFR part 51, subpart K; 40 CFR part
51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Submitted Under 40 CFR 51.309
EPA's RHR provides two paths to address regional haze for the first
implementation period of the regional haze program. One is through 40
CFR 51.308, requiring, among other things, SIPs to include source-
specific BART determinations or BART alternatives, and to contain long-
term strategies that include enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve
reasonable progress in Class I areas inside the state and in Class I
areas outside the state that may be affected by emissions from the
state. In addition to these requirements, each regional haze SIP or FIP
under section 308 must contain measures as necessary to make reasonable
progress towards the national visibility goal.\16\ The other method for
addressing regional haze for the first implementation period is through
40 CFR 51.309, which provides an option for nine states termed the
``Transport Region States'': Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Among other things, by
meeting the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309, these states can be
deemed to be making reasonable progress toward the national goal of
achieving natural visibility conditions for the 16 Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f).
\17\ 40 CFR 51.309(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 309 requires those Transport Region States that choose to
participate to adopt regional haze strategies that are based on
recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
(GCVTC) established under CAA 169B(f) for protecting the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau. The purpose of the GCVTC was to assess
information about the adverse impacts on visibility in and around the
16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau and provided policy
recommendations to the EPA to address such impacts. The GCVTC
determined that all Transport Region States could potentially impact
the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau. The GCVTC submitted a report
to the EPA in 1996 containing recommendations for protecting visibility
for the Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau, and the EPA codified
these recommendations in section 309 as an option available to states
as part of the RHR.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 64 FR 35714, 35749 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA determined that the GCVTC strategies would provide for
reasonable progress in mitigating regional haze if supplemented by an
annex containing quantitative emission reduction milestones and
provisions for a trading program or other alternative measure for
SO2.\19\ In September 2000, the Western Regional Air
Partnership (WRAP), which is the successor organization to the GCVTC,
submitted an annex to EPA.
[[Page 3562]]
The annex contained SO2 emissions reduction milestones and
detailed provisions of a backstop trading program to be implemented
automatically if voluntary measures failed to achieve the
SO2 milestones (the SO2 Backstop Trading
Program). The EPA codified the annex on June 5, 2003 at 40 CFR
51.309(h).\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 64 FR 35714, 35749, 35756 (July 1, 1999).
\20\ 68 FR 33764, 33767 (June 5, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five western states, including Utah, submitted implementation plans
under section 309 in 2003.\21\ However, the EPA was challenged by the
Center for Energy and Economic Development (CEED) on the validity of
the annex provisions contained in section 309(h). In CEED v. EPA, the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the EPA approval of the WRAP
annex.\22\ In response to the court's decision, the EPA removed the
annex requirements from 40 CFR 51.309(h), but incorporated the
provisions allowing for an SO2 Backstop Trading Program
under the stationary source requirements in 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4).\23\
The requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4) contain general requirements
pertaining to stationary sources and market trading, and allow states
to adopt alternatives to source-specific application of BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Five states--Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah and
Wyoming--and Albuquerque-Bernalillo County, New Mexico, initially
exercised this option by submitting plans to the EPA in December
2003. Oregon elected to cease participation in 2006, and Arizona
elected to cease participation in 2010.
\22\ Ctr. for Energy & Econ. Dev. v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 654 (DC
Cir. 2005).
\23\ 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under 40 CFR 51.309, states can satisfy the SO2 BART
requirements by adopting SO2 emissions milestones and the
SO2 Backstop Trading Program as described in
51.309(d)(4)(i)-(vi). Under this approach, states must establish
declining SO2 emissions milestones for each year of the
program through 2018. The milestones must be consistent with the
GCVTC's goal of 50 to 70 percent reduction in SO2 emissions
by 2040. The SO2 Backstop Trading Program would be
implemented if a milestone is exceeded and the program is
triggered.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(v).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 51.309(d)(4) includes not only provisions for stationary
source emissions of SO2, but also a requirement that
Transport Region States' implementation plans contain any necessary
long-term strategies and BART requirements for stationary source PM and
NOX emissions. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), any
BART provisions may be submitted pursuant to either 51.308(e)(1) or
51.308(e)(2); that is, states may submit either source-specific BART
determinations or BART alternatives for PM and NOX.
E. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting
The CAA requires that SIPs, including regional haze SIPs, contain
elements sufficient to ensure emission limits are practically
enforceable. CAA section 110(a)(2) states that the MRR provisions of
states' SIPs must:
(A) include enforceable emission limitations and other control
measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such
as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance, as may be necessary
or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this chapter;
. . . (C) include a program to provide for the enforcement of the
measures described in subparagraph (A), and 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, including a permit
program as required in parts C and D of this subchapter; . . . (F)
require, as may be prescribed by the Administrator--(i) the
installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources to monitor emissions from such sources, (ii)
periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions and
emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of
such reports by the State agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall
be available at reasonable times for public inspection.
Accordingly, 40 CFR part 51, subpart K, Source Surveillance,
requires the SIP to provide for monitoring the status of compliance
with the regulations in it, including ``[p]eriodic testing and
inspection of stationary sources,'' \25\ and ``legally enforceable
procedures'' for recordkeeping and reporting.\26\ Furthermore, 40 CFR
part 51, appendix V, Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan
Submissions, states in section 2.2 that complete SIPs contain: ``(g)
Evidence that the plan contains emission limitations, work practice
standards and recordkeeping/reporting requirements, where necessary, to
ensure emission levels''; and ``(h) Compliance/enforcement strategies,
including how compliance will be determined in practice.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 40 CFR 51.212(a).
\26\ 40 CFR 51.211.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Consultation With Federal Land Managers (FLMs)
The statute and the RHR require that a state, or the EPA if
promulgating a FIP that fills a gap in the SIP with respect to the
applicable requirements, consult with FLMs before adopting and
submitting a required SIP or SIP revision, or a required FIP or FIP
revision.\27\ Further, the state when considering a SIP revision (or
EPA in a FIP) must include in its proposal a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ CAA section 169A(d); 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Summary of State Regional Haze Submittals and EPA Actions
1. 2008 and 2011 Utah Regional Haze SIP Submissions
On May 26, 2011, the State of Utah submitted to EPA a regional haze
SIP under 40 CFR 51.309 (``2011 Utah RH SIP''). Consistent with 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(vii), this submittal included BART determinations for
NOX and PM at Utah's four subject-to-BART sources:
PacifiCorp's Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. All
four units are tangentially-fired fossil-fuel electric generating units
(EGUs), each with a net generating capacity of 430 MW, permitted to
burn bituminous coal. This submittal also included quantitative
emissions milestones through 2018 and a backstop trading program for
SO2 intended to meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4)(i)-(vi). The SO2 backstop trading program
covers Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and the City of Albuquerque.
Utah had also previously submitted SIPs on December 12, 2003,
August 8, 2004, and September 9, 2008, to meet the requirements of the
RHR. These submittals were, for the most part, superseded and replaced
by the May 26, 2011 submittal as further explained in the next section.
2. 2012 EPA Action on 2011 and 2008 Utah Regional Haze SIP Submissions
On December 14, 2012, EPA partially approved and partially
disapproved the 2011 Utah RH SIP.\28\ We approved the 2011 Utah RH SIP
as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, with the exception of the
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii) pertaining to
NOX and PM BART. EPA's partial disapproval action was based
on the following: (1) Utah did not take into account the five statutory
factors in its BART analyses for NOX and PM; and (2) the
2011 Utah RH SIP submission did not contain the provisions necessary to
make the BART limits practically enforceable as required by section
110(a)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51, appendix V.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 77 FR 74355, 74357 (Dec. 14, 2012).
\29\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3563]]
We also approved two sections of the 2008 Utah RH SIP submission in
the December 13, 2012 action. Specifically, we approved state rules UAR
R307-250--Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program and R307-
150--Emission Inventories. We took no action on the rest of the 2008
submittal as the 2011 submittal superseded and replaced all other
sections. We also took no action on the December 12, 2003 and August 8,
2004 submittals as these were superseded by the 2011 submittal.
On November 8, 2011, we separately proposed approval of Section G--
Long-Term Strategy for Fire Programs of the May 26, 2011 submittal and
finalized our approval of that action on January 18, 2013.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ 78 FR 4071, 4072 (Jan. 18, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Petitions for Review of the EPA's Approval of the SO2
Backstop Trading Program
In 2013, conservation organizations challenged EPA's 2012 approval
of the SO2 Backstop Trading Program as an alternative to
BART for certain Transport Region States, including Utah, in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. On October 21, 2014, the Tenth
Circuit upheld EPA's action, including EPA's finding that the trading
program could serve as a BART alternative under a ``clear weight of
evidence'' standard.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ WildEarth Guardians v. United States EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 938
(10th Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. 2015 Utah Regional Haze SIP Submissions
On June 4, 2015, the State of Utah submitted to EPA a revision to
its Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309 of the RHR (``June 2015 Utah
RH SIP'') to address the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii)
pertaining to NOX and PM BART. Utah developed the June 2015
Utah RH SIP in response to EPA's December 14, 2012 partial disapproval
of the 2011 Utah RH SIP submission. The June 2015 Utah RH SIP evolved
from a draft SIP on which Utah sought public comment in October 2014.
After receiving extensive public comments on that draft, Utah decided
to pursue a NOX BART Alternative under the 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2) ``clear weight of evidence'' standard that takes credit
for NOX reductions due to combustion controls installed at
PacifiCorp's Hunter and Huntington power plants in addition to
NOX, SO2, and PM reductions from the August 2015
retirement of PacifiCorp's nearby Carbon power plant. The June 2015
Utah RH SIP submission also included measures to make the SIP
requirements practically enforceable and included additional
information pertaining to the PM BART determinations for Hunter and
Huntington to address deficiencies identified by EPA in our December
2012 partial disapproval.
On October 20, 2015, Utah submitted to EPA another revision to its
Regional Haze SIP under 40 CFR 51.309 (``October 2015 Utah RH SIP'').
This SIP included an enforceable commitment to provide an additional
SIP revision by mid-March 2018 to address concerns raised in public
comments that the State would be double counting certain SO2
emissions reductions under both the Utah NOX BART
Alternative and the milestone reporting for the SO2 Backstop
Trading Program.
5. 2016 EPA Action on 2015 Utah RH SIP Submissions
On July 5, 2016, we partially approved and partially disapproved
the revisions to the Utah SIP submitted by the State of Utah on June 4,
2015.\32\ We approved the following elements of the State's SIP
submittals: \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
\33\ EPA had already approved elements satisfying other
applicable requirements in the December 14, 2012 action: Section
XX.B.8, Figures 1 and 2, Affected Class I Areas, pp. 8-9; Section
XX.D.6.b, Table 3, BART-Eligible Sources in Utah, p. 21; Section
XX.D.6.c, Sources Subject to BART, pp. 21-23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART determinations and emission limits for PM at Hunter
Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2.
