Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Proposed Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 2571-2587 [2022-00777]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on
September 15.
Regulatory Notices and Analyses
The FAA has determined that this
proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical
regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to
keep them operationally current. It,
therefore: (1) Is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant
rule’’ under Department of
Transportation (DOT) Regulatory
Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034;
February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
warrant preparation of a regulatory
evaluation as the anticipated impact is
so minimal. Since this is a routine
matter that will only affect air traffic
T–232
Environmental Review
This proposal will be subject to an
environmental analysis in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F,
‘‘Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures’’ prior to any FAA final
regulatory action.
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2022–00791 Filed 1–14–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2020–0441; FRL–9443–01–
R8]
Disapproval of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; Wyoming;
Proposed Revisions to Regional Haze
State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a State Implementation Plan
(SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Wyoming on May 14, 2020, and
supplemented in September and
October 2020, addressing regional haze
SUMMARY:
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
part 71 continues to read as follows:
■
§ 71.1
[Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in
14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F,
Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 10, 2021, and
effective September 15, 2021, is
amended as follows:
■
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the
Federal Aviation Administration
proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as
follows:
Paragraph 6011 United States Area
Navigation Routes.
*
*
*
*
*
BARROW, AK (BRW) TO NORTHWAY, AK (ORT) [AMENDED]
Issued in Washington, DC, on January 11,
2022.
Michael R. Beckles,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations
Group.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,
B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND
REPORTING POINTS
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103,
40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR,
1959–1963 Comp., p. 389.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference,
Navigation (air).
Barrow, AK (BRW)
OCOCU, AK
Bettles, AK (BTT)
Fairbanks, AK (FAI)
IMARE, AK
CUTUB, AK
RIVOR, AK
Big Delta, AK (BIG)
Northway, AK (ORT)
*
2571
Jkt 256001
VOR/DME
WP
VOR/DME
VORTAC
WP
WP
Fix
VORTAC
VORTAC
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
(Lat.
71°16′24.33″
67°05′08.90″
66°54′18.03″
64°48′00.25″
64°33′29.60″
64°17′49.15″
64°09′46.97″
64°00′16.06″
62°56′49.92″
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
N,
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
long.
156°47′17.22″
151°45′00.43″
151°32′09.18″
148°00′43.11″
147°17′20.31″
146°37′11.65″
146°09′22.50″
145°43′02.09″
141°54′45.39″
(‘‘Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision’’).
Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision reverses
the State’s 2011 decision that emission
limits consistent with the installation of
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for
the Jim Bridger power plant, Units 1 and
2, are necessary to make reasonable
progress under the State’s long-term
strategy for the first regional haze
planning period. The SIP revision
contains a source-specific nitrogen
oxide (NOX) reasonable progress
analysis and determination that
currently installed controls (low-NOX
burners with separated overfire air
(LNB/SOFA)) are sufficient for
reasonable progress during the first
planning period for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2, and that the emission limits
associated with the installation of SCR
are no longer necessary. The SIP
revision also contains plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emission limits for the Jim
Bridger power plant, Units 1–4. EPA is
proposing to disapprove this SIP
revision in full. The agency is proposing
this action pursuant to sections 110 and
169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Comments: Written comments
must be received on or before February
17, 2022.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
W)
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2020–0441, 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. EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. EPA will generally not consider
comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission
methods, 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-epadockets.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
2572
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
electronically in www.regulations.gov.
To reduce the risk of COVID–19
transmission, for this action we do not
plan to offer hard copy review of the
docket. Please email or call the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make
alternative arrangements for access to
the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P–
ARD, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202–1129, telephone
number: (303) 312–6252, email address:
dobrahner.jaslyn@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
I. What Action is EPA Proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and
EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable
Progress Requirements
D. Consultation with Federal Land
Managers
III. Wyoming’s Regional Haze SIP Revisions
A. Background
B. May 14, 2020 Submittal
C. Summary of Wyoming’s Reasonable
Progress Reassessment
1. Costs of Compliance
2. Time Necessary for Compliance
3. Energy and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts of Compliance
4. Remaining Useful Life
5. Visibility Improvement
6. Reasonable Progress Demonstration
D. Summary of Wyoming’s Plant-Wide
Monthly and Annual NOX and SO2
Emission Limits for Jim Bridger
IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Disapproval of Wyoming’s Regional Haze
SIP Revisions
A. Basis for Proposed Disapproval
B. EPA’s Proposed Disapproval of
Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress
Determination for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2
1. Basis of Our Proposed Disapproval
a. Costs of Compliance
b. Visibility Improvement
c. Other Factors
d. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of
Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress
Demonstration
C. Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual NOX
and SO2 Emission Limits for Jim Bridger
Units 1–4
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
V. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
On January 30, 2014, EPA
promulgated a final rule titled,
‘‘Approval, Disapproval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional
Haze,’’ approving in part a regional haze
SIP revision submitted by the State of
Wyoming on January 12, 2011 (2014
final rule).1 In the 2014 final rule, EPA
approved Wyoming’s NOX best available
retrofit technology (BART) emission
limits of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) for Jim Bridger Units 1–4, as
well as the State’s decision to include in
its long-term strategy NOX reasonable
progress emission limits of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for the
same units, among other actions.2
Wyoming submitted its 2020 SIP
revision on May 14, 2020.3 The SIP
revision contains amendments to
Chapters 7 and 8 of Wyoming’s regional
haze SIP narrative and would
incorporate certain conditions of
Wyoming air quality permit #P0025809
into the SIP.4 Together, the amendments
provide a source-specific NOX
reasonable progress analysis and
determination for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2, remove the NOX reasonable
progress emission limits currently
required for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
and add plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits for Jim
Bridger Units 1–4.5
EPA is proposing to disapprove this
SIP revision in full. Our proposed
disapproval is based on the following:
(1) The reasonable cost-effectiveness of
the existing reasonable progress control
1 79
FR 5032 (January 30, 2014).
BART determination compliance date for
all units was March 4, 2019. Reasonable progress
determination compliance dates for each include:
Unit 1 = December 31, 2022; Unit 2 = December 31,
2021; Unit 3 = December 31, 2015; and Unit 4 =
December 31, 2016.
3 At the request of EPA, Wyoming supplemented
the original SIP submittal with additional
documentation on September 8, 2020, and October
6, 2020.
4 State of Wyoming, ‘‘Addressing Regional Haze
Visibility Protection For The Mandatory Federal
Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309,’’
Revised May 14, 2020 (‘‘Wyoming 2020 SIP
Revision’’).
5 Wyoming’s SIP revision refers to these limits as
‘‘voluntary visibility enhancing emission limits.’’
They represent a separate SIP component from
Wyoming’s source-specific reasonable progress
analysis and determination. The limits were
voluntarily proposed by PacifiCorp to reduce
regional haze causing pollutants. Wyoming 2020
SIP Revision at 8–9.
2 The
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2 (emission limits consistent with
the installation of SCR); (2) the
appreciable visibility improvement
estimated to result from compliance
with the existing control requirements;
and (3) the fact that the State previously
determined that the costs of those
control requirements were reasonable
and that they are necessary to satisfy the
statutory requirements, and has not
provided any new information that
would support a revised determination
that the requirements are now
unreasonable. In fact, the updated cost
information provided by Wyoming
indicates that SCR for these units is
even more cost-effective than the State
estimated in 2011 and EPA estimated in
its 2014 final rule, while the estimated
visibility benefits remain the same as
estimated in the 2014 final rule.
Based on our proposed conclusions in
section IV.B in this document, we
propose to find that removing the SCR
requirement would interfere with the
regional haze requirements of the CAA,
specifically, with the requirement that
SIPs contain the emission limits,
schedules of compliance, and other
measures that are necessary to make
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. That is, approving
Wyoming’s removal of the SCR
requirement would be inconsistent with
the statutory requirement that
Wyoming’s SIP contain the measures
necessary to make reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal.
Furthermore, EPA cannot propose to
approve Wyoming’s plant-wide NOX
and SO2 emission limits while
proposing to disapprove the elimination
of the SCR requirements for Units 1 and
2, because such a partial approval
would render the SIP more stringent
than the State intended. Regardless, as
discussed in section IV.C, the
installation of SCR on Units 1 and 2 is
estimated to reduce NOX by at least
3,000 tons per year (tpy) based on
current utilization. EPA believes it is
reasonable to conclude that the plantwide NOX and SO2 emission limits that
Wyoming has required in lieu of the
existing control requirements would not
provide similar or greater emissions
reductions or visibility improvement
compared to two additional SCRs, as
claimed by the State.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act
and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the CAA, Congress
created a program for protecting
visibility in national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
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.’’ 6
EPA promulgated a rule to address
regional haze on July 1, 1999.7 The
Regional Haze Rule revised the existing
visibility regulations 8 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 EPA’s visibility protection
regulations at 40 CFR 51.300 through 40
CFR 51.309.9
The CAA requires each state to
develop a SIP to meet various air quality
requirements, including protection of
visibility.10 Regional haze SIPs must
assure reasonable progress toward the
national goal of preventing future and
remedying existing manmade visibility
impairment in Class I areas. A state
must submit its SIP and SIP revisions to
EPA for approval.11 Once approved, a
SIP is enforceable by EPA and citizens
under the CAA; that is, the SIP is
federally enforceable.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA
requires SIPs to contain such measures
6 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 action, we
mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal area.’’
7 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at
40 CFR part 51, subpart P).
8 EPA had previously promulgated regulations to
address visibility impairment in Class I areas that
is ‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single source or
small group of sources, i.e., reasonably attributable
visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084, 80084
(December 2, 1980).
9 EPA revised the Regional Haze Rule on January
10, 2017. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Under the
revised Regional Haze Rule, the requirements in 40
CFR 51.308(d) and (e) apply to first implementation
period SIP submissions and 40 CFR 51.308(f)
applies to submissions for the second and
subsequent implementation periods. 82 FR 3087;
see also 81 FR 26942, 26952 (May 4, 2016).
10 See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492; CAA
sections 110(a), 169A, and 169B.
11 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 7410.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward meeting the national
visibility goal. Section 169(b)(2)(A)
specifies that one such requirement is
for certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962
and 1977 to procure, install, and operate
BART as determined by the states
through their SIPs. Under the Regional
Haze Rule, states (or EPA, in the case of
a Federal implementation plan (FIP)) are
directed to make BART determinations
for such ‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources—
typically larger, often uncontrolled, and
older stationary sources—that may
reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment
in a Class I area.12 Rather than requiring
source-specific BART controls, states
also have the flexibility to adopt an
emissions trading program or other
alternative program as long as the
alternative will achieve greater
reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions than BART.13
One such ‘‘BART alternative’’ is
included in 40 CFR 51.309, and is an
option for nine states termed the
‘‘Transport Region States,’’ which
include Arizona, California, Colorado,
Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon,
Utah, and Wyoming. Transport Region
States can adopt regional haze strategies
based on recommendations from the
Grand Canyon Visibility Transport
Commission (GCVTC) for protecting
visibility in the 16 Class I areas on the
Colorado Plateau.14
As part of its overall plan for making
reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal for those 16 Class I areas,
the GCVTC submitted a program to EPA,
known as the Western SO2 Backstop
Trading Program, containing annual SO2
emissions reduction milestones and
detailed provisions for a backstop
trading program to be implemented
12 40 CFR 51.308(e). EPA designed the Guidelines
for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze
Rule (Guidelines) ‘‘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.’’ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, 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’’).
13 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). WildEarth Guardians v.
EPA, 770 F.3d 919, 934 (10th Cir. 2014).
14 The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid
tableland in southeast Utah, northern Arizona,
northwest New Mexico, and western Colorado. The
16 mandatory Class I areas are the Grand Canyon
National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified
Forest National Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness,
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park
Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells
Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche
Wilderness, West Elk Wilderness, San Pedro Park
Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce Canyon
National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital
Reef National Park, and Zion National Park.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2573
automatically if states’ measures fail to
achieve the SO2 milestones. EPA
approved the Backstop Trading Program
as a BART alternative for SO2
emissions.15 Transport Region States’
SIPs must also contain BART
requirements for stationary-source
emissions of NOX and particulate
matter.16
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable
Progress Requirements
In addition to the BART requirements,
the CAA’s visibility protection
provisions also require that states’
regional haze SIPs contain a ‘‘long-term
(ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal. . . .’’ 17 The long-term
strategy must address regional haze
visibility impairment for each
mandatory Class I area within the state
and each mandatory Class I area located
outside the state that may be affected by
emissions from the state. It must include
the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other
measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals.18 The
reasonable progress goals, in turn, are
calculated for each Class I area based on
the control measures states have
selected for sources by applying the four
statutory ‘‘reasonable progress’’ factors,
which are ‘‘the costs of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, the
energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance,
and the remaining useful life of any
existing source subject to such
requirement.’’ 19 That is, states consider
the four reasonable progress factors, and
certain other factors listed in
§ 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule,
to determine what controls must be
included in the long-term strategy.
Those controls are represented in the
long-term strategy, i.e., the SIP, as
emission limits, schedules of
compliance, and other measures. The
reasonable progress goals are the
predicted visibility outcome of
implementing the long-term strategy in
addition to ongoing pollution control
programs stemming from other CAA
requirements.
Unlike BART determinations, which
are required only for the first regional
haze planning period SIPs,20 states are
15 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 68 FR 33764 (June
5, 2003).
16 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi).
17 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B).
18 See 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
19 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
20 Under the Regional Haze Rule, SIPs are due for
each regional haze planning period, or
implementation period. The terms ‘‘planning
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
Continued
18JAP1
2574
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
required to submit updates to their longterm strategies, including new
reasonable progress analyses and
reasonable progress goals, in the form of
SIP revisions on July 31, 2021, and at
specific intervals thereafter.21 In
addition, each state must periodically
submit a report to EPA at five-year
intervals beginning five years after the
submission of the initial regional haze
SIP, evaluating the state’s progress
toward meeting the reasonable progress
goals for each Class I area within the
state.22
By meeting all the requirements of 40
CFR 51.309, including but not limited to
the section 309-specific BART
requirements, a Transport Region State
can be deemed to be making reasonable
progress toward the national goal for the
first implementation period for the 16
Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.23
For stationary sources, the section 309
requirements include any necessary
long-term strategies for reasonable
progress for particulate matter (PM) and
NOX emissions.24 Additionally, the
State of Wyoming includes several nonColorado Plateau Class I areas, and thus
was also required to submit a long-term
strategy for those Class I areas.25
D. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
The Regional Haze Rule requires that
a state consult with Federal Land
Managers (FLMs) before adopting and
submitting a required SIP submittal or
revision. Further, a state must include a
summary of the FLMs’ conclusions and
recommendations in its notice to the
public,26 as well as include in its
submission to EPA a description of how
it addressed any comments provided by
the FLMs.27
III. Wyoming’s Regional Haze SIP
Revisions
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Background
The Jim Bridger power plant is in
Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and is
owned in part and operated by
PacifiCorp. The power plant is
composed of four 530 megawatt (MW)
tangentially fired boilers burning
period’’ and ‘‘implementation period’’ are used
interchangeably in this document.
21 40 CFR 51.308(f). The 2021 deadline was
originally in 2018; EPA revised this deadline in
2017. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017); see also 40
CFR 51.308(f). Following the 2021 SIP revision
deadline, the next SIP revision is due in 2028. 40
CFR 51.308(f).
22 40 CFR 51.308(g); 51.309(d)(10).
23 40 CFR 51.309(a).
24 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii).
25 79 FR 5199.
26 42 U.S.C. 7491(d).
27 40 CFR 51.308(i).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
pulverized coal for a total net generating
capacity of 2,120 MW. Wyoming
determined that all four units are
subject to BART.28
Wyoming submitted a SIP on January
12, 2011, that addressed regional haze
requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 for
the first regional haze planning period.
The State’s regional haze SIP
determined that NOX BART for Jim
Bridger Units 1–4 was new LNB/SOFA.
Compliance with the BART emission
limits was required by March 4, 2019,
for all four Jim Bridger units.29 The
State also determined that emission
limits consistent with the installation of
SCR were necessary to satisfy the
reasonable progress (not BART)
requirements. Wyoming’s SIP required
compliance with these emission limits
by December 31, 2022, December 31,
2021, December 31, 2015, and December
31, 2016, for Units 1–4, respectively.30
The State indicated that the delayed
timeline for installing SCR was based on
the large number of retrofits that
PacifiCorp was undertaking or helping
to finance at power plants in Wyoming,
Utah, Colorado, and Arizona.31
In June 2012, we proposed to find the
State’s BART determination for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 unreasonable. We
explained that the cost-effectiveness
values for LNB/SOFA + SCR were
reasonable and within the range that
Wyoming had determined to be
reasonable for other BART sources. We
further explained that the associated
visibility improvement and NOX
emissions reductions were significant.
Because the State’s compliance date for
installing SCR was beyond the five years
allowed by the statute for BART
sources, we proposed to disapprove the
State’s BART determination and
proposed a FIP requiring a NOX
emission limit consistent with the
installation of SCR with a compliance
deadline of no later than five years after
EPA took final action.32
Alternatively, EPA proposed to
conclude that while BART for all four
Jim Bridger units was LNB/SOFA + SCR
when the units were considered
individually, i.e., without regard to
other units in the PacifiCorp system,
when considering all PacifiCorp’s units
with their additional retrofit obligations,
28 77
FR 33022, 33030, 33035 (June 4, 2012).
FR 5221. Installation of new LNB with
SOFA (LNB/SOFA) corresponds to a NOX emission
limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
30 Id. Installation and operation of SCR
corresponds to a NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
31 77 FR 33053; see also State of Wyoming,
‘‘Addressing Regional Haze Visibility Protection For
The Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required
Under 40 CFR 51.309,’’ January 7, 2011, at 102.
32 77 FR 33053.
29 79
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BART was LNB/SOFA + SCR on Units
3 and 4 and LNB + OFA on Units 1 and
2. EPA explained that, based on claims
by the State and PacifiCorp, costs,
considered broadly across all four units
as well as for units in other states, could
be unreasonable for PacifiCorp to incur
within five years of EPA’s final action.
EPA then proposed in the alternative to
approve Wyoming’s BART and
reasonable progress determinations for
Units 1 and 2, the latter of which would
require an SCR emission limit by
December 31, 2021, for Unit 2, and
December 31, 2022, for Unit 1. EPA
noted that the Agency believed it ‘‘may
be reasonable and feasible for [SCR] to
be completed somewhat earlier’’ but
that, given the context, it ‘‘may be
appropriate to give considerable
deference to the State’s conclusions
about what controls are reasonable and
when they should be implemented.’’ 33
In 2013, EPA issued another proposal
after the Agency conducted its own cost
analyses and visibility modeling. As in
2012, EPA proposed two options in the
alternative. In proposing to approve the
State’s BART and reasonable progress
determinations for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2, EPA again cited the fact that
PacifiCorp may be required to install
several additional retrofits at units in
Wyoming and in other states and
proposed to give deference to the State
under the circumstances.34
In the alternative, EPA again proposed
in 2013 to determine that BART for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 is LNB/SOFA +
SCR and is required within five years of
EPA’s final action. EPA explained that
the cost-effectiveness values for
installing SCR were reasonable and the
visibility improvement at the most
impacted Class I area was significant.
EPA further explained that the cost
estimates were within the range that
Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in other
SIP and FIP actions have considered
reasonable in the BART context.35
After considering comments received
on the 2012 and 2013 proposals, in the
2014 final rule, EPA finalized approval
of Wyoming’s determination that BART
for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 was LNB/
SOFA and that SCR should be required
for reasonable progress as part of the
State’s long-term strategy by 2021 and
2022. EPA explained that the updated
source-wide visibility improvement
associated with the installation of LNB/
SOFA + SCR would be significant (1.25–
33 77
FR 33054.
FR 34738, 34755–56 (June 10, 2013).
However, of the twenty retrofit actions referenced
in EPA’s 2013 proposal, PacifiCorp has installed
only two SCRs in Wyoming and three SCRs and one
SNCR in Colorado to date.
35 78 FR 34780.
34 78
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
1.5 deciviews) with unit-specific
visibility benefits for Units 1 and 2 at
0.27–0.37 deciviews at the most
impacted Class I area (Bridger),
respectively. We explained that ‘‘[t]he
fact that Jim Bridger Station affects a
number of other Class I areas [(in
addition to Bridger)], which would also
see appreciable visibility improvement
with the installation of LNB/SOFA +
SCR, also weighs in favor of selecting
this option as BART.’’ 36 We also found
that the updated average costeffectiveness of LNB/SOFA + SCR at
$2,635 and $3,403/ton for Units 1 and
2, respectively, was in line with what
we had found to be acceptable in other
determinations,37 in addition to finding
that the incremental cost-effectiveness
of $7,447 and $8,968/ton for Units 1 and
2, respectively, was on the high end of
what we had found to be reasonable in
other determinations.38 However, EPA
ultimately concluded that, ‘‘while we
believe that these costs and visibility
improvements could potentially justify
LNB/SOFA + SCR as BART, because
this is a close call and because the State
has chosen to require SCR as a
reasonable progress control, we believe
deference to the State is appropriate in
this instance.’’ 39 We thus finalized the
State’s determination to require LNB/
SOFA as BART controls with a
corresponding emission limit of 0.26 lb/
MMBtu by March 4, 2019, for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2, and the State’s
determination to require SCR as part of
the State’s long-term strategy necessary
to achieve reasonable progress with a
corresponding emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) by 2022
and 2021 for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
respectively.40
B. May 14, 2020 Submittal
Notwithstanding the State’s 2011
determination to require the installation
of SCR as being necessary for reasonable
progress in the State’s long-term strategy
for Jim Bridger 1 and 2 in 2021 and
2022, and the deference EPA afforded
the State’s determination in the 2014
final rule (instead of requiring SCR as
BART controls within five years of
EPA’s action), on May 14, 2020,
Wyoming submitted a SIP revision for
the purpose of amending the State’s
regional haze SIP and removing the SCR
2575
requirement for Jim Bridger Units 1 and
2.41 Wyoming stated that ‘‘[d]ue to the
significant costs of installing SCR on
Units 1 and 2, and the potential impact
of those costs to PacifiCorp’s customers,
PacifiCorp reassessed its compliance
with the Regional Haze Rule and
developed an alternative regional haze
compliance strategy . . . .’’ 42
The State’s 2020 SIP revision contains
a source-specific, NOX-only reasonable
progress analysis and determination for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, as well as
plant-wide annual and monthly NOX
and SO2 emission limits for Jim Bridger
Units 1–4. Specifically, the amendments
provide a source-specific reasonable
progress four-factor analysis and
consideration of visibility benefits for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 to
demonstrate that the current LNB/SOFA
NOX BART controls also satisfy the
reasonable progress requirements for
those units for the first planning period.
The SIP revision thereby would remove
the existing reasonable progress
requirement for Jim Bridger Units 1 and
2 to comply with emission limits of 0.07
lb/MMBtu in 2021 and 2022 (Table 1).
TABLE 1—EXISTING AND PROPOSED NOX EMISSION LIMITS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4
Existing NOX
BART emission
limit
(30-day rolling
average;
lb/MMBtu) 1
Unit
1
2
3
4
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................
1 Compliance
2 Compliance
Existing NOX
reasonable
progress emission
limit
(30-day rolling
average;
lb/MMBtu) 2
Proposed NOX
reasonable
progress emission
limit
(30-day rolling
average;
lb/MMBtu)
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.26
0.26
3 N/A
3 N/A
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
date is March 4, 2019; no changes to the NOX BART emission limits are proposed.
dates for each is: Unit 1 = December 31, 2022; Unit 2 = December 31, 2021; Unit 3 = December 31, 2015; and Unit 4 = Decem-
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
ber 31, 2016.
3 No change to existing NO reasonable progress emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
X
36 79
FR 5048.
FR 5040, 5048. Note that the text at 79 FR
5048 misstates the average cost-effectiveness for
LNB/SOFA + SCR at Units 1 and 2. The correct
figures are stated in Table 5 and 6 at 79 FR 5040.
Note that for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, we
disagreed with Wyoming’s conclusion that BART
was not LNB/SOFA + SCR, but we nonetheless
approved the State’s BART and reasonable progress
37 79
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
determinations of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) and 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average), respectively, because the compliance
deadlines for SCR were all within the statutory
timeframe for BART. 77 FR 33035–36; 79 FR 5046,
5221.
38 79 FR 5048.
39 Id.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40 79
FR 5048–49.
dated May 12, 2020, from Todd Parfitt,
Director, Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality, to Gregory Sopkin, Regional Administrator,
EPA Region 8, Subject: State Implementation Plant
Approval Request—Regional Haze 309(g) SIP
revision for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant.
42 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3.
41 Letter
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
2576
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
In addition, Wyoming’s 2020 SIP
revision would add federally
enforceable month-by-month plant-wide
NOX and SO2 emission limits across all
four Jim Bridger units, as well as an
enforceable annual plant-wide NOX and
SO2 emissions cap of 17,500 tpy,
effective January 1, 2022 (Table 2). The
plant-wide monthly and annual
emission limits for Jim Bridger Units 1–
4 are already State-enforceable through
Wyoming air quality permit #P0025809.
The final permit was issued on May 5,
2020.43
TABLE 2—ENFORCEABLE MONTHLY PLANT-WIDE BLOCK NOX AND SO2 EMISSION LIMITS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4,
EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2022
Month
Total units 1–4
NOX emission limit
(monthly average
basis)
(lb/hour)
Total units 1–4
SO2 emission limit
(monthly average
basis)
(lb/hour)
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,050
2,200
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,500
2,300
2,030
2,050
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
2,100
January ........................................................................................................................................................
February .......................................................................................................................................................
March ...........................................................................................................................................................
April ..............................................................................................................................................................
May ..............................................................................................................................................................
June .............................................................................................................................................................
July ...............................................................................................................................................................
August ..........................................................................................................................................................
September ...................................................................................................................................................
October ........................................................................................................................................................
November ....................................................................................................................................................
December ....................................................................................................................................................
C. Summary of Wyoming’s Reasonable
Progress Reassessment
Pursuant to CAA section 169A(g)(1)
and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), in
determining the measures necessary to
make reasonable progress, a state must
take into account the following four
factors and demonstrate how they were
taken into consideration in making a
reasonable progress determination:
• Costs of Compliance;
• Time Necessary for Compliance;
• Energy and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts of Compliance;
and
• Remaining Useful Life of Any
Potentially Affected Sources.
In order to conduct a source-specific
reasonable progress assessment for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2, the State took
into consideration the four required
factors and also included visibility
improvement as an additional factor in
its reasonable progress analysis.44
Wyoming relied on information
provided by PacifiCorp and EPA for
evaluating potential reasonable progress
NOX emissions controls—LNB/SOFA,
LNB/SOFA + selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR), and LNB/SOFA +
SCR—at Jim Bridger.45
1. Costs of Compliance
For the source-specific reasonable
progress analysis associated with this
action, Wyoming relied on cost
information provided by PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp used NOX emission rates for
LNB/SOFA of 0.187 lb/MMBtu and
0.192 lb/MMBtu (annual average)
reflective of the actual emissions rate
(2013–2015) for Units 1 and 2,
respectively. The anticipated NOX
emission rate for LNB/SOFA + SNCR
was assumed to be 0.15 lb/MMBtu
(annual) for both Units 1 and 2. The
NOX emission rate for LNB/SOFA + SCR
was assumed to be 0.05 lb/MMBtu
(annual), which corresponds to the 0.07
lb/MMBtu LNB/SOFA + SCR NOX 30day rolling average emission limits for
Units 1 and 2 that EPA approved in the
2014 final rule.
Wyoming’s source-specific reasonable
progress analysis for Units 1 and 2
based capital costs and annual operating
and maintenance (O&M) costs on the
actual costs incurred to install and
operate SCR technology on Jim Bridger
Units 3 and 4, as well as the actual costs
to install LNB/SOFA on Units 1 and 2
(Table 3). Capital costs for SNCR
technology were estimated based on
recent similarly sized projects (Table
3).46
TABLE 3—PACIFICORP’S TOTAL CAPITAL AND O&M COSTS FOR THE JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 REASONABLE
PROGRESS ANALYSIS
Total installed capital costs
($)
NOX control technology
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Unit 1
LNB/SOFA .......................................................................................................
SNCR ...............................................................................................................
SCR .................................................................................................................
43 Letter dated May 5, 2020, from Nancy E. Vehr,
Administrator, Air Quality Division, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality, to James
Owens, Director, Environmental Services,
PacifiCorp, Subject: Permit #P0025809 (Permit
#0025809).
44 The visibility benefit of an emissions reduction
measure is not listed as a required factor, but
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
$8,410,000
15,538,000
140,428,000
neither the CAA nor the Regional Haze Rule
prohibits a state from considering visibility benefits
when it determines what emissions control
measures are required for a source to make
reasonable progress at a Class I area. Therefore, a
state may consider the visibility benefits of
potential control measures when determining what
is necessary to make reasonable progress.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Unit 2
$7,986,000
15,538,000
140,428,000
Total O&M costs
($/year)
Unit 1
Unit 2
........................
2,954,000
2,580,000
........................
3,158,000
2,527,000
45 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3; see also
PacifiCorp, Jim Bridger Power Plant Reasonable
Progress Determination to Support PacifiCorp’s
Reasonable Progress Reassessment (PacifiCorp
Reassessment), February 2019.
46 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision, PacifiCorp,
Corrected JB RP Reassessment NOX Comparison
Tables, October 6, 2020.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
2577
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
PacifiCorp annualized capital costs
using the capital recovery factor (CRF)
approach described in EPA’s Control
Cost Manual using 20-year and 30-year
amortization periods for SNCR and SCR,
respectively.47 Total annual costs were
calculated as the sum of the annualized
capital costs and total O&M costs. The
cost-effectiveness of each NOX control
technology was calculated on a dollarper-ton of pollutant removed basis by
dividing the total annual costs by the
reduction in annual NOX emissions
associated with each NOX emissions
control technology (i.e., LNB/SOFA,
LNB/SOFA + SNCR, LNB/SOFA + SCR).
Similarly, PacifiCorp calculated the
incremental cost-effectiveness of each
NOX control technology on a dollar-perton of pollutant removed basis by
dividing the difference of the total
annual costs (of one control technology
compared to that of the next most
stringent control technology) by the
difference in the reduction in annual
NOX emissions (of the two control
technologies).
The summary of cost-effectiveness
figures for Wyoming’s reasonable
progress analysis for Jim Bridger Units
1 and 2 is shown in Table 4. Baseline
NOX emissions (2001–2003) are 8,432
tpy and 7,575 tpy for Units 1 and 2,
respectively.
TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 NOX REVISED REASONABLE PROGRESS COST ANALYSIS 48
NOX control technology
NOX emissions rate
(lb/MMBtu;
annual)
Emissions reduction
(tpy)
Average costeffectiveness
($/ton)
Annualized cost
($/year)
Incremental
cost-effectiveness
($/ton)
Unit 1
LNB/SOFA .......................
LNB/SOFA + SNCR .........
LNB/SOFA + SCR ...........
1 0.187
2 0.15
0.05
4,414 ...............................
5,209 ...............................
7,358 ...............................
$794,000 .........................
5,215,000 ........................
14,692,000 ......................
$180
1,001
1,997
5,560
4,410
207
1,193
2,228
5,385
4,510
Unit 2
LNB/SOFA .......................
LNB/SOFA + SNCR .........
LNB/SOFA + SCR ...........
1 0.192
2 0.15
0.05
3,649 ...............................
4,508 ...............................
6,552 ...............................
754,000 ...........................
5,379,000 ........................
14,599,000 ......................
1 lb/MMBtu,
annual average.
annual. The controlled NOX emission rate with SNCR was assumed to be 0.15 lb./MMBtu, which corresponds with a reduction of
approximately 20 percent.
2 lb/MMBtu,
Wyoming also summarized the total
estimated capital costs and annual costs
combined for Units 1 and 2 for the
installation of SCR and SNCR, in
addition to the LNB/SOFA NOX
emissions controls already installed, for
the revised reasonable progress analysis
(Table 5).
TABLE 5—TOTAL CAPITAL AND ANNUAL COSTS FOR JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 REVISED REASONABLE PROGRESS
ANALYSIS 49
Control
efficiency
(%)
NOX control technology
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
LNB/SOFA ...................................................................................................................................
LNB/SOFA + SNCR .....................................................................................................................
LNB/SOFA + SCR .......................................................................................................................
Although Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4
are not included in the reasonable
progress analysis, Wyoming noted that
the total capital cost for LNB/SOFA +
SCR installation on Units 3 and 4,
which are already installed, was
$310,959,000. Ultimately, Wyoming
concluded that the installation of SCR
on Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 would cost
‘‘hundreds of millions more’’ than the
costs already incurred for LNB/SOFA
NOX emissions controls while SNCR
would cost ‘‘tens of millions more’’ than
the costs already incurred for LNB/
SOFA NOX emissions controls.50
47 EPA, ‘‘Control Cost Manual,’’ Section 4,
Chapter 1, April 25, 2019, page 1–53–54, and
Chapter 2, June 2019, page 80, available at https://
www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-
pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidanceair-pollution (last visited December 2021).
48 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision, PacifiCorp,
Corrected JB RP Reassessment NOX Comparison
Tables, October 6, 2020.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
2. Time Necessary for Compliance
As stated previously, the SIP
approved by EPA on January 30, 2014,
requires an emission limit of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu associated with the installation
of LNB/SOFA + SCR on Jim Bridger
Unit 1 by December 31, 2022, and on
Unit 2 by December 31, 2021. Wyoming
stated in the 2020 SIP revision that if
SNCR installation was required, the
compliance timelines would match the
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Capital costs
($)
53
63
87
Annual costs
($/year)
$16,396,000
47,472,000
297,252,000
$1,548,000
10,594,000
29,291,000
SCR timeline. The current LNB/SOFA
NOX emissions controls were installed
in 2010 and 2005 for Units 1 and 2,
respectively.51
3. Energy and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts of Compliance
The State identified that SCR control
technology would periodically produce
solid waste when the catalyst is
changed. Additionally, Wyoming stated
that SCR control technology would
require the storage and use of ammonia,
while SNCR would require the storage
49 Wyoming
2020 SIP Revision at 5.
50 Id.
51 Id.
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
at 6.
18JAP1
2578
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
and use of urea. With respect to energy
use, the State estimated that SNCR
would require 6 times the energy
required by the current NOX control
technology (LNB/SOFA), and SCR
would require 150 times the energy
required by LNB/SOFA. Wyoming
further stated that SCR would require
the use of an additional 10.4 megawatts
of energy. Wyoming did not anticipate
any additional negative non-air
environmental impacts associated with
the current LNB/SOFA NOX emissions
controls.52
4. Remaining Useful Life
For this evaluation, Wyoming stated
that the expected life of the source is
less than the expected life of the
emissions control technology, which is
30 years for SCR and 20 years for SNCR.
However, Wyoming did not provide an
enforceable shutdown date that would
ensure that the expected life of the
source would in fact be reduced.53
Therefore, notwithstanding the State’s
expectation of a shortened remaining
useful life for the source, it used the full
30-year and 20-year periods for SCR and
SNCR, respectively, in its analyses.
5. Visibility Improvement
Although visibility improvement is
not one of the four statutory factors for
reasonable progress, Wyoming elected
to include visibility improvement in the
reasonable progress analysis for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2. Wyoming did not
complete new visibility modeling for
the reasonable progress analysis and
determination. Instead, the State relied
upon EPA’s CALPUFF modeling results
contained in the 2014 final rule to
assess the visibility impacts of the NOX
emissions control technologies
evaluated, i.e., for LNB/SOFA, LNB/
SOFA + SNCR, LNB/SOFA + SCR.54 In
our 2014 final rule, we evaluated the
CALPUFF visibility modeling of the Jim
Bridger power plant for the most
impacted Class I area, Bridger
Wilderness (Table 6).55
TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER POWER PLANT NOX VISIBILITY ANALYSIS IN EPA’S 2014 FINAL RULE
Visibility Improvement (deciviews) 1
(modeled results using an ammonia background based on
a monitored monthly varying concentration/modeled results
using IWAQM default 0.5 ppb background ammonia) 3
Jim Bridger
LNB/SOFA +
SNCR
LNB/SOFA
Unit
Unit
Unit
Unit
1
2
3
4
LNB/SOFA + SCR
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
0.17/0.23
0.16/0.21
0.14/0.19
0.25/0.23
0.20/0.27
0.19/0.25
0.17/0.23
0.30/0.28
0.27/0.37
0.27/0.36
0.26/0.35
0.45/0.42
Total 2 ..................................................................................................................
0.72/0.86
0.86/1.03
1.25/1.5
1 For
most impacted Class I area, Bridger Wilderness.
total visibility improvement was estimated as the sum of the visibility improvement from each unit.
3 EPA, Air Quality Modeling Protocol; Wyoming Regional Haze Implementation Plan, January 2014.
2 The
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
The State noted that EPA determined
in 2014 that the unit-specific visibility
benefits for LNB/SOFA + SCR
installation on Units 1 and 2 were
‘‘modest’’ at 0.27 to 0.37 deciviews. In
addition, the State noted that the
incremental visibility improvement, as
determined by EPA, of LNB/SOFA +
SCR over LNB/SOFA, was 0.10 to 0.14
deciviews for Unit 1 and 0.11 to 0.15
deciviews for Unit 2. The State further
noted that incremental improvement of
LNB/SOFA + SNCR over LNB/SOFA
was smaller at between 0.03–0.04
deciviews for both Units 1 and 2.56
In addition to comparing the visibility
impacts associated with each NOX
52 Id.
at 6.
at 4.
54 See id. at 7. In the 2014 final rule, EPA
addressed comments on the visibility improvement
modeling by developing a new protocol that makes
several improvements in the modeling, including
the latest regulatory version of the CALPUFF model
at the time of the rule (version 5.8), the use of an
53 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
emissions control technology, Wyoming
also pointed to PacifiCorp’s estimated
NOX emissions reductions. The State
asserted that the current LNB/SOFA
NOX emissions controls already have
reduced NOX emissions from the 2001–
2003 baseline by a combined 8,063 tpy
for Units 1 and 2. The installation of
SCR would reduce NOX emissions from
the 2001–2003 baseline by an additional
5,848 tpy (Units 1 and 2 combined),
while the installation of SNCR would
reduce NOX emissions from the baseline
by an additional 1,655 tpy.57
According to the State, in spite of the
additional NOX emissions reductions
achievable through each NOX control
technology, EPA’s 2014 modeling
demonstrates that the installation of
SCR on Units 1 and 2 would result in
only modest incremental visibility
benefits of 0.10–0.15 deciviews (per
unit) when compared to current LNB/
SOFA NOX emissions controls on Units
1 and 2. The State concluded that these
visibility improvements are not
significant enough to outweigh the
substantial cost of installing SCR.
Instead, Wyoming concluded that
relying on the current NOX emissions
controls (LNB/SOFA) is the reasonable
choice for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.58
improved method to assess the effects of pollutants
on light scattering and visibility impairment
(Method 8), the use of background ammonia
concentrations based on monitoring data and
regulatory default concentrations for the area, and
the use of an ammonia-limiting correction to treat
sources with multiple units. We used two sets of
background ammonia concentrations based on
representative monthly varying ammonia
concentrations and default concentrations for
forested areas.
55 79 FR 5048.
56 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7.
57 Id.
58 Id. at 7–8.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
6. Reasonable Progress Demonstration
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
After considering each of the four
reasonable progress factors, states must
demonstrate how those factors, and
visibility improvement if included in
the analysis, were taken into
consideration in making a reasonable
progress determination.59 Thus, after
consideration of the four factors, along
with an evaluation of the modeled
visibility impacts at the most impacted
Class I area (Bridger Wilderness),
Wyoming determined that no additional
controls beyond BART are necessary for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 under the
reasonable progress provisions for the
first regional haze planning period.
Wyoming determined that, ‘‘[w]hile SCR
installation on Units 1 & 2 could be
expected to be more efficient in
controlling NOX emission than either
SNCR installation or relying on Current
Unit 1–2 NOX Controls [(LNB/SOFA)],
the estimated capital costs, annual costs,
and cost-effectiveness are far higher for
SCR and SNCR, compared with little
modeled visibility benefit.’’ 60 In
addition, the State explained that SCR
will produce solid waste every time the
catalyst must be replaced and will have
higher electricity requirements. The
State further explained that the current
NOX controls are already in use and do
not require additional time for
compliance.61
Wyoming stated that its reasonable
progress determination for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2 is consistent with several
similar EPA decisions where EPA
rejected SNCR and SCR because the
cost-effectiveness values associated with
the control measures were significantly
higher and/or the NOX emissions
reductions achieved were not that much
more than combustion controls (LNB)
alone.62 Furthermore, Wyoming stated
that it considers the costs that
PacifiCorp has already incurred on NOX
emissions control technology at the Jim
Bridger power plant and the associated
improvement in visibility to be
sufficient for reasonable progress.63
In summary, Wyoming concluded that
the reasonable progress analysis
demonstrates that the current NOX
emissions controls (LNB/SOFA) on
Units 1 and 2, including the current
NOX emission limits of 0.26 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average), which apply to
each unit, constitute NOX reasonable
progress for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.
Therefore, Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision
would remove the emission limits of
0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average)
associated with the installation of SCR
at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 as part of
the State’s long-term strategy to achieve
reasonable progress at several Class I
areas for the first planning period.64
D. Summary of Wyoming’s Plant-Wide
Monthly and Annual NOX and SO2
Emission Limits for Jim Bridger
In addition to concluding that
emission limits consistent with LNB/
SOFA are sufficient for reasonable
progress for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
the State asserted that PacifiCorp’s
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX
and SO2 emission limits for Jim Bridger
Units 1–4 strengthen and support the
reasonable progress determination for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. Specifically,
the State quoted EPA’s 2007 Reasonable
Progress Goals Guidance (2007
Guidance), which provides that States
‘‘have flexibility in how to take into
consideration [the] statutory factors and
any other factors [the state has]
determined to be relevant,’’ 65 in
claiming that PacifiCorp’s monthly
plant-wide NOX and SO2 emission
limits (shown in Table 2) and the
annual plant-wide NOX and SO2
emissions cap of 17,500 tpy are relevant
in Wyoming’s revised reasonable
progress analysis and determination.
The State pointed to a number of factors
to describe how the plant-wide monthly
and annual NOX and SO2 emission
limits bolster the revised reasonable
progress analysis. These include what
the State asserted are greater modeled
visibility improvement, lower costs, and
fewer overall energy and environmental
impacts than the installation of SCR and
SNCR on Units 1 and 2.66
Wyoming relied on CALPUFF
visibility modeling conducted by
PacifiCorp to evaluate visibility
improvement associated with the plantwide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits compared to LNB/SOFA
+ SCR and LNB/SOFA + SNCR.67 The
CALPUFF modeling report used the
following three metrics to evaluate the
results:
• The 98th percentile modeled deltadeciview, averaged over the 3 years
59 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
2020 SIP Revision at 7.
60 Wyoming
61 Id.
62 Id. at 7, 8 (citing 77 FR 24794 (April 25, 2012),
77 FR 11879 (February 28, 2012), 77 FR 18052
(March 26, 2012), 77 FR 23988 (April 20, 2012), 83
FR 62204 (November 30, 2018), 80 FR 18944 (April
8, 2015), 77 FR 21896 (April 12, 2012)).
63 Id. at 7.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
modeled and applied to each Class I
area individually;
• The number of modeled days
(summed over the 3 years modeled)
with a plant-wide impact above 0.5
delta-deciview, applied to each Class I
area individually; and
• The number of modeled days
(summed over the 3 years modeled)
with a plant-wide impact above 1.0
delta-deciview, applied to each Class I
area individually.