MRR requirements for units subject to the PM emission
limits, including conditional approval of the requirement that the PM
emission limits apply at all times, subject to the state's commitment
to adopt reporting requirements for deviations from the emission
limits.
We disapproved these aspects of the State's June 4, 2015 SIP:
NOX BART Alternative, including emission limits
consistent with upgraded combustion controls at Hunter Units 1, 2, and
3 and Huntington Units 1 and 2, and the SO2, NOx, and PM
emission reductions resulting from the shutdown of Carbon Units 1 and
2.
MRR requirements for units subject to the NOX
BART Alternative.
As noted above, in June 2015 Utah submitted the NOX BART
Alternative under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E)'s clear-weight-of-evidence
test. To support its conclusion that the NOX BART
Alternative makes greater reasonable progress towards the national
visibility goal, the SIP submission relied on nine metrics for
comparing the Alternative to the BART Benchmark: Aggregate emission
reductions, monitoring data, timing of emission reductions, energy and
non-air quality impacts, cost, and four visibility-related metrics
based on the results of a modeling exercise using the CALPUFF model. In
the July 2016 final rule, EPA determined that the evidence provided did
not clearly demonstrate that the BART Alternative achieves greater
visibility improvement than BART. As part of this evaluation, we
determined which metrics were relevant to the assessment of relative
visibility benefit, evaluated the strengths and weaknesses of each
metric in order to determine which merited more or less weight, and
collectively considered the weights assigned to the individual pieces
of information in determining whether, on balance, the evidence
demonstrated that the NOX BART Alternative would clearly
provide for greater reasonable progress.\34\ Based on this assessment,
we determined that the evidence before us did not satisfy the standard
articulated under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) and disapproved the
NOX BART Alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ See 81 FR 43894, 43896-43902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We thus promulgated a FIP in the July 5, 2016 action to address the
deficiencies in the Utah regional haze SIP submissions. EPA's FIP
includes the following elements:
NOX BART determinations and corresponding
emission limits for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2
of 0.07 lb/MMbtu (30-day rolling average) each, reflecting installation
and operation of SCR plus the existing upgraded combustion controls.
Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements
applicable to Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 as
needed to implement the NOX BART determinations and emission
limits.
We took no action on the enforceable commitment to revise, at a
minimum, SIP Section XX.D.3.c and state rule R307-150 addressing double
counting of SO2 emissions, because there was no need to do
so once the NOX BART Alternative had been disapproved.
6. Petitions for Review of EPA's 2016 SIP Disapproval and FIP
In September 2016, the State of Utah, PacifiCorp, and several other
parties challenged EPA's July 5, 2016 disapproval of the NOX
BART Alternative and promulgation of a FIP in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit.\35\ In addition, the State and PacifiCorp (on
behalf of the co-owners of Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1
and 2) submitted letters to EPA on June 30, 2017, identifying new
[[Page 3564]]
information that was not available at the time of EPA's action on
Utah's 2015 SIP submission, providing additional explanation of
existing information, and stating an intent to develop and submit to
EPA additional technical analyses in support of the NOX BART
Alternative.\36\ On July 14, 2017, the EPA Administrator sent letters
to the State of Utah and PacifiCorp announcing the Agency's intent to
reconsider its disapproval of the NOX BART Alternative.\37\
On this basis, EPA asked the Tenth Circuit to put the litigation in
abeyance; on September 11, 2017, the court both granted EPA's request
to abate the litigation and issued a stay of EPA's July 5, 2016 final
rule.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ State of Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.).
\36\ See docket IDs EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0463-0216 (letter from
State of Utah) and EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0463-0221 (letter from
PacifiCorp).
\37\ See docket IDs EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0463-0222 (letter to State
of Utah) and EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0463-0223 (letter to PacifiCorp).
\38\ State of Utah v. EPA, No. 16-9541 (10th Cir.), Doc. No.
10496767.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. 2019 Utah RH SIP Revisions
On July 3, 2019, Utah submitted a SIP revision intended to replace
EPA's 2016 FIP provisions for NOX BART. The measures in the
NOX BART Alternative submitted in July 2019 are identical to
those in the Alternative submitted in June 2015 (i.e., Utah submitted
the same NOX BART Alternative in the June 2015 and July 2019
SIPs). However, while the State had previously relied on the clear-
weight-of-evidence test under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) to demonstrate
that the Alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART in
the June 2015 submission,\39\ the July 2019 submission relies solely on
the application of the two-prong test under 51.308(e)(3) using
photochemical grid modeling. Background on these two approaches to
demonstrating greater reasonable progress is provided in section II.C.
above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ For a summary of the weight-of-evidence contained in Utah's
June 2015 SIP, and EPA's evaluation thereof, refer to the July 2016
final rule at 81 FR 43897-43902.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The July 3, 2019 SIP submittal includes the emission limitations
and control measures associated with the NOX BART
Alternative. It also includes the monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements that EPA previously approved for PM BART, but
disapproved as applied to the emission limitations and control measures
associated with the NOX BART Alternative.
On December 3, 2019, Utah submitted a supplement to the July 2019
SIP submission that includes an amendment to the monitoring, record
keeping, and reporting requirements submitted on July 3, 2019.
Specifically, the amendments require each source to submit a report of
any deviation from applicable emission limits and operating practices,
including deviations attributable to upset conditions, the probable
cause of such deviations, and any corrective actions or preventive
measures taken.
This proposed action pertains to the July 3, 2019 SIP submittal as
supplemented on December 3, 2019.
Sections 110(a)(2) and 110(l) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.102 and
appendix V to part 51 require that a state provide reasonable notice
and public hearing before adopting a SIP revision and submitting it to
EPA. Utah, after providing notice, accepted comments on the July 2019
Utah RH SIP submission from April 1, 2019 through May 15, 2019.
Similarly, Utah accepted comments on the December 3, 2019 RH SIP
supplement from October 1, 2019 to October 31, 2019.
III. Utah's Regional Haze SIP Revisions
A. Summary of the Utah NOX BART Alternative SIP Revision
As noted elsewhere, the EPA previously approved Utah's SIP elements
satisfying the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309 to address the State's
regional haze obligations for the first implementation period, other
than emission limitations corresponding to NOX BART or an
alternative to BART for NOX and the associated MRR
requirements, and certain requirements for MRR related to PM BART.\40\
Therefore, in this action we are addressing only these outstanding
elements and certain ancillary SIP revisions necessary to effectuate
them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ EPA conditionally approved Utah's MRR requirements for the
PM BART emission limitations under CAA section 110(k)(4). 81 FR at
43921.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah's July 3, 2019 SIP RH submittal, as supplemented on December
3, 2019, includes changes to the following provisions, on which we are
proposing to take action:
Revised SIP Section XX, Regional Haze, Parts A, Executive
Summary, and D, Long-Term Strategy for Stationary Sources (revised SIP
narrative sections including the BART Assessment for NOX); adopted by
the Utah Air Quality Board on June 24, 2019.
Revised R307-110-28, General Requirements: State
Implementation Plan, Regional Haze (state rule that incorporates by
reference most recently amended SIP Section XX); effective August 15,
2019.
SIP Section IX.H.21 General Requirements: Control Measures
for Area and Point Sources, Emission Limits and Operating Practices,
Regional Haze Requirements (SIP section laying out MRR requirements for
control measures); adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on November
20, 2019.
SIP Section IX.H.22 Source Specific Emission Limitations:
Regional Haze Requirements, Best Available Retrofit Technology (SIP
section containing emission limitations necessary for NOX
BART Alternative); adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on November
20, 2019.
Revised R307-110-17, General Requirements: State
Implementation Plan. Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources, Part H, Emissions Limits (state rule that incorporates by
reference most recently amended SIP Section IX, Part H); effective on
November 25, 2019.
Revised R307-150-3, Emission Inventories, Applicability
(state rule that addresses reporting of SO2 emissions for
Carbon power plant under the Western Backstop SO2 Trading
Program); effective June 25, 2018.
These six provisions are related to the following two outstanding
requirements for the first implementation period: NOX BART
for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2; and MRR
requirements for the Utah NOX BART Alternative and PM BART
emission limits to make the SIP requirements practically enforceable.
1. Utah NOX BART Alternative
To satisfy the requirement of 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), Utah has
opted to establish an alternative to BART for NOX under 40
CFR 51.308(e)(2). The State's NOX BART Alternative consists
of upgraded combustion controls on all four subject-to-BART units,
upgraded combustion controls on Hunter Unit 3, and the shutdown of
Carbon Units 1 and 2. The emission limits in the July 3, 2019 Utah RH
SIP submittal, as supplemented on December 3, 2019, are provided in
Table 1. We further explain the components of the SIP submissions
below.
[[Page 3565]]
Table 1--Emission Limits and Shutdown in the Utah BART Alternative and PM SIP \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM limit 2 3 (lb/ NOX limit 4 (lb/
Source Unit MMBtu, three-run MMBtu, 30-day SO2 limit
test average) rolling average)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter....................... 1 0.015............... 0.26................ NA.
2 0.015............... 0.26................ NA.
3 NA.................. 0.34................ NA.
Huntington................... 1 0.015............... 0.26................ NA.
2 0.015............... 0.26................ NA.
Carbon....................... 1 Shutdown by August Shutdown by August Shutdown by August
15, 2015. 15, 2015. 15, 2015.
2 Shutdown by August Shutdown by August Shutdown by August
15, 2015. 15, 2015. 15, 2015.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Obtained from the July 2019 Utah RH SIP, Section IX.H.22.
\2\ Based on annual stack testing.
\3\ The BART PM emission limits were previously approved by in our July 2016 final rule. 81 FR 43894 (July 5,
2016).
\4\ Based on continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) measurement.
The State compared the NOX BART Alternative against a
BART Benchmark that consists of SCR plus upgraded combustion controls
on all four BART units. The State noted SCR plus upgraded combustion
controls would require careful consideration through a source-specific
five-factor analysis before determining it is BART for these units.
However, the State used those controls as a stringent benchmark for
comparison with the NOX BART Alternative. The State remarked
that its use of SCR plus upgraded combustion controls as a benchmark is
not a determination that this technology is BART; it is merely a
conservative approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the
alternative program. The Utah NOX BART Alternative is
generally described in SIP Section XX.D.6 with a detailed demonstration
included in the Staff Review to support the State's assertion that the
Alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART.
In addition to combustion controls at the Hunter and Huntington
units, the State intends to rely on the emission reductions resulting
from the shutdown of a coal-fired power plant. Utah indicated that
PacifiCorp shut down the Carbon Power Plant in 2015, due to the high
cost to control mercury to meet the requirements of EPA's Mercury and
Air Toxics Standards (MATS).\41\ The State noted that the MATS rule was
finalized in 2011, and the Utah RH SIP contains the requirement for the
Carbon Power Plant to shut down in August 2015. The emission reductions
occur after the 2002 base year for Utah's RH SIP and thus, Utah
asserts, the reductions may be considered as part of an alternative
strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Utah Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Staff Review
of Recommended Alternative to BART for NOX, May 28, 2019,
p. 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's demonstration is described in more detail in section
III.B below. The State's estimates of emissions for the Utah
NOX BART Alternative and the BART Benchmark are provided in
Table 2 of section III.B.4 below. EPA developed a summary of the
emissions reductions based on Utah's emission estimates and this is
presented in Table 3 of section III.B.4 below.