Under all three metrics, Wyoming
asserted that the updated CALPUFF
modeling results demonstrate that the
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX
and SO2 emission limits resulted in
greater visibility improvement than SCR
and SNCR.68
With respect to the 98th percentile
metric, the State asserted that the
visibility impacts for the Jim Bridger
power plant under the SCR, SNCR, and
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX
and SO2 emission limits scenarios are
0.760, 0.930, and 0.653 deciviews,
respectively.69 Wyoming further
asserted that the number of CALPUFFmodeled days resulting in a plant-wide
visibility impact above 0.5 deltadeciviews over a three-year period
under the SCR, SNCR, and plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits scenarios are 475, 597,
and 371 days, respectively. Finally, with
respect to the number of CALPUFFmodeled days resulting in a plant-wide
visibility impact above 1.0 deltadeciview over a three-year period under
the SCR, SNCR, and plant-wide monthly
and annual NOX and SO2 emission
limits scenarios are 127, 195, and 108
days, respectively, according to the
State.70
According to Wyoming, installation of
SCR and SNCR on Units 1 and 2 will
result in the reduction of NOX emissions
of 5,848 and 1,655 tpy respectively,
relative to ‘‘current operating potential.’’
‘‘Current operating potential,’’ as
defined in PacifiCorp’s technical
analysis, is based on a combination of
recent emission rates with plant-wide
heat input (i.e., utilization) from the
2001–2003 period.71 Implementation of
the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits will result
in the reduction of NOX and SO2
68 Id.
64 Id.
at 8.
65 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 8–9 (quoting
EPA’s ‘‘Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress
Goals Under the Regional Haze Program,’’ June 1,
2007 (2007 Guidance)).
66 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 8–12.
67 Wyoming chose the CALPUFF visibility model
because it was the same model used to analyze the
existing reasonable progress requirements (79 FR
5039). See Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 11.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2579
at 11–12.
across all impacted Class I areas,
including Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick
Wilderness, Grand Teton National Park, Mt. Zirkel
Wilderness, Rocky Mountain National Park, Rawah
Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, Washakie
Wilderness, and Yellowstone National Park.
PacifiCorp Reassessment at 15.
70 Id. at 11–12.
71 See PacifiCorp Reassessment, Attachment 1 at
21.
69 Averaged
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
2580
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
emissions of 6,056 tpy relative to a
baseline of 2001–2003 utilization. In
addition to reductions in NOX and SO2
emissions, Wyoming stated that the
plant-wide emission limits will reduce
all emissions from the Jim Bridger
power plant, including PM, mercury
(Hg), greenhouse gases (GHG), carbon
monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2),
and sulfuric acid (H2SO4), as well as
reduce coal consumption, coal
combustion residual production and
disposal, and raw water consumption.72
To compare cost-effectiveness
estimates, the State relied on
PacifiCorp’s analysis using total tons of
SO2 and NOX reduced from ‘‘current
operating potential’’ under the
assumption that the pollutants would
have equivalent visibility impacts
(Table 7).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE 7—PACIFICORP’S SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4, COST ANALYSIS FOR SCR, SNCR, AND PLANT-WIDE
MONTHLY AND ANNUAL NOX AND SO2 EMISSION LIMITS
Capital cost
($)
Jim Bridger
Control technology
Units 1–2 .........................................................
Units 1–2 .........................................................
Units 1–4 .........................................................
SCR ................................................................
SNCR .............................................................
Monthly and Annual Plant-Wide Emission
Limits.
Wyoming also asserted that the plantwide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits are more cost-effective
than SCR or SNCR. Furthermore,
Wyoming claimed that even if all three
emissions control measures are
compared on a NOX-only basis
(excluding SO2), the plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits remain the most costeffective option.73
In addition to the asserted visibility
and cost benefits associated with the
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX
and SO2 emission limits, Wyoming
compared the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance. First, Wyoming contended
that, as compared to the use of SCR, the
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX
and SO2 emission limits would allow
approximately 10.4 megawatts of
electrical energy required by SCR for
Units 1 and 2 to be instead directed to
the electrical grid to power
approximately 8,761 average homes.
Second, Wyoming asserted that the
installation of SCR controls on Units 1
and 2 would not restrict the capacity
factor of these units (e.g., the annual
heat output), so these units could
operate with a potential average annual
capacity factor of 100 percent. In
contrast, Wyoming explained that
implementation of the plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits would limit the capacity
of all four units and effectively limit
annual boiler heat input, thereby also
providing a reduction in the
consumption of natural resources (i.e.,
72 Id.
at 9–10.
at 9–10.
74 Id. at 10–11.
75 Cf. Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir.
2016) (While states have discretion to balance the
73 Id.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
water and coal). Third, Wyoming
asserted that the installation of SCR at
Units 1 and 2 would result in additional
storage and use of ammonia and create
more coal combustion residuals.
Likewise, the installation of SNCR on
Units 1 and 2 would result in additional
storage and use of urea and would also
create more coal combustion residuals
compared to the plant-wide monthly
and annual NOX and SO2 emission
limits. Finally, Wyoming asserted that
the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits provide
the entire facility the flexibility to ‘‘load
follow’’ or accommodate intermittent
influx of renewable energy into the
western power grid, which has larger
scale environmental impacts in
Wyoming and across the West.74
IV. EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed
Disapproval of Wyoming’s Regional
Haze SIP Revisions
A. Basis for Proposed Disapproval
Although states have discretion under
the Regional Haze Rule to balance the
four statutory factors in making control
determinations for sources, their
analyses must be both reasoned and
moored to the statutory requirement to
make reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal.75 The Regional
Haze Rule provides that, ‘‘in
determining whether the State’s goal for
visibility improvement provides for
reasonable progress toward natural
visibility conditions, the Administrator
will evaluate’’ the state’s demonstration
under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (ii).76
five BART factors, they must also adhere to certain
requirements when conducting BART analyses.
EPA may not approve BART determinations that are
based on analyses that are unreasoned or unmoored
to the statutory provisions.) (citing N. Dakota v.
EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir. 2013)).
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
280,856,000
31,076,000
4,659,000
Annualized
cost
($/year)
27,743,000
9,046,000
2,115,000
Costeffectiveness
($/ton)
4,744
5,469
349
Thus, our regulations and the CAA
require that we review the
reasonableness of the State’s reasonable
progress determination in light of the
goal of achieving natural visibility
conditions. This approach is also
inherent in our role as the
administrative agency empowered to
review and approve SIPs. In this SIP
review action, EPA is not only
authorized, but required to exercise
independent technical judgement in
evaluating the adequacy of the State’s
regional haze SIP, including its
reasonable progress determinations.77
For the reasons described in section
IV.B. below, EPA proposes to
disapprove Wyoming’s regional haze
SIP revision. Our proposed action is
based on an evaluation of Wyoming’s
2020 SIP revision under the regional
haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.300–
51.309 and CAA section 169A. The
revisions were also evaluated against
the general SIP requirements contained
in CAA section 110 and our regulations
applicable to this action. Additionally,
EPA is not reopening, and thus not
accepting comment on, EPA’s 2014
approval of Wyoming’s BART
determinations for Jim Bridger Units 1–
4 or EPA’s 2014 approval of the
emission limits Wyoming required as
reasonable progress controls for Jim
Bridger Units 3 and 4. Any comments
on these issues will be deemed beyond
the scope of this action.
76 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii).
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(J), (l), (k)(3); 7491(a)(1),
(b)(2)(B); Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201 (10th
Cir. 2013).
77 42
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
B. EPA’s Proposed Disapproval of
Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress
Determination for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2
We are proposing to disapprove
Wyoming’s regional haze SIP revision
for the NOX reasonable progress
determination for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2.
In our analysis of the Wyoming 2020
SIP revision, we evaluated Wyoming’s
reasonable progress determination for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 under 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Under this
requirement, a state must consider the
following four factors and include a
demonstration of how they were taken
into consideration in making a
reasonable progress determination:
• Costs of Compliance;
• Time Necessary for Compliance;
• Energy and Non-Air Quality
Environmental Impacts of Compliance;
and
• Remaining Useful Life of Any
Potentially Affected Sources.
The State has discretion to reasonably
weigh these four factors, along with
visibility improvement if it so chooses,
to determine what controls are
necessary to include in the long-term
strategy for a specific source. States
exercise this discretion within the
context of the statutory requirement to
make reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal.78
1. Basis of Our Proposed Disapproval
We are proposing to find that
Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision does not
provide a reasonable basis for reversing
the State’s 2011 determination of what
reasonable progress controls are
necessary for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2
for the first planning period. Our
proposed disapproval is based on the
following: (1) The reasonable costeffectiveness of the existing control
requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2 (emission limits consistent with
the installation of SCR); (2) the
appreciable visibility improvement
estimated to result from compliance
with the existing reasonable progress
control requirements; and (3) the fact
that the State previously determined
that the costs of those control
requirements were reasonable and that
they are necessary to satisfy the
statutory requirements, and has not
provided any new information that
would support a revised determination
that the existing control requirements
are now unreasonable. Because the State
has not provided adequate justification
for reversing its 2011 determination,
78 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1), (b)(2)(B); 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iii).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
removing the existing emission limits
reflecting LNB/SOFA + SCR from the
SIP would be inconsistent with the
requirement that SIPs contain the
measures necessary to make reasonable
progress toward the national visibility
goal. We therefore propose to
disapprove the State’s 2020 SIP
revision.
As an initial matter, we propose to
find that the State reasonably
characterized the four factors required
in a reasonable progress analysis,
including the costs of compliance, the
time necessary for compliance, energy
and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance, and the
remaining useful life of any potentially
affected sources. In addition, we agree
with the State that, although visibility
improvement is not one of the four
factors required by CAA section
169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), visibility
improvement (along with the statutory
factors) can be considered to determine
what control measures are necessary to
make reasonable progress.79
We are also specifically proposing to
find that Wyoming’s revised cost
calculation is appropriate, including: (1)
The use of actual annual average (2013–
2015) NOX emissions rates for LNB/
SOFA; (2) the use of NOX emissions
rates of 0.15 and 0.05 lb/MMBtu
(annual) for LNB/SOFA + SNCR and
LNB/SOFA + SCR, respectively; (3) the
use of amortization periods of 20, 20,
and 30 years for LNB/SOFA, SNCR and
SCR, respectively; (4) the use of actual
costs for the installation and operation
of SCR taken from those incurred for
Units 3 and 4; and (5) the use of a
baseline of 2001–2003 emissions to
analyze cost and visibility associated
with LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA + SNCR,
and LNB/SOFA + SCR.
However, as explained previously,
notwithstanding our proposed finding
that Wyoming reasonably characterized
relevant information under each of the
four statutory factors, we are proposing
to find that the State did not reasonably
consider that information in reaching its
revised reasonable progress
determination.
Of the four reasonable progress factors
and the optional visibility improvement
factor, the State placed significant
emphasis on the costs of compliance in
its analysis of controls for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2. Consistent with the
State’s analysis, we afford this factor
similar significance in our evaluation
79 See 77 FR 57864, 57899 (September 18, 2012),
79 FR 9318, 9353–54 (February 18, 2014), 81 FR
296, 309–310 (January 5, 2016). See also 2007
Guidance at page 5–1.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2581
here. We are also evaluating the
visibility improvement information that
Wyoming considered in the SIP
revision, as well as the other three
factors—remaining useful life, time
necessary for compliance, and energy
and non-air environmental impacts.
After a consideration of all five of these
factors, we propose to conclude that the
State’s determination that the
installation of SCR is not necessary for
reasonable progress is unreasonable.
a. Costs of Compliance
In order to evaluate Wyoming’s 2020
SIP revision with respect to the cost of
compliance, we first evaluate
Wyoming’s characterization of the costs
using the updated Control Cost Manual.
Next, we evaluate the reasonableness of
the costs associated with the installation
of SCR on Units 1 and 2 with respect to
average and incremental costeffectiveness and the State’s explanation
for why requiring SCR on Units 1 and
2 is unreasonable.
The revised NOX control cost
estimates in Wyoming’s 2020 SIP
revision are based on the current
version of the Control Cost Manual,
which has been revised since our 2014
final rule. As updated, the Control Cost
Manual includes a 30-year equipment
life for SCR.80 The change in equipment
life estimate from 20 to 30 years for SCR
affects annual cost estimates, as well as
average cost-effectiveness and
incremental cost-effectiveness estimates.
We propose to find Wyoming’s use of
the updated Control Cost Manual
appropriate.
In the 2020 SIP revision, Wyoming
provided updated capital costs, annual
costs, and average and incremental costeffectiveness figures for SNCR, SCR, and
the plant-wide annual and monthly
limits.81 The 2007 Guidance instructs
that states should evaluate both average
and incremental costs according to the
Control Cost Manual to maintain and
improve consistency.82 These figures
take into account capital and annual
costs and allow states and EPA to
compare costs of controls industry wide.
EPA’s guidance further cautions against
80 EPA, ‘‘Control Cost Manual,’’ Section 4,
Chapter 2, June 2019, page 80, available at https://
www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-airpollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidanceair-pollution (last visited December 2021).
81 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 4–5.
82 2007 Guidance at page 5–1, 2 (referring to the
BART Guidelines and Control Cost Manual). See
also 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.b (‘‘For
purposes of air pollutant analysis, ‘effectiveness’ is
measured in terms of tons of pollutant emissions
removed, and ‘cost’ is measured in terms of
annualized control costs. We recommend two types
of cost-effectiveness calculations—average cost
effectiveness, and incremental cost effectiveness.’’).
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
2582
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
considering in isolation the capital costs
of a control option, as large or small
capital costs alone are not dispositive of
the reasonableness of a potential
control.83 Thus, we deem the average
and incremental cost-effectiveness
figures most relevant to our
consideration of Wyoming’s revised cost
analysis.
In the revised cost analysis for the
2020 SIP revision, Wyoming’s cost
estimates show an average costeffectiveness for LNB/SOFA + SCR for
Units 1 and 2 of $1,997 and $2,228 per
ton of NOX removed, respectively.84
Wyoming’s cost estimates also show an
incremental cost-effectiveness for LNB/
SOFA + SCR for Units 1 and 2 of $4,410
and $4,510 per ton of NOX removed,
respectively, relative to the next-moststringent control (LNB/SOFA +
SNCR).85
Based on the State’s estimates, the
costs of the existing control
requirements (LNB/SOFA + SCR) are
eminently reasonable. Indeed, in 2011,
the State deemed reasonable an average
cost-effectiveness of $2,258 per ton of
NOX removed (LNB/SOFA + SCR) and
incremental cost-effectiveness of $5,721
per ton of NOX removed (LNB/SOFA +
SCR) for each unit when it required
SCRs as reasonable progress controls.86
Similarly, EPA concluded in our 2014
final rule that our revised average costeffectiveness figures for LNB/SOFA +
SCR for Units 1 and 2 of $2,635 and
$3,403 per ton and our revised
incremental cost-effectiveness figures
for LNB/SOFA + SCR for Units 1 and 2
of $7,447 and $8,968 were reasonable.87
Relatedly, in our 2014 final rule, we
required through a Federal
implementation plan an emission limit
consistent with the installation of new
LNB/OFA + SCR at four other units in
Wyoming with higher cost-effectiveness
figures: LNB/OFA + SCR at Laramie
River Station Units 1, 2, and 3 had an
average cost-effectiveness of $4,461,
$4,424, and $4,375 per ton and
incremental cost-effectiveness of $5,449,
$5,871, and $5,667 per ton,
respectively,88 and LNB/OFA + SCR at
83 See
40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.g.
Table 4 in this document. Because we are
finding the most stringent control technology (SCR)
reasonable, and because Wyoming did not request
that we evaluate other control technologies, we are
not evaluating additional control technologies. See
40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.1.9.
85 See Table 4 in this document.
86 77 FR 33053.
87 79 FR 5048.
88 79 FR 5039–40. The NO emission limit for
X
Units 1, 2, and 3 were revised (through settlement)
on May 20, 2019, to 0.06 lb/MMBtu by July 1, 2019,
0.15 lb/MMBtu by December 31, 2018, and 0.15 lb/
MMBtu by December 31, 2018, respectively. 84 FR
22711 (May 20, 2019).
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
84 See
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
Wyodak had an average costeffectiveness of $4,036 per ton and
incremental cost-effectiveness of $6,233
per ton.89
Thus, the revised average costeffectiveness and incremental costeffectiveness for installing SCR on Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 in Wyoming’s
2020 SIP revision are even lower than
what Wyoming determined were
reasonable for the same units in 2011.
And the revised cost-effectiveness
figures are even lower than what EPA in
2014 determined were reasonable for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 and for four
other units addressed in the 2014 final
rule.90
In 2014, EPA ultimately deferred to
Wyoming’s BART and reasonable
progress determinations for Jim Bridger,
even though the available information
suggested that SCR was reasonable as
BART, given the State’s commitment to
require SCR as reasonable progress
controls. But here, the State submitted
a SIP revision that does not warrant
such deference. Specifically, the cost
associated with installing and operating
the currently required controls on Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 has not increased
beyond what the State determined in
2011 was reasonable. Wyoming has
asserted only that not requiring
emission limits reflecting SCR for Units
1 and 2 will be less costly than requiring
them and the amount that PacifiCorp
has spent to date on NOX control
technology at Jim Bridger is sufficient
for reasonable progress. Neither of these
justifications offers a compelling basis
for removing the existing control
requirements, as both were expected
and acknowledged at the time of
Wyoming’s 2011 decision to require the
controls. Additionally, we note again
that the expected fleetwide installations
of SCRs that PacifiCorp had previously
89 79 FR 5044. The NO emission limit at Wyodak
X
is subject to ongoing litigation and settlement
discussions.
90 The examples cited by Wyoming in the 2020
SIP revision do not establish that the revised costeffectiveness figures for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2
are unreasonable. Indeed, the average costeffectiveness figures in the examples are higher
than or similar to Wyoming’s revised cost estimates.
See 80 FR 18944, 18975 (April 8, 2015) (proposed
rule stating that LNB/SOFA + SCR average ($3,552
and $2,749 per ton) and incremental ($6,717 and
$5,736 per ton) cost-effectiveness figures were
‘‘within the range of what we consider to be costeffective’’ for BART but incremental visibility
improvement of 0.069 deciviews at a single Class
I area is ‘‘relatively small’’ in light of incremental
cost-effectiveness figures); 77 FR 21896, 21901
(April 12, 2012) (proposed rule stating that LNB/
OFA + SCR average cost-effectiveness figures of
$2,110, $1,967, and $2,183 and incremental costeffectiveness figures of $4,534, $4,330, and $2,756
were not cost prohibitive or sufficiently large to
warrant eliminating SCR from consideration as
BART).
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
anticipated have not come to pass.91
Regardless, in 2011, Wyoming
determined the costs the source would
incur were reasonable and that emission
limits reflecting LNB/SOFA + SCR are
necessary to meet the statutory
requirements. The State has offered no
reasonable explanation for its reversal,
i.e., for why the revised, even lower
cost-effectiveness estimates for SCR are
now unreasonable such that an emission
limit associated with SCR is no longer
necessary to meet the requirement to
make reasonable progress.
In summary, we disagree with
Wyoming that the cost analysis strongly
favors removing the existing SCR-based
requirement 92 for the following reasons:
(1) The average cost-effectiveness and
incremental cost-effectiveness for
installing SCR on Units 1 and 2 in
Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision are even
lower than what Wyoming determined
were reasonable in 2011 and lower than
what we found to be reasonable for the
installation of LNB/SOFA + SCR in
similar instances in 2014; (2) the State
has offered no reasonable explanation
for why the revised, lower costeffectiveness estimates for SCR are now
unreasonable; and (3) Wyoming has not
provided any new information that
would support a revised determination
that the costs of the existing control
requirements are now unreasonable.
b. Visibility Improvement
For Jim Bridger, the projected
visibility improvements associated with
the installation of LNB/SOFA and SCR
are between 0.27–0.37 and 0.27–0.36
deciviews for Units 1 and 2,
respectively, at the most impacted Class
I area, Bridger Wilderness (Table 6).
Additionally, the installation of SCR at
Units 1 and 2 would result in visibility
improvement at numerous other Class I
areas.93
91 See
supra note 37.
2020 SIP Revision at 5.
93 For Jim Bridger Unit 1, using monthly varying
ammonia concentrations, model visibility
improvements with LNB/OFA + SCR were 0.37
deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick;
0.29 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at
Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at Rocky Mountain; 0.17
deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at Teton;
0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.15 deciviews at
Yellowstone. For Jim Bridger Unit 1, using a
constant 0.5 ppb ammonia concentration, model
visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were:
0.37 deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at
Fitzpatrick; 0.29 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35
deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at Rocky
Mountain; 0.17 deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14
deciviews at Teton; 0.19 deciviews at Washakie;
and 0.15 deciviews at Yellowstone. For Jim Bridger
Unit 2, using monthly varying ammonia
concentrations, model visibility improvements with
LNB/OFA/SCR were: 0.36 deciviews at Bridger;
0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick; 0.28 deciviews at Mt
Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at
92 Wyoming
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
As an initial matter, Wyoming
mischaracterizes our 2014 final rule in
its 2020 SIP revision when it asserts that
EPA ‘‘determined that the unit-specific
visibility benefits for LNB/SOFA + SCR
installation on Units 1 and 2 were
‘modest’ (0.27 to 0.37 deciviews).’’ 94 In
the 2014 final rule, EPA stated that the
visibility improvement associated with
the installation of SCR is ‘‘significant on
a source-wide basis (1.25 to 1.5
deciviews),’’ while ‘‘[t]he unit-specific
benefits for Units 1 and 2 are somewhat
more modest (0.27–0.37 deciviews).’’ 95
That is to say, the unit-specific benefits
were relatively less than the benefits for
the entire source, which will always be
the case. Thus, we did not characterize
the visibility improvement associated
with the installation of SCR at Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 as merely
‘‘modest,’’ and we do not agree with
Wyoming’s characterization of the
associated visibility improvement as
such now. The fact remains that the
installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units
1 and 2 would yield appreciable
visibility improvement at a reasonable
cost.
States choosing to consider visibility
benefits as an optional additional factor
should not use visibility to summarily
dismiss cost-effective potential controls.
This is because the CAA does not
explicitly list visibility as a factor that
must be considered in reasonable
progress determinations.96 In this case,
Wyoming is rejecting additional
controls at Units 1 and 2, regardless of
whether they are cost-effective, because
‘‘installation of SCR on Units 1 & 2
Rocky Mountain; 0.16 deciviews at Grand Teton;
0.14 deciviews at Teton; 0.19 deciviews at
Washakie; and 0.14 deciviews at Yellowstone. For
Jim Bridger Unit 2, using a constant 0.5 ppb
ammonia concentration, model visibility
improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were: 0.36
deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick;
0.28 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at
Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at Rocky Mountain; 0.16
deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at Teton;
0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.14 deciviews at
Yellowstone. 79 FR 5041.
94 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7.
95 79 FR 5048 (emphasis added).
96 Compare 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2) (including
visibility as a factor in BART determinations) with
id. 7491(g)(1) (visibility not included as an explicit
factor in reasonable progress determinations); see
also EPA, ‘‘Clarifications Regarding Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans for the Second
Implementation Period,’’ July 8, 2021 (‘‘July 2021
Clarifications Memo’’) at 12–13, available at https://
www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/
clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-for-the-secondimplementation-period.pdf; 82 FR 3078, 3093
(January 10, 2017) (because regional haze is caused
by emissions from numerous sources, in order to
address it, states may not abandon controls they
already have determined are reasonable based on
the four statutory factors on the basis that impact
on visibility conditions is subjectively assessed as
not ‘‘meaningful’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
would result in only modest
incremental visibility benefits of .10 to
.15 deciviews (per unit) when compared
to LNB/SOFA on Units 1 and 2.’’ This
is a generally inappropriate basis on
which to make reasonable progress
determinations for sources.
Furthermore, because Units 1 and 2
already have been controlled under
BART, additional controls would be
expected to make relatively smaller
contributions to visibility improvement
as a proportion of total impairment.
This does not mean, however, that such
sources need not be controlled in order
to achieve the national visibility goal.97
To the contrary, the evaluation and
control of BART sources such as Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 under the
reasonable progress requirements will
be necessary to achieve the national goal
of the prevention of any future, and the
remedying of any existing manmade
impairment of visibility in Class I
areas.98
Finally, in Wyoming’s 2020 SIP
revision, the visibility improvement
remains unchanged from our 2014 final
rule, and the State has provided no new
visibility information to support a
revised NOX reasonable progress
determination that the existing control
requirements are now unreasonable. In
summary, we disagree with Wyoming’s
assertion that the visibility benefits are
not sufficiently meaningful to warrant
cost-effective controls.
97 See id.; see also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5) (after a
state has met BART requirements, BART-eligible
sources are subject to reasonable progress
requirements in the same manner as other sources).
98 As with Wyoming’s cost-effectiveness
examples, Wyoming’s visibility examples do not
support Wyoming’s conclusions regarding visibility
improvement. Each is an example of a proposed
BART determination that does not address the fact
that, in many instances, reasonable progress
controls naturally yield relatively smaller visibility
improvement over already-installed BART controls.
Thus, the fact that we proposed to reject controls
of a certain cost-effectiveness and visibility
improvement for BART does not necessitate
rejecting similar controls for reasonable progress.
See 77 FR 24794, 24818 (April 25, 2012) (proposed
rule stating that SCR is cost-effective for BART at
$5,358 per ton but visibility improvement at the
most impacted Class I area of 0.254 deciviews and
cumulative visibility improvement at seven Class I
areas of 0.273 deciviews are small and thus EPA
proposed to approve determination that BART is
not SCR); 77 FR 11879, 11891 (February 28, 2012)
(proposed rule stating that EPA proposed to agree
with state determination that certain controls for a
refinery were not BART due to high costs
(unavailable) and small visibility gains (0.045 to
0.16 deciview range)); 77 FR 18052, 18066 (March
26, 2012) (proposed rule stating that EPA proposed
to agree with the state’s determination that SCR was
not BART given high cost-effectiveness ($9,900 and
$15,290 per ton) and low visibility improvement
(under 0.2 deciviews)); 77 FR 23988, 24013 (April
20, 2012) (proposed rule stating that SO2 BART
controls were cost-effective when values ranged
from $1400 to $4800 per ton but visibility
improvement ranges of 0.033 and 0.18 were
‘‘relatively small’’).
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2583
c. Other Factors
Relevant to energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts, the State noted
that SCR will produce solid waste when
the catalyst is replaced periodically, and
that requiring SCR will require
significantly more electricity than LNB/
SOFA. EPA’s 2007 Guidance provides
that to the extent energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of
compliance are quantifiable, they
should be included in the engineering
analysis supporting the cost of
compliance estimates.99 PacifiCorp did
so in the revised cost analysis for the
2020 SIP revision. As explained
elsewhere in this document, even with
the energy and non-air environmental
costs incorporated into the cost analysis,
the cost-effectiveness of SCR remains
reasonable.
Additionally, the 2007 Guidance
points to EPA’s BART Guidelines,
which provide, among other things, that
(1) the fact that a control technology
uses energy in and of itself does not
disqualify that technology, and (2) the
fact that a control technology creates
waste that must be disposed of does not
necessarily argue against selection of
that technology, especially if the control
has been applied to similar facilities
elsewhere and the waste is similar to
those other applications.100 Wyoming
has merely pointed out that the existing
controls on Units 1 and 2 (LNB/SOFA)
require less electricity to operate than
SNCR or SCR and that SCR requires
periodic catalyst replacement. The State
has not demonstrated that the
anticipated energy expenditure or waste
that would be generated at Units 1 and
2 would be any different from the
numerous other units for which states or
EPA have required SCR. Indeed,
Wyoming has already determined that
energy and non-air environmental
impacts did not disqualify SCR from
being a reasonable control technology
for two units at the same facility, i.e., at
Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4.101 Based on
EPA’s long-standing guidance and the
fact that the State has not provided any
evidence to support a conclusion that
the energy and non-air environmental
impacts of SCR at Units 1 and 2 are
unreasonable, we disagree that these
factors support a conclusion that SCR is
not the reasonable choice of control.
99 2007
Guidance at 5–2 and 5–3.
Guidance at 5–2 and 5–3; 40 CFR part
51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.h–i.
101 Additionally, in its 2011 SIP submission
Wyoming did not identify any energy or non-air
quality environmental impacts that would preclude
selection of any of the controls evaluated for Jim
Bridger, including LNB/SOFA + SCR. See 78 FR
34753.
100 2007
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
2584
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
With respect to remaining useful life,
as stated above, Wyoming did not
provide an enforceable shutdown date
that would ensure that the expected life
of Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 would be
less than the expected life of the control
technology. Thus, Wyoming
appropriately used the Control Cost
Manual remaining useful life for SCR of
30 years in the cost analysis.
With respect to time necessary for
compliance, Wyoming noted that the
LNB/SOFA are already in use and thus,
in contrast to SCR and SNCR, do not
need any additional time for
compliance. The deadline for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 to comply with
the existing control requirements
reflecting installation and operation of
SCR by December 31, 2022 and
December 31, 2021, respectively has
existed in the SIP since 2014. We thus
do not believe it is reasonable for the
State to consider the time necessary for
compliance as weighing in favor of not
requiring SCRs as reasonable progress
controls.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
d. Summary of EPA’s Evaluation of
Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress
Demonstration
In summary, we propose to
disapprove Wyoming’s reasonable
progress demonstration concluding that
the NOX emission limits associated with
LNB/SOFA controls are the reasonable
choice for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. We
base our proposed disapproval on the
following: (1) The reasonable average
cost-effectiveness and incremental costeffectiveness of the existing control
requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2; (2) the appreciable visibility
improvement estimated to result from
compliance with the existing reasonable
progress control requirements; (3) the
fact that the State previously
determined that the costs of those
control requirements were reasonable
given the visibility benefits, and thus
necessary to satisfy the statutory
requirements, and has not provided any
new information that would support a
revised determination that the existing
control requirements are now
unreasonable. Ultimately, we propose to
find that because the State failed to
justify its conclusion that the existing
SCR requirements should be removed
such that no further controls beyond
BART are required for Jim Bridger Units
1 and 2, we cannot reasonably approve
Wyoming’s 2020 SIP revision. Because
removing the existing SCR requirements
would be inconsistent with the statutory
requirement that SIPs contain the
measures necessary to make reasonable
progress, we are proposing to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
disapprove Wyoming’s 2020 SIP
revision.
C. Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual NOX
and SO2 Emission Limits for Jim Bridger
Units 1–4
Wyoming’s SIP revision includes ‘‘an
alternative regional haze compliance
strategy for the Jim Bridger Power
Plant’’ 102 that Wyoming considered as
supplemental information to its revised
four-factor reasonable progress analysis
and determination. Wyoming asserts
that the alternative regional haze
compliance strategy’s plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits are designed to reduce
regional haze and create numerous other
environmental benefits toward
achieving natural visibility conditions at
its Class I areas.103
The 2020 SIP revision provides that
the State ‘‘considered it appropriate to
re-balance and reconsider its
[reasonable progress/long-term strategy]
determination and complete a four
factor reasonable progress analysis on a
NOX-only basis.’’ 104 Our proposed
disapproval of Wyoming’s reasonable
progress determination for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2 is thus based solely on the
source-specific NOX reasonable progress
analysis, as this analysis and resulting
determination were intended to replace
the State’s previous NOX-only
determination. However, we are also
proposing to find that we cannot
approve, and are therefore proposing to
disapprove, the plant-wide emission
limits, which rely on a comparative
analysis that includes both NOX and
SO2 emissions reductions.
EPA is proposing to disapprove the
plant-wide monthly NOX and SO2
emission limits because we cannot
render a SIP more stringent than
intended by the state through a partial
SIP approval.105 While Wyoming has
discretion to consider these limits,106 it
is our understanding that Wyoming
intended to adopt and make enforceable
the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits, as
102 Letter from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality, to Gregory
Sopkin, Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 8,
Subject: State Implementation Plan Approval
Request—Regional Haze 309(g) SIP Revision for
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant (May 12, 2020).
See also Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3.
103 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9.
104 Id. at 3.
105 Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d
1028, 1036 (7th Cir. 1984).
106 As stated above, Wyoming has discretion to
evaluate factors (beyond the four factors) that it
considers relevant in formulating its long-term
strategy, 2007 Guidance at page 5–1, so long as it
does so reasonably and in a manner consistent with
the statute and other applicable requirements. 42
U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii).
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
proposed by PacifiCorp, in lieu of the
required emission limits associated with
the installation of SCR on Units 1 and
2 and not in addition to the required
emission limits associated with the
installation of SCR.107 That is, we
understand that Wyoming did not
intend to implement the plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits together with SCR on
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. Implementing
a NOX emission limit consistent with
the installation of SCR together with
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX
and SO2 emission limits would
effectively increase the stringency of the
SIP beyond what was intended in the
Wyoming 2020 SIP revision.108 Thus,
because EPA cannot render Wyoming’s
SIP more stringent than intended by the
State through a partial SIP approval, and
because we are proposing to disapprove
Wyoming’s revised NOX reasonable
progress determination as unreasonable,
we are also proposing to extend our
disapproval to the State’s plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits. Wyoming may choose
to submit the plant-wide monthly and
annual NOX and SO2 emission limits to
EPA in a stand-alone SIP submittal if
the State would like to incorporate these
emission limits into its SIP independent
of the revised NOX reasonable progress
analysis and determination for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 contained in the
2020 SIP revision. For example, some
form of plant-wide mass limits could
serve as a SIP strengthening measure.
In addition to the legal basis for
proposing to disapprove the plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits, we also note two
additional considerations. These
considerations relate to Wyoming and
PacifiCorp’s quantitative analyses in
support of the plant-wide limits, which
assume that Jim Bridger is still operating
at historical (2001–2003) levels.
Although we are not relying on these
considerations as the basis of our
proposed disapproval, we provide them
here for completeness.
First, Wyoming analyzed the plantwide limits assuming Jim Bridger’s
emissions are consistent with the plant’s
‘‘current operating potential.’’ 109 As
explained above, PacifiCorp’s analysis
defines ‘‘current operating potential’’ as
107 Wyoming
2020 SIP Revision at 9, 10, and 12.
of NOX limits consistent with
installing SCRs on Units 1 and 2, combined with
the plant-wide monthly SO2 limits would likely
result in some SO2 reductions (from the monthly
plant-wide limits) plus additional NOX reductions
(from meeting the 0.07 lb/MMBtu limits on Units
1 and 2) that are beyond what was intended in the
SIP revision.
109 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9.
108 Implementation
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
a combination of recent emission rates
with plant-wide heat input (i.e.,
utilization) from the 2001–2003 period.
Thus, the majority of the emissions
reductions that Wyoming credited to the
plant-wide limits 110 would be realized
only if Jim Bridger was utilized at levels
consistent with the 2001–2003 period.
However, recent utilization of the plant,
based on the 2017–2020 period, has
been much lower.111 EPA examined
emissions and operations data from the
2017 to 2020 period because it reflects
(1) full operation of the SCRs on Units
3 and 4 that were installed in 2015 and
2016, respectively, (2) earlier SO2
scrubber upgrades on all four units, and
(3) recent trends in plant operations, as
hours of operation and heat input. To
the extent Wyoming’s demonstration
relies on historical (2001–2003)
utilization to show that the plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits achieve greater
emissions reductions (and therefore
greater visibility improvement) than
SCRs on Units 1 and 2,112 neither the
CAA nor the Regional Haze Rule
provide a basis for such reliance.113
Second (and relatedly), based on
recent (2017–2020) operation of the
plant, we believe it is reasonable to
conclude that the plant-wide monthly
and annual NOX and SO2 emission
limits would not actually achieve
similar or greater emissions reductions
and visibility improvement compared to
the installation of SCR on Units 1 and
2 as Wyoming contends.
Wyoming claims that the plant-wide
limits will produce greater visibility
improvement compared to the
installation of two additional SCRs on
Units 1 and 2. However, the CALPUFF
visibility modeling inputs, and therefore
visibility modeling results, are premised
on assumptions about Jim Bridger’s
baseline utilization and emissions.
Again, Wyoming analyzed the plant110 See Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9 (plantwide emission limits would result in combined
NOX and SO2 reduction of 6,056 tons/year).
111 Compare PacifiCorp Reassessment,
Attachment 1 at 21 (providing 2001–2003 average
heat input used as baseline for cost-effectiveness
analysis) with EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020
SIP Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1).
112 See, e.g., Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9
(PacifiCorp’s comparative analysis of the existing
control requirements and plant-wide emission
limits indicates the limits ‘‘produce better modeled
visibility and greater environmental benefits than
installation of SCR or SNCR’’).
113 Unlike the BART program, which includes an
extensive regulatory framework under which states
can rely on such historical emissions and
utilization data to demonstrate that a BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable progress
than BART, neither the CAA nor the Regional Haze
Rule contain a similar framework for reasonable
progress. Compare 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3) with
(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(3).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
wide emission limits assuming Jim
Bridger’s emissions were consistent
with its plant-wide heat input from the
2001–2003 period. That is, the modeling
analysis assumes heat input from a
historical period that does not
correspond to how the facility is
currently operated.114 The plant-wide
2017–2020 average utilization is
approximately 29 percent below 2001–
2003 average levels.115 Based on the
assumption of plant-wide heat input
from the 2001–2003 period, the analysis
of the plant-wide limits by PacifiCorp
and Wyoming estimates a reduction of
5,049 tpy of SO2 and 1,007 tpy of NOX.
Had the quantitative analysis been
based on Jim Bridger’s current
utilization, it would have shown that
the plant-wide limits would actually
achieve far fewer emissions reductions
going forward.116 For example, the
proposed annual plant-wide SO2 + NOX
emission limit is 17,500 tpy. However,
in the 2017–2020 period, plant-wide
annual SO2 + NOX emissions have
ranged from 14,823 to 16,004 tpy.117
Therefore, Jim Bridger is already
operating well below the proposed
annual plant-wide SO2 + NOX emission
limits. Consequently, any annual SO2
and NOX reductions based on the
source’s actual current operations
114 PacifiCorp Reassessment at 7. The PacifiCorp
Reassessment also references annual heat input
values that were not disclosed to EPA due to
confidential forecasted capacity factors (see
Attachment 3B to Attachment 1). Therefore, some
assumptions are unknown and impossible to
replicate.
115 Compare PacifiCorp Reassessment,
Attachment 1 at 21 (providing 2001–2003 average
heat input used as baseline for cost-effectiveness
analysis) with EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020
SIP Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1).
116 Wyoming and PacifiCorp used the 2001–2003
period as the baseline for the revised cost estimates
in the Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision’s NOX-only fourfactor analysis for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. EPA
believes this is a reasonable approach given the
circumstances, particularly that the purpose was to
compare the costs of different controls against a
common baseline and that the cost and visibility
figures relied on for that analysis were originally
calculated for BART purposes. In contrast, EPA
understands the purpose of the quantitative
analysis accompanying the plant-wide monthly and
annual NOX and SO2 emission limits was to
determine whether they will result in greater
prospective emissions reductions and visibility
improvement than SCR. See, e.g., Wyoming 2020
SIP Revision at 12 (‘‘In addition, PacifiCorp’s
visibility enhancing proposal to limit overall
operations at all four Jim Bridger Units adds
support to Wyoming’s reasonable progress revision,
and ensures that visibility improvements greater
than SCR installation will be achieved for the State
of Wyoming.’’). In this context, using a historical
utilization baseline that does not reflect current or
likely future plant operation obfuscates the
assessment of future potential emissions reductions.
117 EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP
Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1). Data based on
the information obtained from EPA’s Clean Air
Markets Division (CAMD) database, available at:
https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2585
would be much smaller than estimated
from the analysis of a potential
historical operation basis.
Due to the complicated nature of the
proposed monthly limits and a lack of
complete information,118 EPA could not
complete a full evaluation of the impact
of the monthly limits on emissions and
emissions reductions. However, based
on the information available to EPA, it
appears that while the proposed
additional plant-wide monthly SO2 and
NOX limits may restrict SO2 emissions
(and to a lesser extent NOX emissions)
in some months, the facility’s recent
operation has been emitting at levels
similar to the proposed monthly
limits.119 Thus, the plant-wide annual
and monthly limits appear to result in
few actual emissions reductions based
on Jim Bridger’s recent operation.
In contrast, installation of two
additional SCRs on Units 1 and 2 will
provide significant and certain
additional NOX emissions reductions
under any operating scenario compared
to either recent operation or potential
historical operation. With the current
SIP emission limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu
(30-day rolling average) for Units 1 and
2, additional SCRs on those two units
would reduce annual NOX emissions by
at least 3,000 tpy relative to the 2017–
2020 period (based on actual calendar
month operation over that time
period).120 Because the more recent data
reflect the facility as it operates today
(including emissions controls and limits
that PacifiCorp and Wyoming assumed
in the analysis of plant-wide limits), we
believe it presents a reasonable set of
operating conditions from which to
evaluate which scenario would achieve
greater combined NOX and SO2
emissions reductions in future years.
Furthermore, neither PacifiCorp nor
Wyoming included any information that
would indicate increased operation in
the future.
In conclusion, unlike the plant-wide
NOX and SO2 emission limits,
installation of two additional SCRs
provides significant NOX reductions of
at least 3,000 tpy. Based on the
information we have before us, we
believe it is reasonable to conclude that
the proposed plant-wide annual and
monthly limits would not provide
similar or greater emissions reductions
or visibility improvement compared to
the installation of two additional SCRs.
This is especially true in comparison to
recent operation of the Jim Bridger plant
in the 2017 to 2020 period.
118 See
supra note 114.
Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP
Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tabs 3 and 4).
120 Id. at Tab 2.
119 EPA
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
2586
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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.’’ 121
Wyoming states that the 2020 SIP
revision will not interfere with
reasonable further progress or other
applicable requirements because there
are no areas in Wyoming that are
currently designated nonattainment for
NOX or particulate matter, and that with
the reductions anticipated from the
plant-wide annual and monthly limits,
the SIP revision will not interfere with
attainment or maintenance of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS).122
As an initial matter, we note that
Wyoming’s evaluation pursuant to CAA
section 110(l) is overly narrow and does
not address all relevant NAAQS-related
considerations. Additionally, CAA
section 110(l) applies to all
requirements of the CAA, not just the
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. The previous sections of this
document explain how the State failed
to justify its conclusion that the existing
SCR requirements should be removed
such that no further controls beyond
BART are necessary for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2 for reasonable progress in
the first planning period. Based on our
proposed conclusions in section IV.B in
this document, we propose to find that
removing the SCR requirement would
interfere with the regional haze
requirements of the CAA, specifically,
with the requirement that SIPs contain
the emission limits, schedules of
compliance, and other measures that are
necessary to make reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal.
Accordingly, we propose to disapprove
the Wyoming 2020 SIP revision under
121 43 U.S.C. 7410(l). Note that ‘‘reasonable
further progress’’ as used in CAA section 110(l) is
a reference to that term as defined in section 301(a)
(i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such means
reductions required to attain the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) set for criteria
pollutants under section 109. This term as used in
section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a)) is not
synonymous with ‘‘reasonable progress’’ as that
term is used in the regional haze program. Instead,
section 110(l) provides that EPA cannot approve
plan revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress
requirements) insofar as they are ‘‘other applicable
requirement[s]’’ of the CAA.
122 Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 13. We note,
however, that NOX is not a criteria pollutant itself
but instead represents a group of highly reactive
gases that includes the criteria pollutant nitrogen
dioxide (NO2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
CAA section 110(l) in addition to the
basis stated in section IV.B above.
E. Consultation With Federal Land
Managers
Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), Wyoming
was obligated to provide the FLMs with
an opportunity for consultation in
development of the State’s proposed SIP
revision no less than sixty days prior to
the associated public hearing or public
comment opportunity. On March 29,
2019, the State of Wyoming informed
the FLMs of the State’s draft proposed
regional haze SIP revision for the Jim
Bridger power plant. In doing so, the
State provided the FLMs with a copy of
the draft regional haze SIP revision and
provided the FLMs with sixty days to
provide comments as well as the
opportunity to discuss the draft SIP
during a phone call on May 21, 2019.123
The State did not receive any comments
from the FLMs. Therefore, we propose
to find that Wyoming met its obligations
for consultation in development of the
Wyoming 2020 SIP revision.