B. Summary of Utah's Demonstration for Alternative Program
As discussed above in Section II, a state may opt to implement an
alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to
install, operate, and maintain source-specific BART. BART alternatives
such as the Utah NOX BART Alternative that are not emissions
trading programs must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)-
(iv).\42\ Utah has included the following information in its July 2019
SIP revision to address the regulatory criteria for an alternative
program: \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ States may address 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(v) at their option.
\43\ See Staff Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within the State
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A), the SIP must include a list
of all BART-eligible sources within the State. Utah included a list of
BART-eligible sources and noted the following sources are all covered
by the alternative program:
PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 1
PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 2
PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 1
PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 2
2. List of All BART-Eligible Sources and All BART Source Categories
Covered by the Alternative Program
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(B), each BART-eligible source in
the State must be subject to the requirements of the alternative
program, have a federally enforceable emission limitation determined by
the State and approved by EPA as meeting BART, or be otherwise
addressed under paragraphs 51.308(e)(1) or (e)(4). In this instance,
the alternative program covers all the BART-eligible sources in the
state--Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2--in addition
to three non-BART units--PacifiCorp's Hunter Unit 3 and Carbon Units 1
and 2.
3. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions Achievable
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(C), the SIP must include an
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions achievable at the
subject-to-BART units covered by the alternative program, here Hunter
Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2. In the July 2019 Utah RH
SIP, the State compared the Utah NOX BART Alternative to the
most stringent NOX controls, SCR plus upgraded combustion
controls, at the four BART units, referred to here as the BART
Benchmark. This is consistent with the BART determination made by EPA
in our July 2016 final rule.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ In the July 2016 FIP, EPA determined these same controls--
SCR plus LNB/SOFA--constitute BART for each of the four subject-to-
BART units. Utah's July 2019 SIP submittal thus refers to the BART
Benchmark controls as the ``EPA FIP''; while the controls
represented by the BART Benchmark and EPA's FIP are indeed the same,
the relevant comparison for the purpose of this analysis is between
the BART Benchmark and the BART alternative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51. 308(e)(2)(i)(D), the SIP must include ``[a]n
analysis of the projected emissions reductions achievable through the .
. . alternative measure.'' A summary of the State's estimates of
emissions in tons per year (tpy) for the Baseline, NOX BART
Alternative and the BART Benchmark is provided in Table 2. A summary of
the emissions reductions based on those emission estimates is presented
in Table 3. The emissions and emission reductions were projected for
the year
[[Page 3566]]
2025 to align with the future year modeling scenarios used to calculate
visibility benefits under the BART Benchmark and BART Alternative, as
described in the section that follows.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ Staff Review, Table 2, p. 12. Values rounded to the nearest
ton.
Table 2--Estimated Emissions in 2025 Under the Baseline Scenario, BART Benchmark (BART Benchmark), and the BART Alternative \45\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (tpy) SO2 (tpy) PM (tpy) Combined
------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units BART BART BART BART BART
Baseline benchmark BART alt. Baseline benchmark BART alt. Baseline benchmark BART alt. Baseline benchmark alt.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
Carbon 1.................................. 1,312 1,312 0 2,286 2,286 0 120 120 0 3,718 3,718 0
Carbon 2.................................. 1,977 1,977 0 3,528 3,528 0 183 183 0 5,688 5,688 0
Hunter 1.................................. 6,380 796 3,166 2,535 1,153 1,153 733 733 733 9,648 2,682 5,052
Hunter 2.................................. 6,092 798 3,028 2,531 1,408 1,408 717 717 717 9,340 2,923 5,153
Hunter 3.................................. 6,530 6,530 4,490 1,204 1,230 1,230 531 531 531 8,265 8,291 6,251
Huntington 1.............................. 5,944 793 3,147 2,380 1,254 1,254 517 517 517 8,841 2,564 4,918
Huntington 2.............................. 5,816 753 3,366 12,308 1,201 1,201 1,033 1,033 1,033 19,157 2,987 5,600
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 34,051 12,959 17,197 26,772 12,060 6,246 3,834 3,834 3,531 64,657 28,853 26,974
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--EPA Summary of 2025 Projected Emission Reductions Achievable With the Utah NOX BART Alternative as
Compared to the BART Benchmark
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Combined emissions for all units (tpy)
Description ---------------------------------------------------------------
NOX SO2 PM Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART Benchmark.................................. 12,959 12,060 3,834 28,853
BART Alternative................................ 17,197 6,246 3,531 26,974
Emission Reduction (BART Benchmark Minus BART -4,238 5,814 303 1,879
Alternative) \1\...............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A negative value indicates the BART Alternative results in more emissions of the specified pollutant in
comparison to the BART Benchmark.
5. A Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation and Operation
of BART
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E), the State must provide a
determination that the alternative program achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or otherwise based on the
clear weight of evidence.
Utah noted that the Hunter, Huntington, and Carbon plants are all
located within 40 miles of each other in central Utah. Because of the
close proximity of the three plants, the geographic distribution of
emissions will not be substantially different under the alternative
program. The combined emissions of NOX, SO2, and
PM are 1,879 tons/yr lower under the alternative measure. However, the
NOX BART Alternative measure does not result in greater
emission reductions of all pollutants--SO2 emissions are
lower by 5,814 tons/yr, PM are lower by 303 tons/yr, but NOX
emissions are higher by 4,238 tons/yr. Therefore, because the
NOX BART Alternative relies on SO2 reductions,
and to a lesser extent PM reductions, in lieu of NOX
reductions, Utah determined that greater reasonable progress must be
demonstrated through the two-prong test based on dispersion modeling in
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) or a clear weight of evidence analysis. The State
chose to make this demonstration in the July 3, 2019 submittal using
the two-prong test allowed for under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). To evaluate
the two prongs, Utah relied on air quality modeling performed by a
contractor for PacifiCorp using the Comprehensive Air Quality Model
with Extensions (CAMx).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ CAMx modeling software and User's Guide are available at
https://www.camx.com/download/default.aspx. CAMx version 6.10 was
used for April to December, and CAMx version 6.40 was used for
January to March.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAMx model is a photochemical grid model that uses and produces
complex scientific data, including emissions from all sources, with a
realistic representation of formation, transport, and processes that
cause visibility degradation, estimating downwind concentrations paired
in space and time. The EPA's guidance supports use of this particular
model for evaluation of visibility impacts from sources or source
categories, such as application of the two-prong test under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3).\47\ The CAMx model simulates air quality over many
geographic scales and treats a wide variety of inert and chemically
active pollutants, including ozone, PM, inorganic and organic
PM2.5/PM10, and mercury and other toxics. CAMx
also has plume-in-grid and source apportionment capabilities.\48\ CAMx
has a scientifically current treatment of chemistry to simulate
transformation of emissions into visibility-impairing particles of
species such as ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulfate, and is often
employed in large-scale modeling when many sources of pollution and/or
long transport distances are involved. Photochemical grid models like
CAMx
[[Page 3567]]
include all emissions sources and have realistic representation of
formation, transport, and removal processes of the particulate matter
that causes visibility degradation. The use of the CAMx model for
analyzing potential cumulative air quality impacts has been well
established: The model has been used for previous visibility modeling
studies in the U.S., including SIPs.\49\ The modeling followed a
modeling protocol that was reviewed by the EPA.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Attainment of Air
Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle
Park, NC (November 2018). The main regional haze section of the
guidance is related to setting reasonable progress goals. However,
the guidance methods may also be applicable to other regional haze
related modeling, including, but not limited to, evaluation of
visibility impacts from sources and/or source sectors. See id. at
143-145. https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/scram/guidance/guide/O3-PM-RH-Modeling_Guidance-2018.pdf. 40 CFR pt. 51, app. Y: IV.D.5 (how to
determine visibility impacts from the BART determination); 40 CFR
51.308(e)(3) (use of dispersion modeling for BART alternatives).
\48\ Photochemical Air Quality Modeling (https://www.epa.gov/scram/photochemical-air-quality-modeling). CAMx is a photochemical
grid model, which the EPA describes as follows: Photochemical air
quality models have become widely recognized and routinely utilized
tools for regulatory analysis and attainment demonstrations by
assessing the effectiveness of control strategies. These
photochemical models are large-scale air quality models that
simulate the changes of pollutant concentrations in the atmosphere
using a set of mathematical equations characterizing the chemical
and physical processes in the atmosphere. These models are applied
at multiple spatial scales, including from local, regional, national
and global.
\49\ See, e.g., 84 FR 22711 (May 20, 2019) (Final action for the
Laramie River Station in the Regional Haze Plan for Wyoming); 82 FR
46903 (October 10, 2017) (Final action for the Coronado Generating
Station in the Regional Haze Plan for Arizona); 81 FR 296 (January
5, 2016) (Final action for Texas and Oklahoma Regional Haze Plans).
\50\ Photochemical Modeling Protocol to Assess Visibility
Impacts for PacifiCorp Power Plants Located in Utah. AECOM
Environment, January 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Air Quality Study (WAQS) \51\ developed and evaluated a
photochemical modeling platform for calendar year 2011 \52\ for use in
air quality planning studies in the western U.S. The modeling data
sets, called the ``WAQS 2011b platform,'' are available to the public
and served as the starting point for the CAMx modeling exercise. The
WAQS 2011b modeling included a 2025 future year scenario that was used
here to assess visibility impacts from the Baseline, BART Benchmark,
and NOX BART Alternative emissions scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Memorandum: Recommendations on Use of Intermountain West
Data Warehouse for Air Quality 2011b Model Platform. Intermountain
West Data Warehouse--Western Air Quality Study Oversight Committee.
July 6, 2016. Available https://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/Attachments/Modeling/IWDW-WAQS_2011b_ModelingPlatform_Release_Memo%20July6_2016final.pdf.
\52\ ``Western Air Quality Modeling Study Photochemical Grid
Model Final Model Performance Evaluation'', available in the docket
and at: https://views.cira.colostate.edu/wiki/Attachments/Modeling/WAQS_Base11b_MPE_Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because regional haze is affected by natural and anthropogenic
emissions from international sources, the WAQS 2011b modeling platform
used a series of nested model simulations from the global to the
regional scale. Global scale modeling was performed by the National
Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) using the Model for OZone And
Related chemical Tracers (MOZART).\53\ The WAQS 2011b used boundary
concentrations data from the NCAR MOZART simulation to perform regional
scale CAMx simulations using a coarse grid 36x36 km grid resolution for
a model domain that included most of North America, a nested 12x12 km
grid for a model domain that included all of the western U.S., and a
fine scale 4x4 grid for a model domain that included the intermountain
west region. The three nested CAMx modeling domains are illustrated in
Figure 3.1 of WAQS 2011b model evaluation report.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ The MOZART model formulation is described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOZART_.