V. Summary of EPA’s Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the Wyoming 2020 SIP
revision (as submitted in May 2020 and
supplemented in September and
October 2020), which includes
amendments to Chapters 7.3.6 and 8 of
Wyoming’s regional haze SIP narrative,
Addressing Regional Haze Visibility
Protection For The Mandatory Federal
Class I Areas Required Under 40 CFR
51.309, that contain a source-specific
NOX reasonable progress analysis and
revised determination for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2. EPA is also proposing to
disapprove the plant-wide monthly and
annual NOX and SO2 emission limits for
Jim Bridger Units 1–4. Because we are
proposing to disapprove the State’s
proposed revisions to its existing SIP
requirements, we are not proposing to
change any regulatory text, including
text in 40 CFR 52.2620 or 40 CFR
52.2636.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
123 Amber Potts, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, Record of State of
Wyoming, PacifiCorp, and Federal Land Manager
Consultation Meeting for the Proposed Updates to
the Regional Haze (Round 1) SIP Concerning the
Jim Bridger Facility, May 21, 2019. See also
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,
FLM Consultation Meeting Slides.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the
requirements of the CAA. As explained
above, Wyoming’s SIP submission does
not meet the requirements of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely
proposes to disapprove state law as not
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does
not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
18JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2022 / Proposed Rules
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 11, 2022.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2022–00777 Filed 1–14–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 220110–0007]
RTID 0648–XX075
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Northeast Skate Complex; 2022
and 2023 Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes Northeast
skate specifications for the 2022 fishing
year, and projects specifications for
fishing year 2023, as recommended by
the New England Fishery Management
Council. This action is necessary to
establish annual allowable harvest
levels for the skate fishery that prevent
overfishing while enabling optimum
yield, using the best scientific
information available. This rule also
informs the public of the proposed
fishery specifications and provides an
opportunity for comment.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received by
February 17, 2022.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2021–0116, by the following
method:
Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal.
1. Go to https://www.regulations.gov,
and enter ‘‘NOAA–NMFS–2021–0116’’
in the Search box;
2. Click the ‘‘Comment’’ icon,
complete the required fields; and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous).
Copies of the Supplemental
Information Report (SIR) and other
supporting documents for this action are
available upon request from Thomas A.
Nies, Executive Director, New England
Fishery Management Council, 50 Water
Street, Newburyport, MA 01950. These
documents are also accessible via the
internet at https://www.nefmc.org/
management-plans/skates.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst,
(978) 281–9180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DATES:
Background
The New England Fishery
Management Council (Council) manages
a complex of seven skate species
(barndoor, clearnose, little, rosette,
smooth, thorny, and winter skate) in the
2587
New England and Mid-Atlantic regions
under the Northeast Skate Complex
Fishery Management Plan (FMP). Skates
are harvested and managed in two
different fishery sectors, one for food
(the wing fishery) and one for bait used
in other fisheries (the bait fishery). The
FMP requires the review and
specification of annual skate harvest
limits, including: An annual catch limit
(ACL), an annual catch target (ACT), a
fishery-level total allowable landings
limit (TAL), separate TALs for the wing
and bait fisheries, and other
management measures, as needed, for
up to two fishing years (FY) at a time.
This action proposes skate
specifications for the 2022 fishing year,
and projects specifications for 2023, as
recommended by the Council. The
current specifications that were
implemented through Framework
Adjustment 8 to the FMP (85 FR 33579;
June 2, 2020) expire on April 30, 2022,
but will roll over beyond that date until
a final rule for new specifications is in
effect.
Proposed Specifications
This action proposes the Council’s
recommended northeast skate fishery
specifications for fishing year 2022 and
projects unchanged specifications for
fishing year 2023. These proposed catch
limits are consistent with
recommendations from the Council’s
SSC, Skate Committee, and Skate Plan
Development Team (Skate PDT). The
resulting proposed specifications would
increase all catch limits by at least 14
percent in fishing year 2022, largely as
a result of increased skate biomass
throughout the complex. A comparison
of the current 2021 and the proposed
2022–2023 specifications is summarized
below in Table 1. The Council will
review the projected 2023 specifications
to determine if any changes need to be
made prior to the 2023 fishing year. We
will publish a notice prior to the 2023
fishing year to confirm these limits as
projected or a proposed rule for any
necessary changes.
TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF CURRENT 2021, AND PROPOSED 2022–2023 SKATE FISHERY SPECIFICATIONS, IN METRIC
TONS
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2021
(current)
ABC/ACL ......................................................................................................................................
ACT ..............................................................................................................................................
Overall Fishery TAL .....................................................................................................................
Wing TAL (66.5% of Overall TAL) ...............................................................................................
Wing Season 1 TAL (57% of Wing TAL) ....................................................................................
Wing Season 2 TAL ....................................................................................................................
Bait TAL (33.5% of Overall TAL) .................................................................................................
Bait Season 1 TAL (30.8% of Bait TAL) .....................................................................................
Bait Season 2 TAL (37.1% of Bait TAL) .....................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:30 Jan 14, 2022
Jkt 256001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\18JAP1.SGM
32,715
29,444
17,864
11,879
6,771
5,108
5,984
1,843
2,220
18JAP1
2022–23
(proposed)
37,236
33,513
21,142
14,059
8,014
6,045
7,082
2,181
2,627
Percent
change
+14
+14
+18
+18
+18
+18
+18
+18
+18
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2571-2587]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00777]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2020-0441; FRL-9443-01-R8]
Disapproval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming;
Proposed Revisions to Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
disapprove a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Wyoming on May 14, 2020, and supplemented in September and
October 2020, addressing regional haze (``Wyoming's 2020 SIP
revision''). Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision reverses the State's 2011
decision that emission limits consistent with the installation of
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for the Jim Bridger power plant,
Units 1 and 2, are necessary to make reasonable progress under the
State's long-term strategy for the first regional haze planning period.
The SIP revision contains a source-specific nitrogen oxide
(NOX) reasonable progress analysis and determination that
currently installed controls (low-NOX burners with separated
overfire air (LNB/SOFA)) are sufficient for reasonable progress during
the first planning period for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, and that the
emission limits associated with the installation of SCR are no longer
necessary. The SIP revision also contains plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits for
the Jim Bridger power plant, Units 1-4. EPA is proposing to disapprove
this SIP revision in full. The agency is proposing this action pursuant
to sections 110 and 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received on or before
February 17, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2020-0441, 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. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, 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.
[[Page 2572]]
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 electronically in
www.regulations.gov. To reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission, for
this action we do not plan to offer hard copy review of the docket.
Please email or call the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section if you need to make alternative arrangements for access
to the docket.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jaslyn Dobrahner, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-ARD, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado, 80202-1129, telephone number: (303) 312-6252, email address:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
I. What Action is EPA Proposing?
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze
Rule
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
D. Consultation with Federal Land Managers
III. Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP Revisions
A. Background
B. May 14, 2020 Submittal
C. Summary of Wyoming's Reasonable Progress Reassessment
1. Costs of Compliance
2. Time Necessary for Compliance
3. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of
Compliance
4. Remaining Useful Life
5. Visibility Improvement
6. Reasonable Progress Demonstration
D. Summary of Wyoming's Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual
NOX and SO2 Emission Limits for Jim Bridger
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Disapproval of Wyoming's Regional
Haze SIP Revisions
A. Basis for Proposed Disapproval
B. EPA's Proposed Disapproval of Wyoming's Reasonable Progress
Determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2
1. Basis of Our Proposed Disapproval
a. Costs of Compliance
b. Visibility Improvement
c. Other Factors
d. Summary of EPA's Evaluation of Wyoming's Reasonable Progress
Demonstration
C. Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual NOX and
SO2 Emission Limits for Jim Bridger Units 1-4
D. Clean Air Act Section 110(l)
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
V. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What action is EPA proposing?
On January 30, 2014, EPA promulgated a final rule titled,
``Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State
of Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal
Implementation Plan for Regional Haze,'' approving in part a regional
haze SIP revision submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12, 2011
(2014 final rule).\1\ In the 2014 final rule, EPA approved Wyoming's
NOX best available retrofit technology (BART) emission
limits of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for Jim Bridger Units
1-4, as well as the State's decision to include in its long-term
strategy NOX reasonable progress emission limits of 0.07 lb/
MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for the same units, among other
actions.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 79 FR 5032 (January 30, 2014).
\2\ The BART determination compliance date for all units was
March 4, 2019. Reasonable progress determination compliance dates
for each include: Unit 1 = December 31, 2022; Unit 2 = December 31,
2021; Unit 3 = December 31, 2015; and Unit 4 = December 31, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming submitted its 2020 SIP revision on May 14, 2020.\3\ The SIP
revision contains amendments to Chapters 7 and 8 of Wyoming's regional
haze SIP narrative and would incorporate certain conditions of Wyoming
air quality permit #P0025809 into the SIP.\4\ Together, the amendments
provide a source-specific NOX reasonable progress analysis
and determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, remove the
NOX reasonable progress emission limits currently required
for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, and add plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits for Jim Bridger Units
1-4.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ At the request of EPA, Wyoming supplemented the original SIP
submittal with additional documentation on September 8, 2020, and
October 6, 2020.
\4\ State of Wyoming, ``Addressing Regional Haze Visibility
Protection For The Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required Under 40
CFR 51.309,'' Revised May 14, 2020 (``Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision'').
\5\ Wyoming's SIP revision refers to these limits as ``voluntary
visibility enhancing emission limits.'' They represent a separate
SIP component from Wyoming's source-specific reasonable progress
analysis and determination. The limits were voluntarily proposed by
PacifiCorp to reduce regional haze causing pollutants. Wyoming 2020
SIP Revision at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to disapprove this SIP revision in full. Our
proposed disapproval is based on the following: (1) The reasonable
cost-effectiveness of the existing reasonable progress control
requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 (emission limits consistent
with the installation of SCR); (2) the appreciable visibility
improvement estimated to result from compliance with the existing
control requirements; and (3) the fact that the State previously
determined that the costs of those control requirements were reasonable
and that they are necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements, and
has not provided any new information that would support a revised
determination that the requirements are now unreasonable. In fact, the
updated cost information provided by Wyoming indicates that SCR for
these units is even more cost-effective than the State estimated in
2011 and EPA estimated in its 2014 final rule, while the estimated
visibility benefits remain the same as estimated in the 2014 final
rule.
Based on our proposed conclusions in section IV.B in this document,
we propose to find that removing the SCR requirement would interfere
with the regional haze requirements of the CAA, specifically, with the
requirement that SIPs contain the emission limits, schedules of
compliance, and other measures that are necessary to make reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal. That is, approving
Wyoming's removal of the SCR requirement would be inconsistent with the
statutory requirement that Wyoming's SIP contain the measures necessary
to make reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal.
Furthermore, EPA cannot propose to approve Wyoming's plant-wide
NOX and SO2 emission limits while proposing to
disapprove the elimination of the SCR requirements for Units 1 and 2,
because such a partial approval would render the SIP more stringent
than the State intended. Regardless, as discussed in section IV.C, the
installation of SCR on Units 1 and 2 is estimated to reduce
NOX by at least 3,000 tons per year (tpy) based on current
utilization. EPA believes it is reasonable to conclude that the plant-
wide NOX and SO2 emission limits that Wyoming has
required in lieu of the existing control requirements would not provide
similar or greater emissions reductions or visibility improvement
compared to two additional SCRs, as claimed by the State.
II. Background
A. Requirements of the Clean Air Act and EPA's Regional Haze Rule
In section 169A of the CAA, Congress created a program for
protecting visibility in national parks and wilderness areas. This
section of the
[[Page 2573]]
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.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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 action, we mean a
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999.\7\
The Regional Haze Rule revised the existing visibility regulations \8\
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 EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40
CFR 51.300 through 40 CFR 51.309.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 64 FR 35714, 35714 (July 1, 1999) (codified at 40 CFR part
51, subpart P).
\8\ EPA had previously promulgated regulations to address
visibility impairment in Class I areas that is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a single source or small group of sources, i.e.,
reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI). 45 FR 80084,
80084 (December 2, 1980).
\9\ EPA revised the Regional Haze Rule on January 10, 2017. 82
FR 3078 (January 10, 2017). Under the revised Regional Haze Rule,
the requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(d) and (e) apply to first
implementation period SIP submissions and 40 CFR 51.308(f) applies
to submissions for the second and subsequent implementation periods.
82 FR 3087; see also 81 FR 26942, 26952 (May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The CAA requires each state to develop a SIP to meet various air
quality requirements, including protection of visibility.\10\ Regional
haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of
preventing future and remedying existing manmade visibility impairment
in Class I areas. A state must submit its SIP and SIP revisions to EPA
for approval.\11\ Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by EPA and
citizens under the CAA; that is, the SIP is federally enforceable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 42 U.S.C. 7410(a), 7491, and 7492; CAA sections 110(a),
169A, and 169B.
\11\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 7410.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires SIPs to contain such
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress toward meeting
the national visibility goal. Section 169(b)(2)(A) specifies that one
such requirement is for certain categories of existing major stationary
sources built between 1962 and 1977 to procure, install, and operate
BART as determined by the states through their SIPs. Under the Regional
Haze Rule, states (or EPA, in the case of a Federal implementation plan
(FIP)) are directed to make BART determinations for such ``BART-
eligible'' sources--typically larger, often uncontrolled, and older
stationary sources--that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or
contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area.\12\ Rather
than requiring source-specific BART controls, states also have the
flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative
program as long as the alternative will achieve greater reasonable
progress toward natural visibility conditions than BART.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 40 CFR 51.308(e). EPA designed the Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule (Guidelines) ``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.'' 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, 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'').
\13\ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 770 F.3d
919, 934 (10th Cir. 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One such ``BART alternative'' is included in 40 CFR 51.309, and is
an option for nine states termed the ``Transport Region States,'' which
include Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico,
Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. Transport Region States can adopt regional
haze strategies based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon
Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) for protecting visibility in
the 16 Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The Colorado Plateau is a high, semi-arid tableland in
southeast Utah, northern Arizona, northwest New Mexico, and western
Colorado. The 16 mandatory Class I areas are the Grand Canyon
National Park, Mount Baldy Wilderness, Petrified Forest National
Park, Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, Black Canyon of the Gunnison
National Park Wilderness, Flat Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells
Wilderness, Mesa Verde National Park, Weminuche Wilderness, West Elk
Wilderness, San Pedro Park Wilderness, Arches National Park, Bryce
Canyon National Park, Canyonlands National Park, Capital Reef
National Park, and Zion National Park.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of its overall plan for making reasonable progress toward
the national visibility goal for those 16 Class I areas, the GCVTC
submitted a program to EPA, known as the Western SO2
Backstop Trading Program, containing annual SO2 emissions
reduction milestones and detailed provisions for a backstop trading
program to be implemented automatically if states' measures fail to
achieve the SO2 milestones. EPA approved the Backstop
Trading Program as a BART alternative for SO2 emissions.\15\
Transport Region States' SIPs must also contain BART requirements for
stationary-source emissions of NOX and particulate
matter.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); 68 FR 33764 (June 5, 2003).
\16\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Long-Term Strategy and Reasonable Progress Requirements
In addition to the BART requirements, the CAA's visibility
protection provisions also require that states' regional haze SIPs
contain a ``long-term (ten to fifteen years) strategy for making
reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. . . .'' \17\ The
long-term strategy must address regional haze visibility impairment for
each mandatory Class I area within the state and each mandatory Class I
area located outside the state that may be affected by emissions from
the state. It must include the enforceable emission limitations,
compliance schedules, and other measures necessary to achieve the
reasonable progress goals.\18\ The reasonable progress goals, in turn,
are calculated for each Class I area based on the control measures
states have selected for sources by applying the four statutory
``reasonable progress'' factors, which are ``the costs of compliance,
the time necessary for compliance, the energy and non-air quality
environmental impacts of compliance, and the remaining useful life of
any existing source subject to such requirement.'' \19\ That is, states
consider the four reasonable progress factors, and certain other
factors listed in Sec. 51.308(d)(3) of the Regional Haze Rule, to
determine what controls must be included in the long-term strategy.
Those controls are represented in the long-term strategy, i.e., the
SIP, as emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other measures.
The reasonable progress goals are the predicted visibility outcome of
implementing the long-term strategy in addition to ongoing pollution
control programs stemming from other CAA requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B).
\18\ See 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
\19\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(1); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike BART determinations, which are required only for the first
regional haze planning period SIPs,\20\ states are
[[Page 2574]]
required to submit updates to their long-term strategies, including new
reasonable progress analyses and reasonable progress goals, in the form
of SIP revisions on July 31, 2021, and at specific intervals
thereafter.\21\ In addition, each state must periodically submit a
report to EPA at five-year intervals beginning five years after the
submission of the initial regional haze SIP, evaluating the state's
progress toward meeting the reasonable progress goals for each Class I
area within the state.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Under the Regional Haze Rule, SIPs are due for each
regional haze planning period, or implementation period. The terms
``planning period'' and ``implementation period'' are used
interchangeably in this document.
\21\ 40 CFR 51.308(f). The 2021 deadline was originally in 2018;
EPA revised this deadline in 2017. 82 FR 3078 (January 10, 2017);
see also 40 CFR 51.308(f). Following the 2021 SIP revision deadline,
the next SIP revision is due in 2028. 40 CFR 51.308(f).
\22\ 40 CFR 51.308(g); 51.309(d)(10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By meeting all the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309, including but not
limited to the section 309-specific BART requirements, a Transport
Region State can be deemed to be making reasonable progress toward the
national goal for the first implementation period for the 16 Class I
areas on the Colorado Plateau.\23\ For stationary sources, the section
309 requirements include any necessary long-term strategies for
reasonable progress for particulate matter (PM) and NOX
emissions.\24\ Additionally, the State of Wyoming includes several non-
Colorado Plateau Class I areas, and thus was also required to submit a
long-term strategy for those Class I areas.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 40 CFR 51.309(a).
\24\ 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4)(vii).
\25\ 79 FR 5199.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
The Regional Haze Rule requires that a state consult with Federal
Land Managers (FLMs) before adopting and submitting a required SIP
submittal or revision. Further, a state must include a summary of the
FLMs' conclusions and recommendations in its notice to the public,\26\
as well as include in its submission to EPA a description of how it
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(d).
\27\ 40 CFR 51.308(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Wyoming's Regional Haze SIP Revisions
A. Background
The Jim Bridger power plant is in Sweetwater County, Wyoming, and
is owned in part and operated by PacifiCorp. The power plant is
composed of four 530 megawatt (MW) tangentially fired boilers burning
pulverized coal for a total net generating capacity of 2,120 MW.
Wyoming determined that all four units are subject to BART.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 77 FR 33022, 33030, 33035 (June 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming submitted a SIP on January 12, 2011, that addressed
regional haze requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 for the first regional
haze planning period. The State's regional haze SIP determined that
NOX BART for Jim Bridger Units 1-4 was new LNB/SOFA.
Compliance with the BART emission limits was required by March 4, 2019,
for all four Jim Bridger units.\29\ The State also determined that
emission limits consistent with the installation of SCR were necessary
to satisfy the reasonable progress (not BART) requirements. Wyoming's
SIP required compliance with these emission limits by December 31,
2022, December 31, 2021, December 31, 2015, and December 31, 2016, for
Units 1-4, respectively.\30\ The State indicated that the delayed
timeline for installing SCR was based on the large number of retrofits
that PacifiCorp was undertaking or helping to finance at power plants
in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 79 FR 5221. Installation of new LNB with SOFA (LNB/SOFA)
corresponds to a NOX emission limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-
day rolling average).
\30\ Id. Installation and operation of SCR corresponds to a
NOX emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average).
\31\ 77 FR 33053; see also State of Wyoming, ``Addressing
Regional Haze Visibility Protection For The Mandatory Federal Class
I Areas Required Under 40 CFR 51.309,'' January 7, 2011, at 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2012, we proposed to find the State's BART determination
for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 unreasonable. We explained that the cost-
effectiveness values for LNB/SOFA + SCR were reasonable and within the
range that Wyoming had determined to be reasonable for other BART
sources. We further explained that the associated visibility
improvement and NOX emissions reductions were significant.
Because the State's compliance date for installing SCR was beyond the
five years allowed by the statute for BART sources, we proposed to
disapprove the State's BART determination and proposed a FIP requiring
a NOX emission limit consistent with the installation of SCR
with a compliance deadline of no later than five years after EPA took
final action.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ 77 FR 33053.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatively, EPA proposed to conclude that while BART for all
four Jim Bridger units was LNB/SOFA + SCR when the units were
considered individually, i.e., without regard to other units in the
PacifiCorp system, when considering all PacifiCorp's units with their
additional retrofit obligations, BART was LNB/SOFA + SCR on Units 3 and
4 and LNB + OFA on Units 1 and 2. EPA explained that, based on claims
by the State and PacifiCorp, costs, considered broadly across all four
units as well as for units in other states, could be unreasonable for
PacifiCorp to incur within five years of EPA's final action. EPA then
proposed in the alternative to approve Wyoming's BART and reasonable
progress determinations for Units 1 and 2, the latter of which would
require an SCR emission limit by December 31, 2021, for Unit 2, and
December 31, 2022, for Unit 1. EPA noted that the Agency believed it
``may be reasonable and feasible for [SCR] to be completed somewhat
earlier'' but that, given the context, it ``may be appropriate to give
considerable deference to the State's conclusions about what controls
are reasonable and when they should be implemented.'' \33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 77 FR 33054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, EPA issued another proposal after the Agency conducted its
own cost analyses and visibility modeling. As in 2012, EPA proposed two
options in the alternative. In proposing to approve the State's BART
and reasonable progress determinations for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
EPA again cited the fact that PacifiCorp may be required to install
several additional retrofits at units in Wyoming and in other states
and proposed to give deference to the State under the
circumstances.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ 78 FR 34738, 34755-56 (June 10, 2013). However, of the
twenty retrofit actions referenced in EPA's 2013 proposal,
PacifiCorp has installed only two SCRs in Wyoming and three SCRs and
one SNCR in Colorado to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the alternative, EPA again proposed in 2013 to determine that
BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 is LNB/SOFA + SCR and is required
within five years of EPA's final action. EPA explained that the cost-
effectiveness values for installing SCR were reasonable and the
visibility improvement at the most impacted Class I area was
significant. EPA further explained that the cost estimates were within
the range that Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in other SIP and FIP actions
have considered reasonable in the BART context.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 78 FR 34780.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After considering comments received on the 2012 and 2013 proposals,
in the 2014 final rule, EPA finalized approval of Wyoming's
determination that BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 was LNB/SOFA and
that SCR should be required for reasonable progress as part of the
State's long-term strategy by 2021 and 2022. EPA explained that the
updated source-wide visibility improvement associated with the
installation of LNB/SOFA + SCR would be significant (1.25-
[[Page 2575]]
1.5 deciviews) with unit-specific visibility benefits for Units 1 and 2
at 0.27-0.37 deciviews at the most impacted Class I area (Bridger),
respectively. We explained that ``[t]he fact that Jim Bridger Station
affects a number of other Class I areas [(in addition to Bridger)],
which would also see appreciable visibility improvement with the
installation of LNB/SOFA + SCR, also weighs in favor of selecting this
option as BART.'' \36\ We also found that the updated average cost-
effectiveness of LNB/SOFA + SCR at $2,635 and $3,403/ton for Units 1
and 2, respectively, was in line with what we had found to be
acceptable in other determinations,\37\ in addition to finding that the
incremental cost-effectiveness of $7,447 and $8,968/ton for Units 1 and
2, respectively, was on the high end of what we had found to be
reasonable in other determinations.\38\ However, EPA ultimately
concluded that, ``while we believe that these costs and visibility
improvements could potentially justify LNB/SOFA + SCR as BART, because
this is a close call and because the State has chosen to require SCR as
a reasonable progress control, we believe deference to the State is
appropriate in this instance.'' \39\ We thus finalized the State's
determination to require LNB/SOFA as BART controls with a corresponding
emission limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu by March 4, 2019, for Jim Bridger Units
1 and 2, and the State's determination to require SCR as part of the
State's long-term strategy necessary to achieve reasonable progress
with a corresponding emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling
average) by 2022 and 2021 for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2,
respectively.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 79 FR 5048.