\54\ Id. 56, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PacifiCorp CAMx modeling was based on the WAQS 2011b 4x4 grid
modeling domain, but PacifiCorp initially used a smaller modeling
domain designed to focus on the nine Class I areas within 300 km of the
Hunter and Huntington BART sources that had been used in previous Utah
DEQ CALPUFF modeling.\55\ In response to comments from the EPA Region
8, PacifiCorp expanded the size of their proposed 4x4 km grid modeling
domain to ensure that air parcel trajectories would remain within the
model domain as they were transported from the BART sources to the nine
Class I areas. The expanded PacifiCorp 4x4 km model domain included 15
Class I areas, as shown in Figure 6 of the Utah DEQ staff report.\56\
While some Class I areas are more than 300 km from the BART sources,
CAMx is accurate for long range transport and has been used by the EPA
for analysis of long range transport of ozone and fine particulates at
distances greater than 1,000 km. For completeness, the EPA recommended
that PacifiCorp evaluate model results for all 15 Class I areas in the
CAMx modeling domain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ Model applications using CALPUFF for BART sources
typically--but not in all cases--have included Class I areas only up
to a distance 300 km because uncertainty in CALPUFF results
increases at distances greater than 300 km.
\56\ Staff Review, Figure 6, p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA provides guidance for the use of photochemical grid models
such as CAMx for evaluating source contributions to regional haze.
Because this notice addresses requirements for BART sources as part of
the first regional haze planning period, the model results are being
evaluated using procedures designed specifically for these requirements
as outlined in the RHR and in a EPA Guidance published in 2007.\57\ The
RHR, 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), requires that greater reasonable progress
demonstrations for BART alternatives be evaluated for the best and
worst 20% total haze days, which are selected for Class I areas using
data from the IMPROVE monitoring network.\58\ The IMPROVE network
consists of 110 monitoring sites designed to measure visibility
impairment at the 155 mandatory Class I areas. While not all Class I
areas have an IMPROVE monitor, the network was designed so that, where
needed, measurements of one monitor would be representative of the
regional haze conditions at more than one nearby Class I area.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the
Regional Haze Program, available at: https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20070601_wehrum_reasonable_progress_goals_reghaze.pdf.
\58\ The IMPROVE monitoring network is described at: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/improve-program/.
\59\ The use of a representative IMPROVE monitor for groups of
nearby Class I areas is described at: https://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Chapter1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because models can be subject to bias and error in the simulation
of the individual components of PM2.5 that contribute to
regional haze, the EPA guidance recommends that photochemical model
results be used by multiplying the model simulated change in each
component of PM2.5 by the PM2.5 concentration
measured by the IMPROVE monitoring network. The EPA has developed
software, the Speciated Model Attainment Test (SMAT), that can be used
to calculate the model relative response factor (RRF) for each
PM2.5 species in an emissions control simulation compared to
a base case simulation, and to multiply the model RRF by the observed
IMPROVE PM2.5 concentrations for a five year period at the
representative monitor for each Class I area.
As described in the model performance evaluation report for the
WAQS 2011b platform, the model generally performed well at most sites
in the western U.S. However, CAMx was biased low for ammonia and
ammonium nitrate at some sites on the Colorado Plateau, i.e., CAMx
predicted lower concentrations of ammonia and ammonium nitrate than
were measured at some monitoring sites. Because model predictions for
ammonium nitrate at these sites are directly relevant to the comparison
of the ammonium nitrate- and ammonium sulfate-related visibility
benefits of the BART and BART Alternative scenarios, the EPA
recommended that PacifiCorp perform additional model sensitivity
simulations and performance evaluation to improve model performance for
ammonia and ammonium nitrate on the Colorado Plateau. The EPA
recommended that ammonia concentration be increased at the northern
boundary of the model domain, located in the Salt Lake City area.
Previous winter PM2.5 modeling studies performed by Utah DEQ
found that winter ammonia emissions were underestimated in the Cache
Valley in northern UT, and that model performance for ammonium nitrate
improved when ammonia emissions
[[Page 3568]]
were increased so that the model-simulated ammonia matched observed
ammonia concentrations. For the sensitivity study, PacifiCorp used the
Utah DEQ winter PM2.5 model results to define the ammonia
concentrations at the northern boundary of the PacifiCorp modeling
domain. Additionally, the EPA recommended changes to a model parameter
that affects ammonia dry deposition to surfaces.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ In an email dated 9/26/2017, Chris Emery of Ramboll, the
developer of the CAMx model, identified an error in the model
settings that caused it to overestimate the deposition and removal
of gas phase ammonia in the model. The default model configuration
included a setting that specified zero surface resistance to ammonia
deposition which tends to overestimate ammonia deposition to
surfaces and to underestimate the ambient concentrations of ammonia
and ammonium nitrate. Mr. Emery recommended changing the model
configuration to include surface resistance to ammonia deposition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PacifiCorp adopted both of these recommendations and performed a
new base case model simulation and performance evaluation. This
resulted in substantial improvements in model performance for ammonia
and ammonium nitrate on the Colorado Plateau. Because the new base case
model more accurately simulates the observed ammonia and ammonium
nitrate concentrations, it is also expected to provide more accurate
predictions of the visibility benefits of changes in NOX
emissions for the EPA BART Benchmark and Utah NOX BART
Alternative. These model results are described in Appendix A of the
Utah DEQ Staff Review. The revised base case model configuration was
then used for the 2011 Typical Year model simulation, the 2025 Baseline
model simulation, and for the 2025 BART Benchmark and 2025 Utah
NOX BART Alternative model simulations, described below.
Using the WAQS 2011b platform, CAMx was configured to simulate the
following modeling scenarios:
2011 Typical Year. This 2011 scenario allows for the
development of RRFs that are applied to observed concentrations in
order to predict future visibility conditions. The Carbon, Hunter and
Huntington power plants were modeled at levels representative of the
period 2001 to 2003, while all other sources remain at the levels of
the 2011 WAQS base year simulation.
2025 Baseline. Emissions from Carbon, Hunter and
Huntington are identical to the Typical Year modeling Scenario (i.e.,
2001-2003). All other emissions sources remain at the levels of the
2025 WAQS future-year simulation.
BART Benchmark. This 2025 scenario represents the BART
Benchmark and simulates the emission control strategy for Hunter and
Huntington units required in the 2016 FIP. Specifically, emissions for
the four BART units reflect a 30-day rolling average NOX
emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu consistent with the installation and
operation of SCR plus upgraded combustion controls. SO2
emissions for the Hunter and Huntington units reflect representative
emissions from 2014-2016 in order to match the BART Alternative
scenario. The BART Benchmark scenario also includes the Carbon power
plant using the same level of emissions as the Baseline scenario (i.e.,
2001-2003). All other emissions sources remain at the levels of the
2025 WAQS future-year simulation.
Utah NOX BART Alternative. This 2025 scenario
simulates the emission control strategy for Carbon, Hunter and
Huntington units required by the BART Alternative SIP as represented in
Table 2 above. This scenario simulates representative emissions of
NOX and SO2 from Hunter and Huntington units
during the period 2014 to 2016, which include the emissions controls
required under the Alternative (i.e., the upgraded combustion
controls). For this scenario, the Carbon power plant emissions were
zero since the power plant was decommissioned in April 2015, as
required under the Alternative. All other emissions sources remain at
the levels of the 2025 WAQS future-year simulation.
All other model inputs, including other regional emissions sources,
were held constant for the future-year (Baseline, BART Benchmark, and
BART Alternative) scenarios. Thus, any differences in the visibility
impacts between the modeled control scenarios and the Baseline, and
between the two control scenarios (i.e., BART and the BART
Alternative), are attributable solely to differences in the associated
emission inputs for the seven PacifiCorp units. The CAMx-modeled
concentrations for sulfate, nitrate, and other chemical species were
tracked for the Hunter, Huntington, and Carbon power plants using the
CAMx Particulate Source Apportionment Technology (PSAT) so that the
concentrations and visibility impacts due to the seven PacifiCorp units
could be separated out from those due to the total of all other modeled
sources. Visibility impacts were assessed at the 15 Class I areas
contained inside of the modeling domain.61 62
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ Staff Review, pp. 17-18. Specifically, see rectangular CAMx
modeling domain with 4-kilometer grid resolution in Figure 4-1.
\62\ By contrast, in the CALPUFF modeling supporting EPA's 2016
FIP, visibility impacts were assessed for the nine Class I areas
within 300 kilometers of the BART units. The rectangular CAMx
modeling domain was designed to be large enough to include these
nine Class I areas and to include air parcel trajectories from those
sources to the Class I areas. In response to EPA Region 8 comments
on a draft modeling protocol, the rectangular CAMx model domain was
expanded further to the east, north and south to ensure that
emissions from the sources would remain within the model domain as
they were transported from the sources to the affected Class I
areas. For completeness, results for all Class I areas located
within the rectangular CAMx domain were included in the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The visibility impacts derived from the CAMx modeling results are
summarized in Tables 4 and 5 of this notice.\63\ The tables show the
projected contribution to visibility impairment due to emissions from
the seven EGUs covered by the Alternative on the 20 percent best days
and worst days respectively for the Baseline, the BART Benchmark, and
the proposed BART Alternative scenarios at each of the Class I areas
analyzed. The last two columns show the predicted visibility benefits
from the BART Alternative scenario relative to both the Baseline and
the BART Benchmark. At the bottom of each table are the average
visibility values from all the Class I areas. Negative values in the
last two columns indicate that the BART Alternative has smaller modeled
contributions to visibility impairment relative to the Baseline and the
BART Benchmark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Staff Review, pp. 16-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Column D in Table 4 shows that emissions from the seven EGUs under
the BART Alternative will not result in degradation of visibility on
the 20 percent best days compared to the Baseline at any one of the 15
Class I areas. Similarly, Column D in Table 5 shows that, on the 20
percent worst days, visibility impairment is less under the BART
Alternative than the Baseline in each of the Class I areas. Based on
these results, the State concluded that visibility does not decline at
any of the 15 Class I areas and therefore the BART Alternative meets
prong 1 of the ``greater reasonable progress using dispersion
modeling'' test found in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
The State next made a determination that the BART Alternative meets
prong 2 of the ``greater reasonable progress using dispersion
modeling'' test found in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) by comparing the average
difference between the BART Alternative and the BART Benchmark.
[[Page 3569]]
The last row of column E in Tables 4 and 5 show the average difference
in visibility between the BART Alternative and the BART Benchmark for
the 20 percent best and worst days respectively. The negative number
indicates that the average visibility improvement of the BART
Alternative is better than the BART Benchmark in both cases. Relative
to the BART Benchmark, the BART Alternative achieves an average
visibility improvement of 0.00494 dv across all Class I areas on the 20
percent best days, and of 0.00058 dv on the 20 percent worst days.
Therefore, Utah determined that the BART Alternative meets prong 2 of
the 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) test.
Utah noted that the language in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(i) and (ii)
indicates allowance of a straight numerical test. The State explained
that the regulation does not specify that a minimum difference in
deciview between the scenarios must be achieved to determine that a
BART Alternative achieves greater reasonable progress. Because the
modeling results show that visibility under the BART Alternative does
not decline at any of the 15 affected Class I areas compared to the
Baseline (prong 1) and will result in improved visibility, on average,
across all 15 Class I areas compared to the BART Benchmark (prong 2),
Utah asserted that the BART Alternative will achieve greater reasonable
progress than the BART Benchmark under the two-prong modeling test in
40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
Table 4--Visibility Impacts in 2025 for the Baseline, BART Benchmark and BART Alternative Scenarios on the 20
Percent Best Days \64\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART
BART Benchmark BART BART alternative--
Class I area Baseline (dv) (dv) alternative alternative-- BART
(dv) baseline benchmark
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches NP....................... 0.10300 0.05607 0.03851 -0.06449 -0.01756
Black Canyon of the Gunnison NM. 0.02769 0.01611 0.01162 -0.01607 -0.00449
Bryce Canyon NP................. 0.00528 0.00254 0.00228 -0.00300 -0.00026
Canyonlands NP.................. 0.10300 0.05607 0.03851 -0.06449 -0.01756
Capitol Reef NP................. 0.14218 0.07222 0.07140 -0.07078 -0.00082
Flat Tops WA.................... 0.02834 0.01488 0.01115 -0.01719 -0.00373
Grand Canyon NP................. 0.07136 0.03567 0.03611 -0.03525 0.00044
La Garita WA.................... 0.02769 0.01611 0.01162 -0.01607 -0.00449
Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA........ 0.02834 0.01488 0.01115 -0.01719 -0.00373
Mesa Verde NP................... 0.06356 0.03381 0.02749 -0.03607 -0.00632
Mount Zirkel WA................. 0.04209 0.02060 0.01471 -0.02738 -0.00589
San Pedro Parks WA.............. 0.03627 0.01742 0.01593 -0.02034 -0.00149
Weminuche WA.................... 0.02769 0.01611 0.01162 -0.01607 -0.00449
West Elk WA..................... 0.02834 0.01488 0.01115 -0.01719 -0.00373
Zion NP \1\..................... 0.00612 0.00291 0.00300 -0.00312 0.00009
All Class I area Average........ 0.04940 0.02602 0.02108 N/A -0.00494
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Results based on incomplete dataset. Zion NP monitor did not meet the 75% data completion SMAT requirement
for year 2011.
Table 5--Visibility Impacts in 2025 for the Baseline, BART Benchmark, and BART Alternative Scenarios on the 20
Percent Worst Days \65\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BART
BART Benchmark BART BART alternative--
Class I area Baseline (dv) (dv) alternative alternative-- BART
(dv) baseline benchmark
[A] [B] [C] [D] [E]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches NP....................... 0.25740 0.13780 0.12584 -0.13156 -0.01196
Black Canyon of the Gunnison NM. 0.01265 0.00682 0.00540 -0.00725 -0.00142
Bryce Canyon NP................. 0.04945 0.02184 0.02470 -0.02475 0.00286
Canyonlands NP.................. 0.25740 0.13780 0.12584 -0.13156 -0.01196
Capitol Reef NP................. 0.26010 0.11672 0.14568 -0.11442 0.02896
Flat Tops WA.................... 0.02703 0.01387 0.01011 -0.01692 -0.00376
Grand Canyon NP................. 0.00186 0.00089 0.00056 -0.00130 -0.00033
La Garita WA.................... 0.01265 0.00682 0.00540 -0.00725 -0.00142
Maroon Bells-Snowmass WA........ 0.02703 0.01387 0.01011 -0.01692 -0.00376
Mesa Verde NP................... 0.06203 0.02524 0.02959 -0.03244 0.00435
Mount Zirkel WA................. 0.03312 0.01705 0.01198 -0.02114 -0.00507
San Pedro Parks WA.............. 0.00154 0.00074 0.00073 -0.00081 -0.00001
Weminuche WA.................... 0.01265 0.00682 0.00540 -0.00725 -0.00142
West Elk WA..................... 0.02703 0.01387 0.01011 -0.01692 -0.00376
Zion NP\1\...................... 0.00155 0.00051 0.00051 -0.00104 0.00000
All Class I area Average........ 0.06957 0.03471 0.03413 N/A -0.00058
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Results based on incomplete dataset. Zion NP monitor did not meet the 75% data completion SMAT requirement
for year 2011.
[[Page 3570]]
6. Requirement That Emission Reductions Take Place During Period of
First Long-Term Strategy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Staff Review, Table 4, p. 19.
\65\ Staff Review, Table 5, p. 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii), the State must ensure that
all necessary emission reductions take place during the period of the
first long-term strategy for regional haze. The RHR further provides
that, ``[t]o meet this requirement, the State must provide a detailed
description of the . . . alternative measure, including schedules for
implementation, the emission reductions required by the program, all
necessary administrative and technical procedures for implementing the
program, rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures
for enforcement.'' \66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, the December 3, 2019 supplement includes revisions
to R307-110-17, the State rule that in turn incorporates Section IX,
Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H, Emissions Limits,
which includes provisions for implementing the Utah NOX BART
Alternative. In addition to the emission limitations for NOX
and PM at Hunter and Huntington \67\ and the requirement for shutdown
of the Carbon Plant listed in Table 1 above (which the State notes was
made enforceable by August 15, 2015), the SIP submission includes
compliance dates, operation and maintenance requirements, and MRR
requirements. Utah asserts that the alternative measure was fully
implemented prior to 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ EPA previously approved the BART PM emission limits in our
July 2016 final rule. 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Demonstration That Emissions Reductions From Alternative Measure
Will Be Surplus
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that
the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be
surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet
requirements of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The
baseline date for regional haze SIPs is 2002.\68\ Utah developed the
2002 baseline inventory in its 2008 RH SIP for regional modeling,
evaluating the impact on Class I areas outside of the Colorado Plateau,
and BART as outlined in the EPA Guidance and the BART Guidelines,
issued on July 6, 2005. Utah noted that 2002 is the baseline inventory
that was used by other states throughout the country when evaluating
BART under the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308 and that any measure adopted
after 2002 is considered ``surplus'' under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
Utah referenced other EPA actions that are consistent with this
interpretation.\69\ Utah stated that the BART Benchmark scenario
includes measures required before the baseline date of the SIP (i.e.,
2002) but does not include later measures that are credited as part of
the BART Alternative scenario.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs (Nov. 18, 2002),
available at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20021118_wegman_2002_base_year_emission_sip_planning.pdf.
\69\ E.g., 79 FR 33438, 33441-33442 (June 11, 2014); 79 FR
56322, 56328 (Sept. 9, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah explained that, to address potential concerns with double
counting SO2 emission reductions from the Carbon plant
closure under both the 308 and 309 programs, the July 2019 SIP
submission includes revisions to the applicability provisions of State
Rule State Rule R307-150, Emission Inventories, to prevent double
counting. Utah also provided explanation why the emission reductions
counted towards the NOX BART Alternative are surplus to
those needed to satisfy the requirements of the SO2 Backstop
Trading Program.\70\ The State explained that the WRAP modeling done to
support the Utah RH backstop trading program SIP included regional
SO2 emissions based on the 2018 SO2 milestone and
also included NOX and PM emissions from the Carbon plant.
Actual emissions in the three-state region (Utah, Wyoming, and New
Mexico) are calculated each year and compared to the milestones. Utah
provided the information in Table 6 below to show that since 2011,
SO2 emissions in the three-state region have been below the
2018 milestone (141,849 tpy). Utah noted that the most recent milestone
report for 2016 demonstrates that SO2 emissions are
currently 36 percent lower than the 2018 milestone. Utah stated that
the Carbon plant was fully operational in the years 2011-2013 when the
2018 milestone was initially achieved for those years. The State noted
that the SO2 emission reductions from the closure of the
Carbon plant are surplus to what is needed to meet the 2018 milestone
established in Utah's RH SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Staff Review at 23-25.
Table 6--SO2 Milestone Trends \71\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-year
average SO2 Carbon plant
Year Milestone (tpy) emissions \1\ SO2 emissions
(tpy) (tpy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003......................................................... 303,264 214,780 5,488
2004......................................................... 303,264 223,584 5,642
2005......................................................... 303,264 220,987 5,410
2006......................................................... 303,264 218,499 6,779
2007......................................................... 303,264 203,569 6,511
2008......................................................... 269,083 186,837 5,057
2009......................................................... 234,903 165,633 5,494
2010......................................................... 200,722 146,808 7,462
2011......................................................... 200,722 130,935 7,740
2012......................................................... 200,722 115,115 8,307
2013......................................................... 185,795 105,084 7,702
2014......................................................... 170,868 96,302 9,241
2015......................................................... 155,940 91,310 2,816
2016......................................................... 155,940 90,591 0
2017......................................................... 155,940 ............... ...............
2018......................................................... 141,849 ............... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The three-year average is based on the emissions averaged for the current and two preceding years.
[[Page 3571]]
For Hunter Unit 3, Utah also explained that PacifiCorp upgraded the
LNB controls in 2008 and that the upgrade was not required under any
applicable requirements of the CAA as of the 2002 baseline date of the
SIP; the emission reductions from the upgrade are therefore considered
surplus and creditable for the BART Alternative under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). Utah noted that prior to the 2008 upgrade, the
emission rate for Hunter Unit 3 was 0.46 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling
average as required by Phase II of the Acid Rain Program.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ Staff Review, p 24.