\37\ 79 FR 5040, 5048. Note that the text at 79 FR 5048
misstates the average cost-effectiveness for LNB/SOFA + SCR at Units
1 and 2. The correct figures are stated in Table 5 and 6 at 79 FR
5040. Note that for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, we disagreed with
Wyoming's conclusion that BART was not LNB/SOFA + SCR, but we
nonetheless approved the State's BART and reasonable progress
determinations of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) and 0.07
lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), respectively, because the
compliance deadlines for SCR were all within the statutory timeframe
for BART. 77 FR 33035-36; 79 FR 5046, 5221.
\38\ 79 FR 5048.
\39\ Id.
\40\ 79 FR 5048-49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. May 14, 2020 Submittal
Notwithstanding the State's 2011 determination to require the
installation of SCR as being necessary for reasonable progress in the
State's long-term strategy for Jim Bridger 1 and 2 in 2021 and 2022,
and the deference EPA afforded the State's determination in the 2014
final rule (instead of requiring SCR as BART controls within five years
of EPA's action), on May 14, 2020, Wyoming submitted a SIP revision for
the purpose of amending the State's regional haze SIP and removing the
SCR requirement for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.\41\ Wyoming stated that
``[d]ue to the significant costs of installing SCR on Units 1 and 2,
and the potential impact of those costs to PacifiCorp's customers,
PacifiCorp reassessed its compliance with the Regional Haze Rule and
developed an alternative regional haze compliance strategy . . . .''
\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Letter dated May 12, 2020, from Todd Parfitt, Director,
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, to Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8, Subject: State Implementation
Plant Approval Request--Regional Haze 309(g) SIP revision for
PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant.
\42\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's 2020 SIP revision contains a source-specific,
NOX-only reasonable progress analysis and determination for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, as well as plant-wide annual and monthly
NOX and SO2 emission limits for Jim Bridger Units
1-4. Specifically, the amendments provide a source-specific reasonable
progress four-factor analysis and consideration of visibility benefits
for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 to demonstrate that the current LNB/SOFA
NOX BART controls also satisfy the reasonable progress
requirements for those units for the first planning period. The SIP
revision thereby would remove the existing reasonable progress
requirement for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 to comply with emission
limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu in 2021 and 2022 (Table 1).
Table 1--Existing and Proposed NOX Emission Limits for Jim Bridger Units 1-4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing NOX Proposed NOX
Existing NOX BART reasonable reasonable
emission limit progress emission progress emission
Unit (30-day rolling limit (30-day limit (30-day
average; lb/ rolling average; rolling average;
MMBtu) \1\ lb/MMBtu) \2\ lb/MMBtu)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................... 0.26 0.07 0.26
2...................................................... 0.26 0.07 0.26
3...................................................... 0.26 0.07 \3\ N/A
4...................................................... 0.26 0.07 \3\ N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Compliance date is March 4, 2019; no changes to the NOX BART emission limits are proposed.
\2\ Compliance dates for each is: Unit 1 = December 31, 2022; Unit 2 = December 31, 2021; Unit 3 = December 31,
2015; and Unit 4 = December 31, 2016.
\3\ No change to existing NOX reasonable progress emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average).
[[Page 2576]]
In addition, Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision would add federally
enforceable month-by-month plant-wide NOX and SO2
emission limits across all four Jim Bridger units, as well as an
enforceable annual plant-wide NOX and SO2
emissions cap of 17,500 tpy, effective January 1, 2022 (Table 2). The
plant-wide monthly and annual emission limits for Jim Bridger Units 1-4
are already State-enforceable through Wyoming air quality permit
#P0025809. The final permit was issued on May 5, 2020.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ Letter dated May 5, 2020, from Nancy E. Vehr,
Administrator, Air Quality Division, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, to James Owens, Director, Environmental
Services, PacifiCorp, Subject: Permit #P0025809 (Permit #0025809).
Table 2--Enforceable Monthly Plant-Wide Block NOX and SO2 Emission
Limits for Jim Bridger Units 1-4, Effective January 1, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total units 1-4 Total units 1-4
NOX emission SO2 emission
Month limit (monthly limit (monthly
average basis) average basis)
(lb/hour) (lb/hour)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January........................... 2,050 2,100
February.......................... 2,050 2,100
March............................. 2,050 2,100
April............................. 2,050 2,100
May............................... 2,200 2,100
June.............................. 2,500 2,100
July.............................. 2,500 2,100
August............................ 2,500 2,100
September......................... 2,500 2,100
October........................... 2,300 2,100
November.......................... 2,030 2,100
December.......................... 2,050 2,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Summary of Wyoming's Reasonable Progress Reassessment
Pursuant to CAA section 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A),
in determining the measures necessary to make reasonable progress, a
state must take into account the following four factors and demonstrate
how they were taken into consideration in making a reasonable progress
determination:
Costs of Compliance;
Time Necessary for Compliance;
Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of
Compliance; and
Remaining Useful Life of Any Potentially Affected Sources.
In order to conduct a source-specific reasonable progress
assessment for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, the State took into
consideration the four required factors and also included visibility
improvement as an additional factor in its reasonable progress
analysis.\44\ Wyoming relied on information provided by PacifiCorp and
EPA for evaluating potential reasonable progress NOX
emissions controls--LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA + selective non-catalytic
reduction (SNCR), and LNB/SOFA + SCR--at Jim Bridger.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The visibility benefit of an emissions reduction measure is
not listed as a required factor, but neither the CAA nor the
Regional Haze Rule prohibits a state from considering visibility
benefits when it determines what emissions control measures are
required for a source to make reasonable progress at a Class I area.
Therefore, a state may consider the visibility benefits of potential
control measures when determining what is necessary to make
reasonable progress.
\45\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 3; see also PacifiCorp, Jim
Bridger Power Plant Reasonable Progress Determination to Support
PacifiCorp's Reasonable Progress Reassessment (PacifiCorp
Reassessment), February 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Costs of Compliance
For the source-specific reasonable progress analysis associated
with this action, Wyoming relied on cost information provided by
PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp used NOX emission rates for LNB/SOFA
of 0.187 lb/MMBtu and 0.192 lb/MMBtu (annual average) reflective of the
actual emissions rate (2013-2015) for Units 1 and 2, respectively. The
anticipated NOX emission rate for LNB/SOFA + SNCR was
assumed to be 0.15 lb/MMBtu (annual) for both Units 1 and 2. The
NOX emission rate for LNB/SOFA + SCR was assumed to be 0.05
lb/MMBtu (annual), which corresponds to the 0.07 lb/MMBtu LNB/SOFA +
SCR NOX 30-day rolling average emission limits for Units 1
and 2 that EPA approved in the 2014 final rule.
Wyoming's source-specific reasonable progress analysis for Units 1
and 2 based capital costs and annual operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs on the actual costs incurred to install and operate SCR
technology on Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, as well as the actual costs to
install LNB/SOFA on Units 1 and 2 (Table 3). Capital costs for SNCR
technology were estimated based on recent similarly sized projects
(Table 3).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision, PacifiCorp, Corrected JB RP
Reassessment NOX Comparison Tables, October 6, 2020.
Table 3--PacifiCorp's Total Capital and O&M Costs for the Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 Reasonable Progress Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total installed capital costs Total O&M costs ($/year)
($) -------------------------------
NOX control technology --------------------------------
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 1 Unit 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB/SOFA........................................ $8,410,000 $7,986,000 .............. ..............
SNCR............................................ 15,538,000 15,538,000 2,954,000 3,158,000
SCR............................................. 140,428,000 140,428,000 2,580,000 2,527,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2577]]
PacifiCorp annualized capital costs using the capital recovery
factor (CRF) approach described in EPA's Control Cost Manual using 20-
year and 30-year amortization periods for SNCR and SCR,
respectively.\47\ Total annual costs were calculated as the sum of the
annualized capital costs and total O&M costs. The cost-effectiveness of
each NOX control technology was calculated on a dollar-per-
ton of pollutant removed basis by dividing the total annual costs by
the reduction in annual NOX emissions associated with each
NOX emissions control technology (i.e., LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA +
SNCR, LNB/SOFA + SCR). Similarly, PacifiCorp calculated the incremental
cost-effectiveness of each NOX control technology on a
dollar-per-ton of pollutant removed basis by dividing the difference of
the total annual costs (of one control technology compared to that of
the next most stringent control technology) by the difference in the
reduction in annual NOX emissions (of the two control
technologies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ EPA, ``Control Cost Manual,'' Section 4, Chapter 1, April
25, 2019, page 1-53-54, and Chapter 2, June 2019, page 80, available
at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution (last visited
December 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The summary of cost-effectiveness figures for Wyoming's reasonable
progress analysis for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 is shown in Table 4.
Baseline NOX emissions (2001-2003) are 8,432 tpy and 7,575
tpy for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision, PacifiCorp, Corrected JB RP
Reassessment NOX Comparison Tables, October 6, 2020.
Table 4--Summary of Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 NOX Revised Reasonable Progress Cost Analysis \48\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX emissions Incremental
rate (lb/ Emissions Annualized cost Average cost- cost-
NOX control technology MMBtu; annual) reduction (tpy) ($/year) effectiveness effectiveness
($/ton) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB/SOFA..................... \1\ 0.187 4,414.......... $794,000....... $180 ...............
LNB/SOFA + SNCR.............. \2\ 0.15 5,209.......... 5,215,000...... 1,001 5,560
LNB/SOFA + SCR............... 0.05 7,358.......... 14,692,000..... 1,997 4,410
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB/SOFA..................... \1\ 0.192 3,649.......... 754,000........ 207 ...............
LNB/SOFA + SNCR.............. \2\ 0.15 4,508.......... 5,379,000...... 1,193 5,385
LNB/SOFA + SCR............... 0.05 6,552.......... 14,599,000..... 2,228 4,510
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ lb/MMBtu, annual average.
\2\ lb/MMBtu, annual. The controlled NOX emission rate with SNCR was assumed to be 0.15 lb./MMBtu, which
corresponds with a reduction of approximately 20 percent.
Wyoming also summarized the total estimated capital costs and
annual costs combined for Units 1 and 2 for the installation of SCR and
SNCR, in addition to the LNB/SOFA NOX emissions controls
already installed, for the revised reasonable progress analysis (Table
5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 5.
Table 5--Total Capital and Annual Costs for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 Revised Reasonable Progress Analysis \49\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Control Capital costs Annual costs
NOX control technology efficiency (%) ($) ($/year)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LNB/SOFA........................................................ 53 $16,396,000 $1,548,000
LNB/SOFA + SNCR................................................. 63 47,472,000 10,594,000
LNB/SOFA + SCR.................................................. 87 297,252,000 29,291,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 are not included in the
reasonable progress analysis, Wyoming noted that the total capital cost
for LNB/SOFA + SCR installation on Units 3 and 4, which are already
installed, was $310,959,000. Ultimately, Wyoming concluded that the
installation of SCR on Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 would cost ``hundreds
of millions more'' than the costs already incurred for LNB/SOFA
NOX emissions controls while SNCR would cost ``tens of
millions more'' than the costs already incurred for LNB/SOFA
NOX emissions controls.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Time Necessary for Compliance
As stated previously, the SIP approved by EPA on January 30, 2014,
requires an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu associated with the
installation of LNB/SOFA + SCR on Jim Bridger Unit 1 by December 31,
2022, and on Unit 2 by December 31, 2021. Wyoming stated in the 2020
SIP revision that if SNCR installation was required, the compliance
timelines would match the SCR timeline. The current LNB/SOFA
NOX emissions controls were installed in 2010 and 2005 for
Units 1 and 2, respectively.\51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance
The State identified that SCR control technology would periodically
produce solid waste when the catalyst is changed. Additionally, Wyoming
stated that SCR control technology would require the storage and use of
ammonia, while SNCR would require the storage
[[Page 2578]]
and use of urea. With respect to energy use, the State estimated that
SNCR would require 6 times the energy required by the current
NOX control technology (LNB/SOFA), and SCR would require 150
times the energy required by LNB/SOFA. Wyoming further stated that SCR
would require the use of an additional 10.4 megawatts of energy.
Wyoming did not anticipate any additional negative non-air
environmental impacts associated with the current LNB/SOFA
NOX emissions controls.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Id. at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Remaining Useful Life
For this evaluation, Wyoming stated that the expected life of the
source is less than the expected life of the emissions control
technology, which is 30 years for SCR and 20 years for SNCR. However,
Wyoming did not provide an enforceable shutdown date that would ensure
that the expected life of the source would in fact be reduced.\53\
Therefore, notwithstanding the State's expectation of a shortened
remaining useful life for the source, it used the full 30-year and 20-
year periods for SCR and SNCR, respectively, in its analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ Id. at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Visibility Improvement
Although visibility improvement is not one of the four statutory
factors for reasonable progress, Wyoming elected to include visibility
improvement in the reasonable progress analysis for Jim Bridger Units 1
and 2. Wyoming did not complete new visibility modeling for the
reasonable progress analysis and determination. Instead, the State
relied upon EPA's CALPUFF modeling results contained in the 2014 final
rule to assess the visibility impacts of the NOX emissions
control technologies evaluated, i.e., for LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA + SNCR,
LNB/SOFA + SCR.\54\ In our 2014 final rule, we evaluated the CALPUFF
visibility modeling of the Jim Bridger power plant for the most
impacted Class I area, Bridger Wilderness (Table 6).\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See id. at 7. In the 2014 final rule, EPA addressed
comments on the visibility improvement modeling by developing a new
protocol that makes several improvements in the modeling, including
the latest regulatory version of the CALPUFF model at the time of
the rule (version 5.8), the use of an improved method to assess the
effects of pollutants on light scattering and visibility impairment
(Method 8), the use of background ammonia concentrations based on
monitoring data and regulatory default concentrations for the area,
and the use of an ammonia-limiting correction to treat sources with
multiple units. We used two sets of background ammonia
concentrations based on representative monthly varying ammonia
concentrations and default concentrations for forested areas.
\55\ 79 FR 5048.
Table 6--Summary of Jim Bridger Power Plant NOX Visibility Analysis in EPA's 2014 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visibility Improvement (deciviews) \1\ (modeled results
using an ammonia background based on a monitored
monthly varying concentration/modeled results using
Jim Bridger IWAQM default 0.5 ppb background ammonia) \3\
--------------------------------------------------------
LNB/SOFA LNB/SOFA + SNCR LNB/SOFA + SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unit 1................................................. 0.17/0.23 0.20/0.27 0.27/0.37
Unit 2................................................. 0.16/0.21 0.19/0.25 0.27/0.36
Unit 3................................................. 0.14/0.19 0.17/0.23 0.26/0.35
Unit 4................................................. 0.25/0.23 0.30/0.28 0.45/0.42
--------------------------------------------------------
Total \2\.......................................... 0.72/0.86 0.86/1.03 1.25/1.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For most impacted Class I area, Bridger Wilderness.
\2\ The total visibility improvement was estimated as the sum of the visibility improvement from each unit.
\3\ EPA, Air Quality Modeling Protocol; Wyoming Regional Haze Implementation Plan, January 2014.
The State noted that EPA determined in 2014 that the unit-specific
visibility benefits for LNB/SOFA + SCR installation on Units 1 and 2
were ``modest'' at 0.27 to 0.37 deciviews. In addition, the State noted
that the incremental visibility improvement, as determined by EPA, of
LNB/SOFA + SCR over LNB/SOFA, was 0.10 to 0.14 deciviews for Unit 1 and
0.11 to 0.15 deciviews for Unit 2. The State further noted that
incremental improvement of LNB/SOFA + SNCR over LNB/SOFA was smaller at
between 0.03-0.04 deciviews for both Units 1 and 2.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to comparing the visibility impacts associated with
each NOX emissions control technology, Wyoming also pointed
to PacifiCorp's estimated NOX emissions reductions. The
State asserted that the current LNB/SOFA NOX emissions
controls already have reduced NOX emissions from the 2001-
2003 baseline by a combined 8,063 tpy for Units 1 and 2. The
installation of SCR would reduce NOX emissions from the
2001-2003 baseline by an additional 5,848 tpy (Units 1 and 2 combined),
while the installation of SNCR would reduce NOX emissions
from the baseline by an additional 1,655 tpy.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the State, in spite of the additional NOX
emissions reductions achievable through each NOX control
technology, EPA's 2014 modeling demonstrates that the installation of
SCR on Units 1 and 2 would result in only modest incremental visibility
benefits of 0.10-0.15 deciviews (per unit) when compared to current
LNB/SOFA NOX emissions controls on Units 1 and 2. The State
concluded that these visibility improvements are not significant enough
to outweigh the substantial cost of installing SCR. Instead, Wyoming
concluded that relying on the current NOX emissions controls
(LNB/SOFA) is the reasonable choice for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ Id. at 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Reasonable Progress Demonstration
[[Page 2579]]
After considering each of the four reasonable progress factors,
states must demonstrate how those factors, and visibility improvement
if included in the analysis, were taken into consideration in making a
reasonable progress determination.\59\ Thus, after consideration of the
four factors, along with an evaluation of the modeled visibility
impacts at the most impacted Class I area (Bridger Wilderness), Wyoming
determined that no additional controls beyond BART are necessary for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 under the reasonable progress provisions for
the first regional haze planning period. Wyoming determined that,
``[w]hile SCR installation on Units 1 & 2 could be expected to be more
efficient in controlling NOX emission than either SNCR
installation or relying on Current Unit 1-2 NOX Controls
[(LNB/SOFA)], the estimated capital costs, annual costs, and cost-
effectiveness are far higher for SCR and SNCR, compared with little
modeled visibility benefit.'' \60\ In addition, the State explained
that SCR will produce solid waste every time the catalyst must be
replaced and will have higher electricity requirements. The State
further explained that the current NOX controls are already
in use and do not require additional time for compliance.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A).
\60\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7.
\61\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming stated that its reasonable progress determination for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 is consistent with several similar EPA decisions
where EPA rejected SNCR and SCR because the cost-effectiveness values
associated with the control measures were significantly higher and/or
the NOX emissions reductions achieved were not that much
more than combustion controls (LNB) alone.\62\ Furthermore, Wyoming
stated that it considers the costs that PacifiCorp has already incurred
on NOX emissions control technology at the Jim Bridger power
plant and the associated improvement in visibility to be sufficient for
reasonable progress.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Id. at 7, 8 (citing 77 FR 24794 (April 25, 2012), 77 FR
11879 (February 28, 2012), 77 FR 18052 (March 26, 2012), 77 FR 23988
(April 20, 2012), 83 FR 62204 (November 30, 2018), 80 FR 18944
(April 8, 2015), 77 FR 21896 (April 12, 2012)).
\63\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, Wyoming concluded that the reasonable progress analysis
demonstrates that the current NOX emissions controls (LNB/
SOFA) on Units 1 and 2, including the current NOX emission
limits of 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), which apply to each
unit, constitute NOX reasonable progress for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2. Therefore, Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision would remove the
emission limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) associated
with the installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 as part of
the State's long-term strategy to achieve reasonable progress at
several Class I areas for the first planning period.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ Id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Summary of Wyoming's Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual NOX and SO2
Emission Limits for Jim Bridger
In addition to concluding that emission limits consistent with LNB/
SOFA are sufficient for reasonable progress for Jim Bridger Units 1 and
2, the State asserted that PacifiCorp's plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits for Jim Bridger Units
1-4 strengthen and support the reasonable progress determination for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2. Specifically, the State quoted EPA's 2007
Reasonable Progress Goals Guidance (2007 Guidance), which provides that
States ``have flexibility in how to take into consideration [the]
statutory factors and any other factors [the state has] determined to
be relevant,'' \65\ in claiming that PacifiCorp's monthly plant-wide
NOX and SO2 emission limits (shown in Table 2)
and the annual plant-wide NOX and SO2 emissions
cap of 17,500 tpy are relevant in Wyoming's revised reasonable progress
analysis and determination. The State pointed to a number of factors to
describe how the plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and
SO2 emission limits bolster the revised reasonable progress
analysis. These include what the State asserted are greater modeled
visibility improvement, lower costs, and fewer overall energy and
environmental impacts than the installation of SCR and SNCR on Units 1
and 2.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 8-9 (quoting EPA's ``Guidance
for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals Under the Regional Haze
Program,'' June 1, 2007 (2007 Guidance)).