\72\ There is an error on page 25 of the Staff Review. The
reference to Hunter Unit 2 should be Unit 3 based on the section
heading as well as confirmed emission limits in Utah Approval Order
DAQE-AN0102370012-08.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address potential concerns that Utah would be double counting
SO2 emissions reductions for the Carbon plant closure under
both the 40 CFR 51.308 and 309 programs, the July 2019 SIP revisions
require that the State continue to report the historical emissions for
the Carbon plant in the annual milestone reports. Specifically,
revisions to the applicability provisions of State rule R307-150
(``Emission Inventories Program'') require that Utah include emissions
of 8,005 tons/yr \73\ of SO2 for the Carbon Power Plant in
the annual milestone reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Note that this value is based on the 2012-2013 actual
annual average SO2 emissions for the Carbon power plant
as used in Utah's June 4, 2015 SIP submission. By contrast, Utah's
July 3, 2019 SIP submission uses a consistent baseline for Hunter,
Huntington and Carbon based on actual annual average emissions from
2001-2003 when the SO2 emissions for Carbon were 5,814
tons/year. That is, the revisions to the SO2 milestone
reporting requirements attribute a greater amount of tons of
SO2 to the Carbon plant than the State assumed will be
reduced from the plant's retirement, for purposes of making the
demonstration that the BART Alternative achieves greater reasonable
progress than BART. As such, Utah's analysis of its compliance with
the SO2 milestone as well as its demonstration of greater
reasonable progress for the BART Alternative are both conservative.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting
To address EPA's partial disapproval of the 2011 Utah RH SIP for
lack of enforceable measures and MRR requirements,\74\ in 2015 Utah
added two new subsections to SIP Sections IX, H.21 (General
Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission
Limits and Operating Practices, Regional Haze Requirements) and H.22
(Source Specific Emission Limitations: Regional Haze Requirements, Best
Available Retrofit Technology).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 77 FR 28825, 28842 (May 16, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, to remedy the SIP's lack of provisions for ensuring
that emission limits are practically enforceable, under H.21 Utah added
a new definition for boiler operating day. Utah noted that state rules
R307-107-1 and R307-107-2 (applicability, timing, and reporting of
breakdowns) apply to sources subject to regional haze requirements
under H.22. Utah required that information used to determine compliance
shall be recorded for all periods when the source is in operation, and
that such records shall be kept for a minimum of five years. Under
H.21, Utah specified that emission limitations listed in H.22 shall
apply at all times and identified stack testing requirements to show
compliance with those emission limitations. Finally, H.21 also
specifies the requirements for continuous emission monitoring by
listing the requirements and cross-referencing the State's rule for
continuous emission monitoring system requirements, R307-170, as well
as 40 CFR 13 \75\ and 40 CFR 60, appendix B--Performance
Specifications. Utah included the requirements to calculate hourly
average NOX concentrations for any hour in which fuel is
combusted and a new 30-day rolling average emission rate at the end of
each boiler operating day. Utah also noted that the hourly average
NOX emission rate is valid only if the minimum number of
data points specified in R307-170 is acquired for both the pollutant
concentration monitor and diluent monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ This appears to be a typo, and the correct reference should
be to 40 CFR 60.13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under H.22, Utah provided the emission limitations associated with
the NOX BART Alternative and PM BART for Hunter Units 1
through 3 and Huntington Units 1 and 2, a requirement to perform annual
stack testing for PM, and a requirement to measure NOX via
continuous emission monitoring for the sources covered under the Utah
NOX BART Alternative. Under H.22, Utah also listed the
enforceable conditions related to closing Carbon Units 1 and 2 by
August 15, 2015, including PacifiCorp's and Utah's notification and
permit rescission obligations.
In our 2016 final rule, EPA approved subsection H.21 and H.22 as
they pertain to PM BART, including conditional approval of the
reporting requirements. We did not act on the elements of those
subsections relating to the NOX BART Alternative, as EPA
disapproved the Alternative in that action. Utah resubmitted
subsections H.21 and H.22 as part of their July 3, 2019 SIP submittal.
In its December 3, 2019 supplemental submission, to address the issue
implicated in the conditional approval, under H.21(e) Utah required
each source to submit a report of any deviation from applicable
emission limits and operating practices, including deviations
attributable to upset conditions, the probable cause of such
deviations, and any corrective actions or preventive measures taken.
D. Consultation With FLMs
Utah's SIP submittals do not specifically discuss how it addressed
the requirements of 40 CFR 308(i)(2) for providing the FLMs with an
opportunity for consultation at least 60 days prior to holding the
public hearing for the July 2019 RH SIP. However, we are aware that
Utah consulted with the FLMs as explained in section IV.D, and the
relevant exchange is included in the docket for this action.
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Approval of Utah's Regional Haze SIP
A. Basis for Proposed Approval
For the reasons described below, EPA proposes to approve the Utah
2019 RH SIP revisions. Our proposed action is based on an evaluation of
Utah's regional haze SIP submittals against the regional haze
requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and CAA sections 169A and 169B.
The revisions were also evaluated against the general SIP requirements
contained in CAA section 110, other provisions of the CAA, and our
regulations applicable to this action. The EPA proposes to approve
these SIP revisions as meeting the relevant CAA requirements. Where
appropriate, we provide additional rationale to supplement to the
state's analysis and to support our conclusions below.
B. Demonstration of Greater Reasonable Progress for the Alternative
Program
As provided under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii), Utah has opted to
establish an alternative measure (or program) for NOX
emissions from the four subject-to-BART units in accordance with 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2). A description of the Utah NOX BART Alternative
is provided above in section III.A.1. The RHR requires that a SIP
revision establishing a BART alternative meet three key requirements
(in addition to other elements in section 308(e)(2)) as listed below.
We have evaluated the Utah NOX BART Alternative with respect
to each of these requirements.
A demonstration that the emissions trading program or
other alternative measure will achieve greater reasonable progress than
would have resulted from the installation and operation of BART at all
sources subject to BART in the
[[Page 3572]]
State and covered by the alternative program.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A requirement that all necessary emissions reductions take
place during the period of the first long-term strategy for regional
haze.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting
from the alternative measure will be surplus to those reductions
resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of
the baseline date of the SIP.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed above in section II.C, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i), Utah must demonstrate that the alternative measure
will achieve greater reasonable progress than would have resulted from
the installation and operation of BART at all sources subject to BART
in the State and covered by the alternative program. This demonstration
has five parts, each of which is addressed in the July 2019 SIP
submittal, including the Staff Review support document.
1. List of All BART-Eligible Sources Within the State
As discussed above in section III.B.1, Utah included a list of all
BART-eligible sources:
PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 1
PacifiCorp Hunter, Unit 2
PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 1
PacifiCorp, Huntington, Unit 2
EPA previously approved Utah's BART eligibility determinations in
our 2012 rulemaking,\79\ and we are now proposing that this same list
satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 77 FR 74355, 74357 (Dec. 14, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. List of All BART-Eligible Sources and All BART Source Categories
Covered by the Alternative Program
As discussed above in section III.B.2, the Utah NOX BART
Alternative covers all of the BART-eligible sources in the State,
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2, in addition to three
non-BART units, PacifiCorp's Hunter Unit 3 and Carbon Units 1 and 2. We
propose that Utah has satisfied the requirement of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(B).
3. Analysis of BART and Associated Emission Reductions
As noted above in section III.B.3, in the July 2019 Utah RH SIP
submittal, the State compared the Utah NOX BART Alternative
to a BART Benchmark that included the most stringent NOX
BART controls, SCR plus upgraded combustion controls, at the four BART
units. While the State explicitly noted that it was not determining
that SCR plus upgraded combustion controls would constitute source-
specific BART at the four subject-to-BART units, it explained that this
technology ``can be used as a stringent benchmark for comparison with
an alternative program'' and it is ``a conservative approach.'' \80\ We
are proposing to find that this is a reasonable approach to setting the
BART Benchmark for purposes of comparison to a BART alternative
program, and is consistent with the streamlined approach described in
Step 1 of the BART Guidelines. The BART Guidelines note that a
comprehensive BART analysis can be forgone if a source adopts the most
stringent controls available for the purpose of implementing BART.\81\
Moreover, when EPA established NOX BART in our 2016 FIP, we
also selected SCR plus upgraded combustion controls (with an emission
limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu as a 30-day rolling average), which further
reinforces the reasonableness of Utah's decision to treat the most
stringent controls as the BART Benchmark.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ Staff Review at 12.
\81\ 40 CFR 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.1.9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah then used modeling projections for the year 2025 to determine
the associated emission reductions that would result under the BART
Benchmark. These results are provided above in Table 2 of this notice.
The EPA proposes to find that the methodology Utah used to develop the
projection of emissions under the BART Benchmark is reasonable because
it reflects the most stringent control option.
We propose to find that Utah has met the requirement for an
analysis of BART and associated emission reductions achievable at
Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C).
4. Analysis of Projected Emissions Reductions Achievable Through the
BART Alternative
Utah's NOX BART Alternative consists of the following
enforceable measures:
A NOX emission limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) each for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington 1 and 2.
A NOX emission limit of 0.34 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) for Hunter Unit 3.
A requirement to permanently close and cease operation of
the Carbon power plant by August 15, 2015.
As discussed above in section III.B.4, a summary of Utah's
estimates of emissions for the Utah NOX BART Alternative and
the BART Benchmark is provided above in Table 2. Note that the values
in Table 2 differ from the analogous table in our 2016 proposed rule
\82\ for the following reasons. First, in addition to the BART
Benchmark and BART Alternative, the table now includes projections for
the Baseline emissions scenario. All three of these projected 2025
scenarios relate to the CAMx modeling used to demonstrate that the BART
Alternative will achieve greater progress than BART under the two-prong
test of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3), as discussed in sections III.B.5 and
IV.B.5 of this notice. The 2025 Baseline is used in the first prong of
the two-prong test to demonstrate that visibility under the BART
Alternative does not decline at any of the 15 affected Class I areas.
Second, to ensure that the selection of baseline emissions does not
bias the determination of whether the BART Alternative achieves greater
reasonable progress, the projected emissions for all three 2025
scenarios are calculated from a consistent baseline of 2001-2003 for
all BART-eligible and non-BART units covered by the BART Alternative.
That is, when establishing emission assumptions for the 2011 Typical
Year modeling scenario, annual emission rates for the seven units were
set equal to 2001-2003 actual average emissions, and these annual
emission rates were then projected to 2025 to reflect the
NOX controls anticipated under each future year scenario.
Note that although the 2025 Baseline scenario is a projection of 2025
emissions for all other sources in the modeling domain, the Baseline
emissions for the seven units in Table 2 reflect 2001-2003 emissions.
This approach was chosen so that the 2025 Baseline reflects emissions
at the subject-to-BART units at the Hunter and Hunter power plants
prior to the installation of any controls or other measures intended to
meet BART requirements. Finally, the 2001-2003 baseline period also
aligns with that used by EPA in our evaluation of BART under the FIP in
our 2016 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Table 3; 81 FR 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relative to the 2025 Baseline, the BART Benchmark and BART
Alternative include actual SO2 reductions from Hunter and
Huntington that occurred after the 2001-2003 baseline due to scrubber
upgrades. Thus, the CAMx modeling results for the BART Benchmark and
BART Alternative shown in Tables 4 and 5 of this notice reflect these
SO2 reductions. The treatment of these SO2
reductions in the modeling does not affect the determination of greater
reasonable
[[Page 3573]]
progress under the two-prong test. Under prong 1, while the
SO2 reductions from Hunter and Huntington increase the
apparent overall visibility benefit of the BART Alternative relative to
the Baseline, there would not be an anticipated decline in visibility
relative to the Baseline in the absence of those SO2
reductions from Hunter and Huntington because the BART Alternative
would still result in overall NOX, SO2, and PM
emissions decreases compared to the Baseline. Under prong 2, because
the SO2 reductions from Hunter and Huntington are equal
under the BART Alternative and BART Benchmark, they do not advantage
either control scenario. Accordingly, the EPA proposes to find that the
methodology Utah used to develop the modeling scenarios, including the
projection of emissions under the Utah NOX BART Alternative,
is reasonable and that Utah has met the requirement for an analysis of
the projected emissions reductions achievable through the alternative
measure under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D).