\66\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 8-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming relied on CALPUFF visibility modeling conducted by
PacifiCorp to evaluate visibility improvement associated with the
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits compared to LNB/SOFA + SCR and LNB/SOFA + SNCR.\67\ The
CALPUFF modeling report used the following three metrics to evaluate
the results:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ Wyoming chose the CALPUFF visibility model because it was
the same model used to analyze the existing reasonable progress
requirements (79 FR 5039). See Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 98th percentile modeled delta-deciview, averaged over
the 3 years modeled and applied to each Class I area individually;
The number of modeled days (summed over the 3 years
modeled) with a plant-wide impact above 0.5 delta-deciview, applied to
each Class I area individually; and
The number of modeled days (summed over the 3 years
modeled) with a plant-wide impact above 1.0 delta-deciview, applied to
each Class I area individually.
Under all three metrics, Wyoming asserted that the updated CALPUFF
modeling results demonstrate that the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits resulted in greater
visibility improvement than SCR and SNCR.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\ Id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the 98th percentile metric, the State asserted that
the visibility impacts for the Jim Bridger power plant under the SCR,
SNCR, and plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and
SO2 emission limits scenarios are 0.760, 0.930, and 0.653
deciviews, respectively.\69\ Wyoming further asserted that the number
of CALPUFF-modeled days resulting in a plant-wide visibility impact
above 0.5 delta-deciviews over a three-year period under the SCR, SNCR,
and plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits scenarios are 475, 597, and 371 days, respectively.
Finally, with respect to the number of CALPUFF-modeled days resulting
in a plant-wide visibility impact above 1.0 delta-deciview over a
three-year period under the SCR, SNCR, and plant-wide monthly and
annual NOX and SO2 emission limits scenarios are
127, 195, and 108 days, respectively, according to the State.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Averaged across all impacted Class I areas, including
Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness, Grand Teton National
Park, Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, Rocky Mountain National Park, Rawah
Wilderness, Teton Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness, and Yellowstone
National Park. PacifiCorp Reassessment at 15.
\70\ Id. at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to Wyoming, installation of SCR and SNCR on Units 1 and 2
will result in the reduction of NOX emissions of 5,848 and
1,655 tpy respectively, relative to ``current operating potential.''
``Current operating potential,'' as defined in PacifiCorp's technical
analysis, is based on a combination of recent emission rates with
plant-wide heat input (i.e., utilization) from the 2001-2003
period.\71\ Implementation of the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits will result in the
reduction of NOX and SO2
[[Page 2580]]
emissions of 6,056 tpy relative to a baseline of 2001-2003 utilization.
In addition to reductions in NOX and SO2
emissions, Wyoming stated that the plant-wide emission limits will
reduce all emissions from the Jim Bridger power plant, including PM,
mercury (Hg), greenhouse gases (GHG), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon
dioxide (CO2), and sulfuric acid
(H2SO4), as well as reduce coal consumption, coal
combustion residual production and disposal, and raw water
consumption.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See PacifiCorp Reassessment, Attachment 1 at 21.
\72\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To compare cost-effectiveness estimates, the State relied on
PacifiCorp's analysis using total tons of SO2 and
NOX reduced from ``current operating potential'' under the
assumption that the pollutants would have equivalent visibility impacts
(Table 7).
Table 7--PacifiCorp's Summary of Jim Bridger Units 1-4, Cost Analysis for SCR, SNCR, and Plant-Wide Monthly and
Annual NOX and SO2 Emission Limits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost-
Jim Bridger Control technology Capital cost Annualized effectiveness
($) cost ($/year) ($/ton)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Units 1-2............................. SCR..................... 280,856,000 27,743,000 4,744
Units 1-2............................. SNCR.................... 31,076,000 9,046,000 5,469
Units 1-4............................. Monthly and Annual Plant- 4,659,000 2,115,000 349
Wide Emission Limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming also asserted that the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits are more cost-
effective than SCR or SNCR. Furthermore, Wyoming claimed that even if
all three emissions control measures are compared on a NOX-
only basis (excluding SO2), the plant-wide monthly and
annual NOX and SO2 emission limits remain the
most cost-effective option.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the asserted visibility and cost benefits associated
with the plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and
SO2 emission limits, Wyoming compared the energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts of compliance. First, Wyoming contended
that, as compared to the use of SCR, the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits would allow
approximately 10.4 megawatts of electrical energy required by SCR for
Units 1 and 2 to be instead directed to the electrical grid to power
approximately 8,761 average homes. Second, Wyoming asserted that the
installation of SCR controls on Units 1 and 2 would not restrict the
capacity factor of these units (e.g., the annual heat output), so these
units could operate with a potential average annual capacity factor of
100 percent. In contrast, Wyoming explained that implementation of the
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits would limit the capacity of all four units and
effectively limit annual boiler heat input, thereby also providing a
reduction in the consumption of natural resources (i.e., water and
coal). Third, Wyoming asserted that the installation of SCR at Units 1
and 2 would result in additional storage and use of ammonia and create
more coal combustion residuals. Likewise, the installation of SNCR on
Units 1 and 2 would result in additional storage and use of urea and
would also create more coal combustion residuals compared to the plant-
wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2 emission
limits. Finally, Wyoming asserted that the plant-wide monthly and
annual NOX and SO2 emission limits provide the
entire facility the flexibility to ``load follow'' or accommodate
intermittent influx of renewable energy into the western power grid,
which has larger scale environmental impacts in Wyoming and across the
West.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ Id. at 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Disapproval of Wyoming's Regional
Haze SIP Revisions
A. Basis for Proposed Disapproval
Although states have discretion under the Regional Haze Rule to
balance the four statutory factors in making control determinations for
sources, their analyses must be both reasoned and moored to the
statutory requirement to make reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal.\75\ The Regional Haze Rule provides that, ``in
determining whether the State's goal for visibility improvement
provides for reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions,
the Administrator will evaluate'' the state's demonstration under 40
CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (ii).\76\ Thus, our regulations and the CAA
require that we review the reasonableness of the State's reasonable
progress determination in light of the goal of achieving natural
visibility conditions. This approach is also inherent in our role as
the administrative agency empowered to review and approve SIPs. In this
SIP review action, EPA is not only authorized, but required to exercise
independent technical judgement in evaluating the adequacy of the
State's regional haze SIP, including its reasonable progress
determinations.\77\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Cf. Arizona v. EPA, 815 F.3d 519, 531 (9th Cir. 2016)
(While states have discretion to balance the five BART factors, they
must also adhere to certain requirements when conducting BART
analyses. EPA may not approve BART determinations that are based on
analyses that are unreasoned or unmoored to the statutory
provisions.) (citing N. Dakota v. EPA, 730 F.3d 750, 761 (8th Cir.
2013)).
\76\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii).
\77\ 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(J), (l), (k)(3); 7491(a)(1),
(b)(2)(B); Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201 (10th Cir. 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons described in section IV.B. below, EPA proposes to
disapprove Wyoming's regional haze SIP revision. Our proposed action is
based on an evaluation of Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision under the
regional haze requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and CAA section
169A. The revisions were also evaluated against the general SIP
requirements contained in CAA section 110 and our regulations
applicable to this action. Additionally, EPA is not reopening, and thus
not accepting comment on, EPA's 2014 approval of Wyoming's BART
determinations for Jim Bridger Units 1-4 or EPA's 2014 approval of the
emission limits Wyoming required as reasonable progress controls for
Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4. Any comments on these issues will be deemed
beyond the scope of this action.
[[Page 2581]]
B. EPA's Proposed Disapproval of Wyoming's Reasonable Progress
Determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2
We are proposing to disapprove Wyoming's regional haze SIP revision
for the NOX reasonable progress determination for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2.
In our analysis of the Wyoming 2020 SIP revision, we evaluated
Wyoming's reasonable progress determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 and
2 under 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). Under this requirement, a state must
consider the following four factors and include a demonstration of how
they were taken into consideration in making a reasonable progress
determination:
Costs of Compliance;
Time Necessary for Compliance;
Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of
Compliance; and
Remaining Useful Life of Any Potentially Affected Sources.
The State has discretion to reasonably weigh these four factors,
along with visibility improvement if it so chooses, to determine what
controls are necessary to include in the long-term strategy for a
specific source. States exercise this discretion within the context of
the statutory requirement to make reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1), (b)(2)(B); 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Basis of Our Proposed Disapproval
We are proposing to find that Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision does not
provide a reasonable basis for reversing the State's 2011 determination
of what reasonable progress controls are necessary for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2 for the first planning period. Our proposed disapproval
is based on the following: (1) The reasonable cost-effectiveness of the
existing control requirements for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 (emission
limits consistent with the installation of SCR); (2) the appreciable
visibility improvement estimated to result from compliance with the
existing reasonable progress control requirements; and (3) the fact
that the State previously determined that the costs of those control
requirements were reasonable and that they are necessary to satisfy the
statutory requirements, and has not provided any new information that
would support a revised determination that the existing control
requirements are now unreasonable. Because the State has not provided
adequate justification for reversing its 2011 determination, removing
the existing emission limits reflecting LNB/SOFA + SCR from the SIP
would be inconsistent with the requirement that SIPs contain the
measures necessary to make reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal. We therefore propose to disapprove the State's 2020
SIP revision.
As an initial matter, we propose to find that the State reasonably
characterized the four factors required in a reasonable progress
analysis, including the costs of compliance, the time necessary for
compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of
compliance, and the remaining useful life of any potentially affected
sources. In addition, we agree with the State that, although visibility
improvement is not one of the four factors required by CAA section
169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), visibility improvement (along
with the statutory factors) can be considered to determine what control
measures are necessary to make reasonable progress.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ See 77 FR 57864, 57899 (September 18, 2012), 79 FR 9318,
9353-54 (February 18, 2014), 81 FR 296, 309-310 (January 5, 2016).
See also 2007 Guidance at page 5-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also specifically proposing to find that Wyoming's revised
cost calculation is appropriate, including: (1) The use of actual
annual average (2013-2015) NOX emissions rates for LNB/SOFA;
(2) the use of NOX emissions rates of 0.15 and 0.05 lb/MMBtu
(annual) for LNB/SOFA + SNCR and LNB/SOFA + SCR, respectively; (3) the
use of amortization periods of 20, 20, and 30 years for LNB/SOFA, SNCR
and SCR, respectively; (4) the use of actual costs for the installation
and operation of SCR taken from those incurred for Units 3 and 4; and
(5) the use of a baseline of 2001-2003 emissions to analyze cost and
visibility associated with LNB/SOFA, LNB/SOFA + SNCR, and LNB/SOFA +
SCR.
However, as explained previously, notwithstanding our proposed
finding that Wyoming reasonably characterized relevant information
under each of the four statutory factors, we are proposing to find that
the State did not reasonably consider that information in reaching its
revised reasonable progress determination.
Of the four reasonable progress factors and the optional visibility
improvement factor, the State placed significant emphasis on the costs
of compliance in its analysis of controls for Jim Bridger Units 1 and
2. Consistent with the State's analysis, we afford this factor similar
significance in our evaluation here. We are also evaluating the
visibility improvement information that Wyoming considered in the SIP
revision, as well as the other three factors--remaining useful life,
time necessary for compliance, and energy and non-air environmental
impacts. After a consideration of all five of these factors, we propose
to conclude that the State's determination that the installation of SCR
is not necessary for reasonable progress is unreasonable.
a. Costs of Compliance
In order to evaluate Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision with respect to
the cost of compliance, we first evaluate Wyoming's characterization of
the costs using the updated Control Cost Manual. Next, we evaluate the
reasonableness of the costs associated with the installation of SCR on
Units 1 and 2 with respect to average and incremental cost-
effectiveness and the State's explanation for why requiring SCR on
Units 1 and 2 is unreasonable.
The revised NOX control cost estimates in Wyoming's 2020
SIP revision are based on the current version of the Control Cost
Manual, which has been revised since our 2014 final rule. As updated,
the Control Cost Manual includes a 30-year equipment life for SCR.\80\
The change in equipment life estimate from 20 to 30 years for SCR
affects annual cost estimates, as well as average cost-effectiveness
and incremental cost-effectiveness estimates. We propose to find
Wyoming's use of the updated Control Cost Manual appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ EPA, ``Control Cost Manual,'' Section 4, Chapter 2, June
2019, page 80, available at https://www.epa.gov/economic-and-cost-analysis-air-pollution-regulations/cost-reports-and-guidance-air-pollution (last visited December 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2020 SIP revision, Wyoming provided updated capital costs,
annual costs, and average and incremental cost-effectiveness figures
for SNCR, SCR, and the plant-wide annual and monthly limits.\81\ The
2007 Guidance instructs that states should evaluate both average and
incremental costs according to the Control Cost Manual to maintain and
improve consistency.\82\ These figures take into account capital and
annual costs and allow states and EPA to compare costs of controls
industry wide. EPA's guidance further cautions against
[[Page 2582]]
considering in isolation the capital costs of a control option, as
large or small capital costs alone are not dispositive of the
reasonableness of a potential control.\83\ Thus, we deem the average
and incremental cost-effectiveness figures most relevant to our
consideration of Wyoming's revised cost analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 4-5.
\82\ 2007 Guidance at page 5-1, 2 (referring to the BART
Guidelines and Control Cost Manual). See also 40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y, IV.D.4.b (``For purposes of air pollutant analysis,
`effectiveness' is measured in terms of tons of pollutant emissions
removed, and `cost' is measured in terms of annualized control
costs. We recommend two types of cost-effectiveness calculations--
average cost effectiveness, and incremental cost effectiveness.'').
\83\ See 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.4.g.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the revised cost analysis for the 2020 SIP revision, Wyoming's
cost estimates show an average cost-effectiveness for LNB/SOFA + SCR
for Units 1 and 2 of $1,997 and $2,228 per ton of NOX
removed, respectively.\84\ Wyoming's cost estimates also show an
incremental cost-effectiveness for LNB/SOFA + SCR for Units 1 and 2 of
$4,410 and $4,510 per ton of NOX removed, respectively,
relative to the next-most-stringent control (LNB/SOFA + SNCR).\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ See Table 4 in this document. Because we are finding the
most stringent control technology (SCR) reasonable, and because
Wyoming did not request that we evaluate other control technologies,
we are not evaluating additional control technologies. See 40 CFR
part 51, appendix Y, IV.D.1.9.
\85\ See Table 4 in this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the State's estimates, the costs of the existing control
requirements (LNB/SOFA + SCR) are eminently reasonable. Indeed, in
2011, the State deemed reasonable an average cost-effectiveness of
$2,258 per ton of NOX removed (LNB/SOFA + SCR) and
incremental cost-effectiveness of $5,721 per ton of NOX
removed (LNB/SOFA + SCR) for each unit when it required SCRs as
reasonable progress controls.\86\ Similarly, EPA concluded in our 2014
final rule that our revised average cost-effectiveness figures for LNB/
SOFA + SCR for Units 1 and 2 of $2,635 and $3,403 per ton and our
revised incremental cost-effectiveness figures for LNB/SOFA + SCR for
Units 1 and 2 of $7,447 and $8,968 were reasonable.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ 77 FR 33053.
\87\ 79 FR 5048.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Relatedly, in our 2014 final rule, we required through a Federal
implementation plan an emission limit consistent with the installation
of new LNB/OFA + SCR at four other units in Wyoming with higher cost-
effectiveness figures: LNB/OFA + SCR at Laramie River Station Units 1,
2, and 3 had an average cost-effectiveness of $4,461, $4,424, and
$4,375 per ton and incremental cost-effectiveness of $5,449, $5,871,
and $5,667 per ton, respectively,\88\ and LNB/OFA + SCR at Wyodak had
an average cost-effectiveness of $4,036 per ton and incremental cost-
effectiveness of $6,233 per ton.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ 79 FR 5039-40. The NOX emission limit for Units
1, 2, and 3 were revised (through settlement) on May 20, 2019, to
0.06 lb/MMBtu by July 1, 2019, 0.15 lb/MMBtu by December 31, 2018,
and 0.15 lb/MMBtu by December 31, 2018, respectively. 84 FR 22711
(May 20, 2019).
\89\ 79 FR 5044. The NOX emission limit at Wyodak is
subject to ongoing litigation and settlement discussions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the revised average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-
effectiveness for installing SCR on Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 in
Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision are even lower than what Wyoming determined
were reasonable for the same units in 2011. And the revised cost-
effectiveness figures are even lower than what EPA in 2014 determined
were reasonable for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 and for four other units
addressed in the 2014 final rule.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ The examples cited by Wyoming in the 2020 SIP revision do
not establish that the revised cost-effectiveness figures for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 are unreasonable. Indeed, the average cost-
effectiveness figures in the examples are higher than or similar to
Wyoming's revised cost estimates. See 80 FR 18944, 18975 (April 8,
2015) (proposed rule stating that LNB/SOFA + SCR average ($3,552 and
$2,749 per ton) and incremental ($6,717 and $5,736 per ton) cost-
effectiveness figures were ``within the range of what we consider to
be cost-effective'' for BART but incremental visibility improvement
of 0.069 deciviews at a single Class I area is ``relatively small''
in light of incremental cost-effectiveness figures); 77 FR 21896,
21901 (April 12, 2012) (proposed rule stating that LNB/OFA + SCR
average cost-effectiveness figures of $2,110, $1,967, and $2,183 and
incremental cost-effectiveness figures of $4,534, $4,330, and $2,756
were not cost prohibitive or sufficiently large to warrant
eliminating SCR from consideration as BART).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, EPA ultimately deferred to Wyoming's BART and reasonable
progress determinations for Jim Bridger, even though the available
information suggested that SCR was reasonable as BART, given the
State's commitment to require SCR as reasonable progress controls. But
here, the State submitted a SIP revision that does not warrant such
deference. Specifically, the cost associated with installing and
operating the currently required controls on Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2
has not increased beyond what the State determined in 2011 was
reasonable. Wyoming has asserted only that not requiring emission
limits reflecting SCR for Units 1 and 2 will be less costly than
requiring them and the amount that PacifiCorp has spent to date on
NOX control technology at Jim Bridger is sufficient for
reasonable progress. Neither of these justifications offers a
compelling basis for removing the existing control requirements, as
both were expected and acknowledged at the time of Wyoming's 2011
decision to require the controls. Additionally, we note again that the
expected fleetwide installations of SCRs that PacifiCorp had previously
anticipated have not come to pass.\91\ Regardless, in 2011, Wyoming
determined the costs the source would incur were reasonable and that
emission limits reflecting LNB/SOFA + SCR are necessary to meet the
statutory requirements. The State has offered no reasonable explanation
for its reversal, i.e., for why the revised, even lower cost-
effectiveness estimates for SCR are now unreasonable such that an
emission limit associated with SCR is no longer necessary to meet the
requirement to make reasonable progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See supra note 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we disagree with Wyoming that the cost analysis
strongly favors removing the existing SCR-based requirement \92\ for
the following reasons: (1) The average cost-effectiveness and
incremental cost-effectiveness for installing SCR on Units 1 and 2 in
Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision are even lower than what Wyoming determined
were reasonable in 2011 and lower than what we found to be reasonable
for the installation of LNB/SOFA + SCR in similar instances in 2014;
(2) the State has offered no reasonable explanation for why the
revised, lower cost-effectiveness estimates for SCR are now
unreasonable; and (3) Wyoming has not provided any new information that
would support a revised determination that the costs of the existing
control requirements are now unreasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Visibility Improvement
For Jim Bridger, the projected visibility improvements associated
with the installation of LNB/SOFA and SCR are between 0.27-0.37 and
0.27-0.36 deciviews for Units 1 and 2, respectively, at the most
impacted Class I area, Bridger Wilderness (Table 6). Additionally, the
installation of SCR at Units 1 and 2 would result in visibility
improvement at numerous other Class I areas.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ For Jim Bridger Unit 1, using monthly varying ammonia
concentrations, model visibility improvements with LNB/OFA + SCR
were 0.37 deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick; 0.29
deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at
Rocky Mountain; 0.17 deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at
Teton; 0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.15 deciviews at
Yellowstone. For Jim Bridger Unit 1, using a constant 0.5 ppb
ammonia concentration, model visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/
SCR were: 0.37 deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick;
0.29 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews
at Rocky Mountain; 0.17 deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at
Teton; 0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.15 deciviews at
Yellowstone. For Jim Bridger Unit 2, using monthly varying ammonia
concentrations, model visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were:
0.36 deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick; 0.28
deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews at
Rocky Mountain; 0.16 deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at
Teton; 0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.14 deciviews at
Yellowstone. For Jim Bridger Unit 2, using a constant 0.5 ppb
ammonia concentration, model visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/
SCR were: 0.36 deciviews at Bridger; 0.26 deciviews at Fitzpatrick;
0.28 deciviews at Mt Zirkel; 0.35 deciviews at Rawah; 0.36 deciviews
at Rocky Mountain; 0.16 deciviews at Grand Teton; 0.14 deciviews at
Teton; 0.19 deciviews at Washakie; and 0.14 deciviews at
Yellowstone. 79 FR 5041.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2583]]
As an initial matter, Wyoming mischaracterizes our 2014 final rule
in its 2020 SIP revision when it asserts that EPA ``determined that the
unit-specific visibility benefits for LNB/SOFA + SCR installation on
Units 1 and 2 were `modest' (0.27 to 0.37 deciviews).'' \94\ In the
2014 final rule, EPA stated that the visibility improvement associated
with the installation of SCR is ``significant on a source-wide basis
(1.25 to 1.5 deciviews),'' while ``[t]he unit-specific benefits for
Units 1 and 2 are somewhat more modest (0.27-0.37 deciviews).'' \95\
That is to say, the unit-specific benefits were relatively less than
the benefits for the entire source, which will always be the case.
Thus, we did not characterize the visibility improvement associated
with the installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 as merely
``modest,'' and we do not agree with Wyoming's characterization of the
associated visibility improvement as such now. The fact remains that
the installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 would yield
appreciable visibility improvement at a reasonable cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 7.
\95\ 79 FR 5048 (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States choosing to consider visibility benefits as an optional
additional factor should not use visibility to summarily dismiss cost-
effective potential controls. This is because the CAA does not
explicitly list visibility as a factor that must be considered in
reasonable progress determinations.\96\ In this case, Wyoming is
rejecting additional controls at Units 1 and 2, regardless of whether
they are cost-effective, because ``installation of SCR on Units 1 & 2
would result in only modest incremental visibility benefits of .10 to
.15 deciviews (per unit) when compared to LNB/SOFA on Units 1 and 2.''
This is a generally inappropriate basis on which to make reasonable
progress determinations for sources. Furthermore, because Units 1 and 2
already have been controlled under BART, additional controls would be
expected to make relatively smaller contributions to visibility
improvement as a proportion of total impairment. This does not mean,
however, that such sources need not be controlled in order to achieve
the national visibility goal.\97\ To the contrary, the evaluation and
control of BART sources such as Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 under the
reasonable progress requirements will be necessary to achieve the
national goal of the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing manmade impairment of visibility in Class I areas.\98\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Compare 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2) (including visibility as a
factor in BART determinations) with id. 7491(g)(1) (visibility not
included as an explicit factor in reasonable progress
determinations); see also EPA, ``Clarifications Regarding Regional
Haze State Implementation Plans for the Second Implementation
Period,'' July 8, 2021 (``July 2021 Clarifications Memo'') at 12-13,
available at https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf; 82 FR 3078, 3093 (January
10, 2017) (because regional haze is caused by emissions from
numerous sources, in order to address it, states may not abandon
controls they already have determined are reasonable based on the
four statutory factors on the basis that impact on visibility
conditions is subjectively assessed as not ``meaningful'').
\97\ See id.; see also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5) (after a state has
met BART requirements, BART-eligible sources are subject to
reasonable progress requirements in the same manner as other
sources).
\98\ As with Wyoming's cost-effectiveness examples, Wyoming's
visibility examples do not support Wyoming's conclusions regarding
visibility improvement. Each is an example of a proposed BART
determination that does not address the fact that, in many
instances, reasonable progress controls naturally yield relatively
smaller visibility improvement over already-installed BART controls.
Thus, the fact that we proposed to reject controls of a certain
cost-effectiveness and visibility improvement for BART does not
necessitate rejecting similar controls for reasonable progress. See
77 FR 24794, 24818 (April 25, 2012) (proposed rule stating that SCR
is cost-effective for BART at $5,358 per ton but visibility
improvement at the most impacted Class I area of 0.254 deciviews and
cumulative visibility improvement at seven Class I areas of 0.273
deciviews are small and thus EPA proposed to approve determination
that BART is not SCR); 77 FR 11879, 11891 (February 28, 2012)
(proposed rule stating that EPA proposed to agree with state
determination that certain controls for a refinery were not BART due
to high costs (unavailable) and small visibility gains (0.045 to
0.16 deciview range)); 77 FR 18052, 18066 (March 26, 2012) (proposed
rule stating that EPA proposed to agree with the state's
determination that SCR was not BART given high cost-effectiveness
($9,900 and $15,290 per ton) and low visibility improvement (under
0.2 deciviews)); 77 FR 23988, 24013 (April 20, 2012) (proposed rule
stating that SO2 BART controls were cost-effective when
values ranged from $1400 to $4800 per ton but visibility improvement
ranges of 0.033 and 0.18 were ``relatively small'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, in Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision, the visibility improvement
remains unchanged from our 2014 final rule, and the State has provided
no new visibility information to support a revised NOX
reasonable progress determination that the existing control
requirements are now unreasonable. In summary, we disagree with
Wyoming's assertion that the visibility benefits are not sufficiently
meaningful to warrant cost-effective controls.
c. Other Factors
Relevant to energy and non-air quality environmental impacts, the
State noted that SCR will produce solid waste when the catalyst is
replaced periodically, and that requiring SCR will require
significantly more electricity than LNB/SOFA. EPA's 2007 Guidance
provides that to the extent energy and non-air quality environmental
impacts of compliance are quantifiable, they should be included in the
engineering analysis supporting the cost of compliance estimates.\99\
PacifiCorp did so in the revised cost analysis for the 2020 SIP
revision. As explained elsewhere in this document, even with the energy
and non-air environmental costs incorporated into the cost analysis,
the cost-effectiveness of SCR remains reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ 2007 Guidance at 5-2 and 5-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the 2007 Guidance points to EPA's BART Guidelines,
which provide, among other things, that (1) the fact that a control
technology uses energy in and of itself does not disqualify that
technology, and (2) the fact that a control technology creates waste
that must be disposed of does not necessarily argue against selection
of that technology, especially if the control has been applied to
similar facilities elsewhere and the waste is similar to those other
applications.\100\ Wyoming has merely pointed out that the existing
controls on Units 1 and 2 (LNB/SOFA) require less electricity to
operate than SNCR or SCR and that SCR requires periodic catalyst
replacement. The State has not demonstrated that the anticipated energy
expenditure or waste that would be generated at Units 1 and 2 would be
any different from the numerous other units for which states or EPA
have required SCR. Indeed, Wyoming has already determined that energy
and non-air environmental impacts did not disqualify SCR from being a
reasonable control technology for two units at the same facility, i.e.,
at Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4.\101\ Based on EPA's long-standing
guidance and the fact that the State has not provided any evidence to
support a conclusion that the energy and non-air environmental impacts
of SCR at Units 1 and 2 are unreasonable, we disagree that these
factors support a conclusion that SCR is not the reasonable choice of
control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ 2007 Guidance at 5-2 and 5-3; 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
IV.D.4.h-i.
\101\ Additionally, in its 2011 SIP submission Wyoming did not
identify any energy or non-air quality environmental impacts that
would preclude selection of any of the controls evaluated for Jim
Bridger, including LNB/SOFA + SCR. See 78 FR 34753.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 2584]]
With respect to remaining useful life, as stated above, Wyoming did
not provide an enforceable shutdown date that would ensure that the
expected life of Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 would be less than the
expected life of the control technology. Thus, Wyoming appropriately
used the Control Cost Manual remaining useful life for SCR of 30 years
in the cost analysis.
With respect to time necessary for compliance, Wyoming noted that
the LNB/SOFA are already in use and thus, in contrast to SCR and SNCR,
do not need any additional time for compliance. The deadline for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 to comply with the existing control requirements
reflecting installation and operation of SCR by December 31, 2022 and
December 31, 2021, respectively has existed in the SIP since 2014. We
thus do not believe it is reasonable for the State to consider the time
necessary for compliance as weighing in favor of not requiring SCRs as
reasonable progress controls.
d. Summary of EPA's Evaluation of Wyoming's Reasonable Progress
Demonstration
In summary, we propose to disapprove Wyoming's reasonable progress
demonstration concluding that the NOX emission limits
associated with LNB/SOFA controls are the reasonable choice for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2. We base our proposed disapproval on the
following: (1) The reasonable average cost-effectiveness and
incremental cost-effectiveness of the existing control requirements for
Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2; (2) the appreciable visibility improvement
estimated to result from compliance with the existing reasonable
progress control requirements; (3) the fact that the State previously
determined that the costs of those control requirements were reasonable
given the visibility benefits, and thus necessary to satisfy the
statutory requirements, and has not provided any new information that
would support a revised determination that the existing control
requirements are now unreasonable. Ultimately, we propose to find that
because the State failed to justify its conclusion that the existing
SCR requirements should be removed such that no further controls beyond
BART are required for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, we cannot reasonably
approve Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision. Because removing the existing SCR
requirements would be inconsistent with the statutory requirement that
SIPs contain the measures necessary to make reasonable progress, we are
proposing to disapprove Wyoming's 2020 SIP revision.
C. Plant-Wide Monthly and Annual NOX and SO2 Emission Limits for Jim
Bridger Units 1-4
Wyoming's SIP revision includes ``an alternative regional haze
compliance strategy for the Jim Bridger Power Plant'' \102\ that
Wyoming considered as supplemental information to its revised four-
factor reasonable progress analysis and determination. Wyoming asserts
that the alternative regional haze compliance strategy's plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2 emission limits
are designed to reduce regional haze and create numerous other
environmental benefits toward achieving natural visibility conditions
at its Class I areas.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Letter from Todd Parfitt, Director, Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality, to Gregory Sopkin, Regional Administrator,
USEPA Region 8, Subject: State Implementation Plan Approval
Request--Regional Haze 309(g) SIP Revision for PacifiCorp Jim
Bridger Power Plant (May 12, 2020). See also Wyoming 2020 SIP
Revision at 3.
\103\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2020 SIP revision provides that the State ``considered it
appropriate to re-balance and reconsider its [reasonable progress/long-
term strategy] determination and complete a four factor reasonable
progress analysis on a NOX-only basis.'' \104\ Our proposed
disapproval of Wyoming's reasonable progress determination for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 is thus based solely on the source-specific
NOX reasonable progress analysis, as this analysis and
resulting determination were intended to replace the State's previous
NOX-only determination. However, we are also proposing to
find that we cannot approve, and are therefore proposing to disapprove,
the plant-wide emission limits, which rely on a comparative analysis
that includes both NOX and SO2 emissions
reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA is proposing to disapprove the plant-wide monthly
NOX and SO2 emission limits because we cannot
render a SIP more stringent than intended by the state through a
partial SIP approval.\105\ While Wyoming has discretion to consider
these limits,\106\ it is our understanding that Wyoming intended to
adopt and make enforceable the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits, as proposed by
PacifiCorp, in lieu of the required emission limits associated with the
installation of SCR on Units 1 and 2 and not in addition to the
required emission limits associated with the installation of SCR.\107\
That is, we understand that Wyoming did not intend to implement the
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits together with SCR on Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2.
Implementing a NOX emission limit consistent with the
installation of SCR together with plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits would effectively
increase the stringency of the SIP beyond what was intended in the
Wyoming 2020 SIP revision.\108\ Thus, because EPA cannot render
Wyoming's SIP more stringent than intended by the State through a
partial SIP approval, and because we are proposing to disapprove
Wyoming's revised NOX reasonable progress determination as
unreasonable, we are also proposing to extend our disapproval to the
State's plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits. Wyoming may choose to submit the plant-wide monthly
and annual NOX and SO2 emission limits to EPA in
a stand-alone SIP submittal if the State would like to incorporate
these emission limits into its SIP independent of the revised
NOX reasonable progress analysis and determination for Jim
Bridger Units 1 and 2 contained in the 2020 SIP revision. For example,
some form of plant-wide mass limits could serve as a SIP strengthening
measure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 1036 (7th
Cir. 1984).
\106\ As stated above, Wyoming has discretion to evaluate
factors (beyond the four factors) that it considers relevant in
formulating its long-term strategy, 2007 Guidance at page 5-1, so
long as it does so reasonably and in a manner consistent with the
statute and other applicable requirements. 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B);
40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii).
\107\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9, 10, and 12.
\108\ Implementation of NOX limits consistent with
installing SCRs on Units 1 and 2, combined with the plant-wide
monthly SO2 limits would likely result in some
SO2 reductions (from the monthly plant-wide limits) plus
additional NOX reductions (from meeting the 0.07 lb/MMBtu
limits on Units 1 and 2) that are beyond what was intended in the
SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the legal basis for proposing to disapprove the
plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits, we also note two additional considerations. These
considerations relate to Wyoming and PacifiCorp's quantitative analyses
in support of the plant-wide limits, which assume that Jim Bridger is
still operating at historical (2001-2003) levels. Although we are not
relying on these considerations as the basis of our proposed
disapproval, we provide them here for completeness.
First, Wyoming analyzed the plant-wide limits assuming Jim
Bridger's emissions are consistent with the plant's ``current operating
potential.'' \109\ As explained above, PacifiCorp's analysis defines
``current operating potential'' as
[[Page 2585]]
a combination of recent emission rates with plant-wide heat input
(i.e., utilization) from the 2001-2003 period. Thus, the majority of
the emissions reductions that Wyoming credited to the plant-wide limits
\110\ would be realized only if Jim Bridger was utilized at levels
consistent with the 2001-2003 period. However, recent utilization of
the plant, based on the 2017-2020 period, has been much lower.\111\ EPA
examined emissions and operations data from the 2017 to 2020 period
because it reflects (1) full operation of the SCRs on Units 3 and 4
that were installed in 2015 and 2016, respectively, (2) earlier
SO2 scrubber upgrades on all four units, and (3) recent
trends in plant operations, as hours of operation and heat input. To
the extent Wyoming's demonstration relies on historical (2001-2003)
utilization to show that the plant-wide monthly and annual
NOX and SO2 emission limits achieve greater
emissions reductions (and therefore greater visibility improvement)
than SCRs on Units 1 and 2,\112\ neither the CAA nor the Regional Haze
Rule provide a basis for such reliance.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9.
\110\ See Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9 (plant-wide emission
limits would result in combined NOX and SO2
reduction of 6,056 tons/year).
\111\ Compare PacifiCorp Reassessment, Attachment 1 at 21
(providing 2001-2003 average heat input used as baseline for cost-
effectiveness analysis) with EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP
Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1).
\112\ See, e.g., Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 9 (PacifiCorp's
comparative analysis of the existing control requirements and plant-
wide emission limits indicates the limits ``produce better modeled
visibility and greater environmental benefits than installation of
SCR or SNCR'').
\113\ Unlike the BART program, which includes an extensive
regulatory framework under which states can rely on such historical
emissions and utilization data to demonstrate that a BART
alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART, neither
the CAA nor the Regional Haze Rule contain a similar framework for
reasonable progress. Compare 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and (3) with
(d)(1)(i)(A) and (d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second (and relatedly), based on recent (2017-2020) operation of
the plant, we believe it is reasonable to conclude that the plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2 emission limits
would not actually achieve similar or greater emissions reductions and
visibility improvement compared to the installation of SCR on Units 1
and 2 as Wyoming contends.
Wyoming claims that the plant-wide limits will produce greater
visibility improvement compared to the installation of two additional
SCRs on Units 1 and 2. However, the CALPUFF visibility modeling inputs,
and therefore visibility modeling results, are premised on assumptions
about Jim Bridger's baseline utilization and emissions. Again, Wyoming
analyzed the plant-wide emission limits assuming Jim Bridger's
emissions were consistent with its plant-wide heat input from the 2001-
2003 period. That is, the modeling analysis assumes heat input from a
historical period that does not correspond to how the facility is
currently operated.\114\ The plant-wide 2017-2020 average utilization
is approximately 29 percent below 2001-2003 average levels.\115\ Based
on the assumption of plant-wide heat input from the 2001-2003 period,
the analysis of the plant-wide limits by PacifiCorp and Wyoming
estimates a reduction of 5,049 tpy of SO2 and 1,007 tpy of
NOX. Had the quantitative analysis been based on Jim
Bridger's current utilization, it would have shown that the plant-wide
limits would actually achieve far fewer emissions reductions going
forward.\116\ For example, the proposed annual plant-wide
SO2 + NOX emission limit is 17,500 tpy. However,
in the 2017-2020 period, plant-wide annual SO2 +
NOX emissions have ranged from 14,823 to 16,004 tpy.\117\
Therefore, Jim Bridger is already operating well below the proposed
annual plant-wide SO2 + NOX emission limits.
Consequently, any annual SO2 and NOX reductions
based on the source's actual current operations would be much smaller
than estimated from the analysis of a potential historical operation
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ PacifiCorp Reassessment at 7. The PacifiCorp Reassessment
also references annual heat input values that were not disclosed to
EPA due to confidential forecasted capacity factors (see Attachment
3B to Attachment 1). Therefore, some assumptions are unknown and
impossible to replicate.
\115\ Compare PacifiCorp Reassessment, Attachment 1 at 21
(providing 2001-2003 average heat input used as baseline for cost-
effectiveness analysis) with EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP
Revision (January 7, 2022) (Tab 1).
\116\ Wyoming and PacifiCorp used the 2001-2003 period as the
baseline for the revised cost estimates in the Wyoming 2020 SIP
Revision's NOX-only four-factor analysis for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2. EPA believes this is a reasonable approach given the
circumstances, particularly that the purpose was to compare the
costs of different controls against a common baseline and that the
cost and visibility figures relied on for that analysis were
originally calculated for BART purposes. In contrast, EPA
understands the purpose of the quantitative analysis accompanying
the plant-wide monthly and annual NOX and SO2
emission limits was to determine whether they will result in greater
prospective emissions reductions and visibility improvement than
SCR. See, e.g., Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 12 (``In addition,
PacifiCorp's visibility enhancing proposal to limit overall
operations at all four Jim Bridger Units adds support to Wyoming's
reasonable progress revision, and ensures that visibility
improvements greater than SCR installation will be achieved for the
State of Wyoming.''). In this context, using a historical
utilization baseline that does not reflect current or likely future
plant operation obfuscates the assessment of future potential
emissions reductions.
\117\ EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision (January 7,
2022) (Tab 1). Data based on the information obtained from EPA's
Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD) database, available at: https://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the complicated nature of the proposed monthly limits and a
lack of complete information,\118\ EPA could not complete a full
evaluation of the impact of the monthly limits on emissions and
emissions reductions. However, based on the information available to
EPA, it appears that while the proposed additional plant-wide monthly
SO2 and NOX limits may restrict SO2
emissions (and to a lesser extent NOX emissions) in some
months, the facility's recent operation has been emitting at levels
similar to the proposed monthly limits.\119\ Thus, the plant-wide
annual and monthly limits appear to result in few actual emissions
reductions based on Jim Bridger's recent operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ See supra note 114.
\119\ EPA Calculations for Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision (January 7,
2022) (Tabs 3 and 4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast, installation of two additional SCRs on Units 1 and 2
will provide significant and certain additional NOX
emissions reductions under any operating scenario compared to either
recent operation or potential historical operation. With the current
SIP emission limits of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for Units
1 and 2, additional SCRs on those two units would reduce annual
NOX emissions by at least 3,000 tpy relative to the 2017-
2020 period (based on actual calendar month operation over that time
period).\120\ Because the more recent data reflect the facility as it
operates today (including emissions controls and limits that PacifiCorp
and Wyoming assumed in the analysis of plant-wide limits), we believe
it presents a reasonable set of operating conditions from which to
evaluate which scenario would achieve greater combined NOX
and SO2 emissions reductions in future years. Furthermore,
neither PacifiCorp nor Wyoming included any information that would
indicate increased operation in the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\120\ Id. at Tab 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, unlike the plant-wide NOX and
SO2 emission limits, installation of two additional SCRs
provides significant NOX reductions of at least 3,000 tpy.
Based on the information we have before us, we believe it is reasonable
to conclude that the proposed plant-wide annual and monthly limits
would not provide similar or greater emissions reductions or visibility
improvement compared to the installation of two additional SCRs. This
is especially true in comparison to recent operation of the Jim Bridger
plant in the 2017 to 2020 period.
[[Page 2586]]
D. 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.'' \121\ Wyoming states that the 2020 SIP revision will
not interfere with reasonable further progress or other applicable
requirements because there are no areas in Wyoming that are currently
designated nonattainment for NOX or particulate matter, and
that with the reductions anticipated from the plant-wide annual and
monthly limits, the SIP revision will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ 43 U.S.C. 7410(l). Note that ``reasonable further
progress'' as used in CAA section 110(l) is a reference to that term
as defined in section 301(a) (i.e., 42 U.S.C. 7501(a)), and as such
means reductions required to attain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) set for criteria pollutants under section 109.
This term as used in section 110(l) (and defined in section 301(a))
is not synonymous with ``reasonable progress'' as that term is used
in the regional haze program. Instead, section 110(l) provides that
EPA cannot approve plan revisions that interfere with regional haze
requirements (including reasonable progress requirements) insofar as
they are ``other applicable requirement[s]'' of the CAA.
\122\ Wyoming 2020 SIP Revision at 13. We note, however, that
NOX is not a criteria pollutant itself but instead
represents a group of highly reactive gases that includes the
criteria pollutant nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an initial matter, we note that Wyoming's evaluation pursuant to
CAA section 110(l) is overly narrow and does not address all relevant
NAAQS-related considerations. Additionally, CAA section 110(l) applies
to all requirements of the CAA, not just the attainment and maintenance
of the NAAQS. The previous sections of this document explain how the
State failed to justify its conclusion that the existing SCR
requirements should be removed such that no further controls beyond
BART are necessary for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 for reasonable
progress in the first planning period. Based on our proposed
conclusions in section IV.B in this document, we propose to find that
removing the SCR requirement would interfere with the regional haze
requirements of the CAA, specifically, with the requirement that SIPs
contain the emission limits, schedules of compliance, and other
measures that are necessary to make reasonable progress toward the
national visibility goal. Accordingly, we propose to disapprove the
Wyoming 2020 SIP revision under CAA section 110(l) in addition to the
basis stated in section IV.B above.
E. Consultation With Federal Land Managers
Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), Wyoming was obligated to provide the
FLMs with an opportunity for consultation in development of the State's
proposed SIP revision no less than sixty days prior to the associated
public hearing or public comment opportunity. On March 29, 2019, the
State of Wyoming informed the FLMs of the State's draft proposed
regional haze SIP revision for the Jim Bridger power plant. In doing
so, the State provided the FLMs with a copy of the draft regional haze
SIP revision and provided the FLMs with sixty days to provide comments
as well as the opportunity to discuss the draft SIP during a phone call
on May 21, 2019.\123\ The State did not receive any comments from the
FLMs. Therefore, we propose to find that Wyoming met its obligations
for consultation in development of the Wyoming 2020 SIP revision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\123\ Amber Potts, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality,
Record of State of Wyoming, PacifiCorp, and Federal Land Manager
Consultation Meeting for the Proposed Updates to the Regional Haze
(Round 1) SIP Concerning the Jim Bridger Facility, May 21, 2019. See
also Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, FLM Consultation
Meeting Slides.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Summary of EPA's Proposed Action
In this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the Wyoming 2020 SIP
revision (as submitted in May 2020 and supplemented in September and
October 2020), which includes amendments to Chapters 7.3.6 and 8 of
Wyoming's regional haze SIP narrative, Addressing Regional Haze
Visibility Protection For The Mandatory Federal Class I Areas Required
Under 40 CFR 51.309, that contain a source-specific NOX
reasonable progress analysis and revised determination for Jim Bridger
Units 1 and 2. EPA is also proposing to disapprove the plant-wide
monthly and annual NOX and SO2 emission limits
for Jim Bridger Units 1-4. Because we are proposing to disapprove the
State's proposed revisions to its existing SIP requirements, we are not
proposing to change any regulatory text, including text in 40 CFR
52.2620 or 40 CFR 52.2636.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the requirements of the CAA. As explained
above, Wyoming's SIP submission does not meet the requirements of the
CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to disapprove state law
as not meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and will
not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November
9, 2000).
[[Page 2587]]
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: January 11, 2022.
KC Becker,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2022-00777 Filed 1-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