5. Determination That the Alternative Achieves Greater Reasonable
Progress Than Would Be Achieved Through the Installation and Operation
of BART
As discussed above in section III.B.5, Utah used CAMx modeling to
assess whether the NOX BART alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress than the BART Benchmark under the two-prong
quantitative test provided for in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3)(i) and (ii). The
CAMx modeling results in Tables 4 and 5 show both prongs of the two-
prong test are satisfied: Visibility does not decline in any Class I
area under the BART Alternative relative to the Baseline on both the
20% best or 20% worst days, and the average visibility improvement
across all affected Class I areas is greater under the BART Alternative
than under the BART Benchmark. EPA reviewed the CAMx protocol before
the modeling was undertaken. PacifiCorp revised the modeling methods
and assumptions to address EPA's concerns. Notably, as discussed above
in section III.B.5, PacifiCorp revised the ammonia emission inventory
and related input parameters to improve the model's ability to simulate
ammonia and ammonium nitrate concentrations on the Colorado Plateau,
thus also improving the model's ability to estimate visibility impacts
resulting from NOX emissions. In addition, the analysis was
expanded to assess all 15 class I areas in the modeling domain.
As noted above, Utah submitted the same proposed NOX
BART Alternative in its June 2015 submission under the qualitative
clear-weight-of-evidence test in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E). In July
2016, EPA determined that, based on the weight-of-evidence
demonstration before us at that time, Utah had not demonstrated that
the BART Alternative resulted in greater visibility improvement than
would BART. However, as noted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, under EPA's interpretation of its regulations a state
can choose either the quantitative tests (as applicable) in
51.308(e)(3) or the qualitative test in 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E).\83\ We
believe it follows that a reasonable interpretation of our regulatory
scheme allows for a situation in which certain evidence would not be
sufficient to make a showing under one ``better-than-BART'' test, but
different evidence could support that showing under a separate test.
That is, we believe that just because a certain set of evidence failed
to show that a BART alternative would achieve greater visibility
improvement under the ``clear weight of evidence'' test, that does not
necessarily mean that the alternative does not in fact make greater
reasonable progress than BART, as demonstrated through dispersion
modeling under the two-prong test in section 308(e)(3). Accordingly, we
propose to approve Utah's determination that the Utah NOX
BART Alternative would achieve greater reasonable progress than BART
under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 934 (10th Cir.
2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Requirement That Emission Reductions Take Place During Period of
First Long-Term Strategy
As discussed above in section III.B.6, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii), the State must ensure that all necessary emission
reductions take place during the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze. The RHR further provides that, to meet this
requirement, the State must provide a detailed description of the
alternative measure, including schedules for implementation, the
emission reductions required by the program, all necessary
administrative and technical procedures for implementing the program,
rules for accounting and monitoring emissions, and procedures for
enforcement.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NOX controls on which the BART Alternative relies
were installed at Hunter and Huntington over a period of years starting
in 2006 and finishing in 2014.\85\ The associated emissions limits were
effective upon installation of the NOX controls.\86\ Carbon
shut down in 2015 and its Approval Order has been revoked.\87\ Further,
as noted above, the Utah SIP submittals include revisions to R307-110-
17 and Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part H,
Emissions Limits, which include enforceable provisions for implementing
the Utah NOX BART Alternative. In addition to the emission
limitations for NOX and PM, and the requirement for shutdown
of the Carbon plant listed in Table 1 above, the SIP includes
compliance dates, operation and maintenance requirements, and
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. We propose to
find that these provisions meet the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ Refer to the Staff Report, Table 6, Implementation
Schedule.
\86\ Hunter Power Plant Approval Order: Installation of
Pollution Control Equipment, Established Plantwide Applicability
Limitations and Approval Orders Consolidation, Emery County--CDS A;
NSPS; PSD; Title IV; Title V Major; HAPs, March 13, 2018; Huntington
Plant Approval Order: Installation of Pollution Control Equipment
and Establishing Plant-wide Applicability Limitations, Emery County;
CDS A; NSPS (Part 60), PSD, Title IV (Part 72/Acid Rain), Title V
(Part 70), Project Number: N010238-0019 (August 6, 2009).
\87\ Letter from Utah Department of Environmental Quality,
Division of Air Quality, to PacifiCorp, Re: Revocation of Approval
Order DAQE-ANO 100810005-08 dated May 16, 2008, Project Number:
N10081-0007, January 8, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Demonstration That Emission Reductions From Alternative Measure Will
Be Surplus
As discussed above in section III.B.7, pursuant to 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv), the SIP must demonstrate that the emissions
reductions resulting from the alternative measure will be surplus to
those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet requirements
of the CAA as of the baseline date of the SIP. The baseline date for
regional haze SIPs is 2002.\88\ As discussed in section III.B.7, all of
the emission reductions required by the Utah NOX BART
Alternative result from measures applicable to Hunter, Huntington and
Carbon that were required pursuant to measures adopted after 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See Memorandum from Lydia Wegman and Peter Tsirigotis, 2002
Base Year Emission Inventory SIP Planning: 8-hr Ozone,
PM2.5, and Regional Haze Programs, November 18, 2002.
https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20021118_wegman_2002_base_year_emission_sip_planning.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the State's SIP explains that the WRAP modeling for
the 2018 Reasonable Progress Goals that was done to support the Utah RH
SIP assumed that Carbon would still be operating and emitting
SO2 when it
[[Page 3574]]
modeled the 2018 SO2 milestone; the modeling also included
NOX and PM emissions from the Carbon plant. Thus, WRAP did
not rely on post-2002 emission reductions from the Carbon plant in
establishing the 2018 SO2 milestone.
The State's SIP also includes SO2 trend data that
further demonstrate emission reductions from the Carbon plant are most
likely not needed for meeting the three-state 2018 milestone of 141,849
tpy. Actual emissions in the three-state region are calculated each
year and compared to the milestones. As can be seen in Table 6 above,
SO2 emissions reported each year since 2011 were below the
2018 milestone and the most recent milestone report for 2016
demonstrates that SO2 emissions are currently 36 percent
lower than the 2018 milestone. The Carbon plant was fully operational
in the years 2012-2014 when the emissions from the three-state region
were below the milestone for those years. In its amendments to the
Backstop Trading Program to ensure there would be no double-counting of
SO2 emission reductions from the Carbon plant closure, the
State attributed 8,005 tons of SO2 emissions to the Carbon
plant for purposes of demonstrating that even if Carbon continued to
emit at that level, the three-state region would still be well below
the 2018 Milestone. Therefore, the SO2 emission reductions
from the closure of the Carbon plant are surplus to what is needed to
meet the 2018 milestone established in Utah's RH SIP, and can therefore
be credited to the Utah NOX BART Alternative.
As discussed above in section III.B.7, the amendments to the
applicability provisions of State rule R307-150-3, Emissions
Inventories, Applicability, ensure that there is no double counting
SO2 emissions reductions for the Carbon plant closure under
both the 40 CFR 51.308 and 309 programs.
We propose to concur that the reductions from Carbon are surplus
and can be considered as part of an alternative strategy under 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(iv). We also propose to approve Utah's revision to R307-
150-3, amending the SO2 emissions reported under the
milestone, which ensures that these reductions are not double counted.
C. Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and Reporting
EPA has reviewed the MRR measures in Utah's July 3, 2019 SIP
submittal, as supplemented on December 3, 2019, which revises Section
IX, Part H, of Utah's SIP, and which apply for units subject to the
NOX BART Alternative and PM BART. EPA proposes to approve
these measures as meeting the requirements of section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA and 40 CFR part 51, subpart K, Source Surveillance, and 40 CFR part
51, appendix V. Generally, these provisions require that SIPs must
contain enforceable emission limitations and schedules for compliance,
including MRR provisions that allow for the enforcement of those
emission limitations. EPA previously approved state rule provisions
that Utah has cross-referenced in these new regional haze measures,
including terms, conditions and definitions in R307-101-1 (General
Requirements--Forward), R307-101-2 General Requirements--Definitions),
and R307-170-4 (Continuous Emission Monitoring Program--Definitions),
as well as other continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)
requirements referenced in R307-107. These measures contain the
requirements that were missing from Utah's prior regional haze
submittals \89\ and are furthermore consistent with similar MRR
requirements that EPA has approved for other states RH SIPs or that we
have adopted in federal implementation plans.\90\ As described above in
section III.C, Utah has provided the emission limitations, MRR
requirements for all the units that are part of Utah's BART Alternative
for the Hunter, Huntington, and Carbon plants, and we are proposing to
approve these provisions as satisfying CAA section 110(a)(2), 40 CFR
part 51, subpart K, and 40 CFR part 51, appendix V with regard to MRR
requirements to make emission limitations in the SIP practically
enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ 77 FR 74365-74366 (Dec. 14, 2012).
\90\ See, e.g., 77 FR 57864 (Sept. 18, 2012); 79 FR 5032 (Jan.
30, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consultation With FLMs
On December 19, 2018, the State provided the opportunity for the
FLMs to review the preliminary draft SIP documents. This was
approximately 120 days prior to the public hearing that was held on
April 17, 2019, and prior to the public comment period for the proposed
SIP revisions submitted to EPA in July 2019, which ran from April 1
through May 15, 2019. The FLMs did not submit comments prior to or
during the public comment period. Copies of the correspondence
documenting the State's outreach to the FLMs are included in the
docket. We propose to find that Utah has met the requirements of 40 CFR
308(i)(2).
V. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
Under CAA section 110(l), the EPA cannot approve a plan revision
``if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (as defined in
section 7501 of this title), or any other applicable requirement of
this chapter.'' \91\ We propose to find that these revisions satisfy
section 110(l). The previous sections of the notice explain how the
proposed SIP revision and FIP withdrawal will comply with applicable
regional haze requirements and general implementation plan requirements
such as enforceability. With respect to requirements concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress, the Utah Regional Haze SIP,
as revised by this action, will allow for greater NOX
emissions at the four subject-to-BART units as compared to the 2016 FIP
(which is currently judicially stayed). The change in these emissions
compared to the FIP, however, is not anticipated to interfere with any
applicable requirements under the CAA. The geographic area where the
BART units are located is not part of a nonattainment area for any
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The approved portions
of the PM2.5 attainment demonstrations and clean data
determinations (CDD) for the Salt Lake City, Provo, and Logan, UT-ID
nonattainment areas (NAAs) do not rely on the installation of SCR at
Hunter or Huntington to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. Similarly, the
approved PM10 attainment demonstrations for Salt Lake County
and Utah County NAAs, and CDD for Ogden City NAA do not rely on the
installation of SCR at Hunter or Huntington to achieve attainment of
the NAAQS. In addition, there are no other approved attainment
demonstrations in other areas of the State or outside of the State that
rely on the installation of SCR at Hunter or Huntington to achieve
attainment of any of the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ Note that ``reasonable further progress'' as used in CAA
section 110(l) is a reference to that term as defined in section
301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means reductions
required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under CAA section 109. This term
as used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not
synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used in the
regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that EPA
cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the Clean Air Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3575]]
VI. The EPA's Proposed Action
A. 2019 Utah Regional Haze SIP Revision
We are proposing to approve these aspects of the 2019 Utah RH SIP
revisions:
NOX BART Alternative, including NOX
emission reductions from Hunter Units 1, 2, and 3 and Huntington Units
1 and 2, and SO2, NOX and PM emission reductions
from Carbon Units 1 and 2.
A NOX emission limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) each for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington 1 and 2.
A NOX emission limit of 0.34 lb/MMBtu (30-day
rolling average) for Hunter Unit 3.
A requirement to permanently close and cease operation of
the Carbon power plant by August 15, 2015.
The associated amendments to the SO2 milestone
reporting requirements.
MRR requirements for units subject to the NOX
BART Alternative and the PM BART emission limits.
We also note that the regulatory text amendments contained in this
notice include incorporation of additional parts of SIP section XX
(XX.B-C and XX.E-N) and section XXIII, which were not addressed in this
proposed action. EPA approved these SIP sections as meeting the
requirements of the CAA and applicable regulations in previous actions;
\92\ however, we inadvertently did not incorporate all approved
sections in 40 CFR 52.2320(e). We are remedying this oversight and
reorganizing 40 CFR 52.2320(e) to better reflect the structure of
Utah's SIP submissions here; however, we are not reopening any of these
previously approved SIP sections for comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ 73 FR 16543 (Mar. 28, 2008); 77 FR 74355 (Dec. 14, 2012);
78 FR 4072 (Jan. 18, 2013); 81 FR 43894 (July 5, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, contingent on our approval of Utah's July 2019 and
December 2019 SIP submissions, we propose to find that Utah's SIP fully
satisfies the requirements of section 309 of the RHR and therefore the
State has fully complied with the requirements for reasonable progress,
including BART, for the first implementation period.
B. FIP Withdrawal
Because we are proposing to find that Utah's July 2019 and December
2019 SIP submissions satisfy the NOX BART and MRR
requirements currently addressed by EPA's 2016 FIP, we are also
proposing to withdraw in whole the Utah Regional Haze FIP at 40 CFR
52.2336 that imposes NOX BART requirements on Hunter Units 1
and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2.
C. Clean Air Section 110(l)
We are proposing to find that an approval of the 2019 Utah RH SIP
revisions and concurrent withdrawal of the corresponding the FIP, as
proposed, complies with the CAA's 110(1) provisions.
We are requesting comment on the proposed actions in section VI.A-
C, i.e., on our proposed approval of Utah's NOX BART
Alternative and of the MRR elements for the units subject the BART
Alternative and to PM BART. We are not reopening or requesting comment
on any of the previously approved elements of Utah's regional haze SIP,
except to the extent expressly reopened in this notice. If we finalize
our approval of the July 2019 and December 2019 regional haze SIP
submittals, Utah's regional haze SIP for the first implementation
period will be fully approved.
VII. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, EPA is proposing to include regulatory text in an
EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the SIP amendments described in Sections III.A and VI.A of
this preamble and set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue
to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov (refer to docket EPA-R08-OAR-2015-0463) and at the
EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the person identified in the For
Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more
information).
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 \93\ and was therefore not submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This proposed
rule applies to only 7 units at three facilities in Utah that are
individually named in this action. It is therefore not a rule of
general applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ 58 FR 51735, 51738 (October 4, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).\94\ A
``collection of information'' under the PRA means ``the obtaining,
causing to be obtained, soliciting, or requiring the disclosure to an
agency, third parties or the public of information by or for an agency
by means of identical questions posed to, or identical reporting,
recordkeeping, or disclosure requirements imposed on, ten or more
persons, whether such collection of information is mandatory,
voluntary, or required to obtain or retain a benefit.'' \95\ Because
this proposed rule revises regional haze requirements reporting
requirements for three facilities, the PRA does not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
\95\ 5 CFR 1320.3(c) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on
small entities as no small entities are subject to the requirements of
this rule.
[[Page 3576]]
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that may result in
expenditures to state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted for
inflation) in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires the
EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows
the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory actions with significant federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, the EPA has determined that this proposed
rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result in expenditures
that exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million \96\
by state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector in any one
year. The proposed revisions to the 2014 FIP would reduce private
sector expenditures. Additionally, we do not foresee significant costs
(if any) for state and local governments. Thus, because the proposed
revisions to the 2014 FIP reduce annual expenditures, this proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
This proposed rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Adjusted to 2019 dollars, the UMRA threshold becomes $164
million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, Federalism,\97\ revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have federalism implications.'' \98\ ``Policies that have
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government.'' \99\ Under Executive Order 13132, the EPA may not
issue a regulation ``that has federalism implications, that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs, . . . and that is not required by
statute, unless [the federal government provides the] funds necessary
to pay the direct [compliance] costs incurred by the State and local
governments,'' or the EPA consults with state and local officials early
in the process of developing the final regulation.\100\ The EPA also
may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that
preempts state law unless the agency consults with state and local
officials early in the process of developing the final regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ 64 FR 43255, 43255-43257 (August 10, 1999).
\98\ 64 FR 43255, 43257.
\99\ Id.
\100\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This action does not have federalism implications. The proposed FIP
revisions will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,'' requires the EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal
officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.'' \101\ This proposed rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ 65 FR 67249, 67250 (November 9, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997). The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or
safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately
affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the executive order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. Section 12(d) of
NTTAA, Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA
to consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to
[[Page 3577]]
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898, establishes federal executive policy on
environmental justice.\102\ Its main provision directs federal
agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of their programs, policies and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ 59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I certify that the approaches under this proposed rule will not
have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority, low-income or indigenous/tribal
populations. As explained previously, the Utah Regional Haze SIP, as
revised by this action, will ensure a significant reduction in
emissions compared to regional haze baseline levels (2002). In
addition, the area where the Hunter, Huntington, and Carbon power
plants are located has not been designated nonattainment for any NAAQS.
The proposed SIP revisions will not create a disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effect on minority, low-
income, or indigenous/tribal populations. The EPA, however, will
consider any input received during the public comment period regarding
environmental justice considerations.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: January 9, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart TT--Utah
0
2. Section 52.2320 paragraph (c) is amended as follows:
0
a. Under the heading ``R307-110. General Requirements: State
Implementation Plan,'' revise the table entry ``R307-110-17.''
0
b. Under the heading ``R307-110. General Requirements: State
Implementation Plan,'' add, in numerical order, the table entry ``R307-
110-28.''
0
c. Under the heading ``R307-150. Emission Inventories,'' revise the
table entry ``R307-150-3.''
The amendments read as follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Rule No. Rule title effective Final rule citation, Comments
date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R307-110. General Requirements: State Implementation Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
R307-110-17................... Section IX. Control 11/25/2019 [Insert Federal ....................
Measures for Area Register citation]
and Point Sources, 1/22/2020.
Part H, Emission
Limits.
* * * * * * *
R307-110-28................... Section XX. Regional 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal ....................
Haze. Register citation]
1/22/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R307-150. Emission Inventories
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
R307-150-3.................... Applicability....... 6/25/2019 [Insert Federal ....................
Register citation]
1/22/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
3. In Sec. 52.2320 amend paragraph (e) by:
0
a. Under the heading ``IX. Control Measures for Area and Point
Sources,'' adding, in numerical order, table entries ``IX.H.21. General
Requirements: Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Emission
Limits and Operating Practices, Regional Haze Requirements,'' and
``IX.H.22. Source Specific Emission Limitations: Regional Haze
Requirements, Best Available Retrofit Technology.''
0
b. Under the heading ``XVII. Visibility Protection,'' removing the
table entries ``Section XX.D.6. Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) Assessment for
[[Page 3578]]
NOX and PM,'' and ``Section XX.G. Long-Term Strategy for
Fire Programs.''
0
c. Adding a centered heading ``XX. Regional Haze'' after the table
entry ``Section XXIII. Interstate Transport.''
0
d. Under the heading ``XX. Regional Haze'' adding the table entries
``Section XX.A. Executive Summary,'' ``Section XX.B. Background on the
Regional Haze Rule,'' ``Section XX.C. Long-Term Strategy for the Clean-
Air Corridor,'' ``Section XX.D. Long-Term Strategy for Stationary
Sources,'' ``Section XX.E. Sulfur Dioxide Milestones and Backstop
Trading Program,'' ``Section XX.F. Long-Term Strategy for Mobile
Sources,'' ``Section XX.G. Long-Term Strategy for Fire Programs,''
``Section XX.H. Assessment of Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Road
Dust,'' ``Section XX.I. Pollution Prevention and Renewable Energy
Programs,'' ``Section XX.J. Other GCVTC Recommendations,'' ``Section
XX.K. Projection of Visibility Improvement Anticipated from Long-Term
Strategy,'' ``Section XX.L. Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions,''
``Section XX.M. State Planning/Interstate Coordination and Tribal
Implementation,'' and ``Section XX.N. Enforceable Commitments for the
Utah Regional Haze SIP.''
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2320 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
Rule title effective Final rule citation, date Comments
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IX. Control Measures for Area and Point Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
IX.H.21. General Requirements: Control 11/25/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Measures for Area and Point Sources, citation] 1/22/2020.
Emission Limits and Operating
Practices, Regional Haze Requirements.
IX.H.22. Source Specific Emission 11/25/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Limitations: Regional Haze citation] 1/22/2020.
Requirements, Best Available Retrofit
Technology.
* * * * * * *
Section XXIII. Interstate Transport..... 2/9/2007 73 FR 16543, 3/28/2008.... ..........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
XX. Regional Haze
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section XX.A. Executive Summary......... 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.B. Background on the Regional 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Haze Rule. citation].
1/22/2020.................
Section XX.C. Long-Term Strategy for the 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Clean-Air Corridor. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.D. Long-Term Strategy for 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Stationary Sources. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.E. Sulfur Dioxide Milestones 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
and Backstop Trading Program. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.F. Long-Term Strategy for 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Mobile Sources. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.G. Long-Term Strategy for 4/7/2011 78 FR 4071, 1/18/2013..... ..........................
Fire Programs.
Section XX.H. Assessment of Emissions 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
from Paved and Unpaved Road Dust. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.I. Pollution Prevention and 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Renewable Energy Programs. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.J. Other GCVTC 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Recommendations. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.K. Projection of Visibility 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Improvement Anticipated from Long-Term citation] 1/22/2020.
Strategy.
Section XX.L. Periodic Implementation 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Plan Revisions. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.M. State Planning/Interstate 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
Coordination and Tribal Implementation. citation] 1/22/2020.
Section XX.N. Enforceable Commitments 8/15/2019 [Insert Federal Register ..........................
for the Utah Regional Haze SIP. citation] 1/22/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 52.2336 [Removed]
0
4. Remove Sec. 52.2336.
[FR Doc. 2020-00495 Filed 1-21-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
