80 FR 29953 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 100 (May 26, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 100 (May 26, 2015)
| Page Range | 29953-29959 | |
| FR Document | 2015-12491 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 29953-29959] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-12491] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770; FRL-9928-16-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Colorado; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reissuing its final approval of the Colorado regional haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted on May 25, 2011 with respect to the State's best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for the Comanche Generating Station (Comanche) near Pueblo, Colorado. EPA originally finalized its approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012. In response to a petition for review of that final action in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, EPA successfully moved for a voluntary remand, without vacatur, to more adequately respond to public comments concerning Comanche. EPA is providing new responses to those comments in this rulemaking notice. DATES: This final rule is effective on June 25, 2015. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08- OAR-2011-0770. All documents in the docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov index. [[Page 29954]] Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6281, fallon.gail@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Background II. Public Comments and Revised EPA Responses III. Final Action IV. Incorporation by Reference V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background On March 26, 2012, EPA proposed to approve the Colorado regional haze SIP as meeting the applicable requirements of Sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.308-309 (Regional Haze Rule) and 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y (Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Guidelines).\1\ Among the components of the SIP was a nitrogen oxides (NOX ) BART determination for Units 1 and 2 at Comanche. As with several other facilities, the State submitted a BART analysis for Comanche that took into account the five factors required by section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA. The State determined that the existing emission controls at Comanche Units 1 and 2, low-NOX burners with over-fire air (LNB/OFA), are BART. EPA proposed to approve the State's NOX BART determination for Comanche. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 77 FR 18052. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA received several adverse comments on its proposed approval, including comments from WildEarth Guardians (Guardians) and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). On December 31, 2012, EPA published a notice of its final approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP.\2\ That final action included an approval of the Comanche NOX BART determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ 77 FR 76871. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On February 25, 2013, NPCA and Guardians filed petitions seeking the Tenth Circuit's review of EPA's final approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP.\3\ Guardians challenged EPA's approval of Colorado's BART determinations for Units 1 and 2 of the Craig Station; Units 1 and 2 of the Comanche Station; and Boilers 4 and 5 of the Colorado Energy Nations Company (CENC), LLP facility at the Coors Brewery. Guardians also challenged EPA's approval of Colorado's reasonable progress determination for Craig Unit 3, and the deadlines for compliance with emission limits for the units at all three facilities. NPCA challenged only EPA's approval of Colorado's BART and reasonable progress determinations for Craig Units 1, 2, and 3. After the court consolidated the cases for review, EPA reached a settlement with NPCA and Guardians concerning their claims related to the Craig Station,\4\ and Guardians elected not to pursue its claims regarding CENC/Coors. Guardians' claims concerning the Comanche Station are still active. In response to these claims, EPA moved the court for a partial voluntary remand of its 2012 final approval without vacatur so as to provide a more detailed and complete response to some of the adverse comments on the proposed approval.\5\ The court granted EPA's motion.\6\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ See WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13-9520 (10th Cir.) and National Parks Conservation Association v. EPA, No. 13-9525 (10th Cir.). \4\ See Proposed Settlement Agreement, 79 FR 47636 (Aug. 14, 2014). \5\ See Respondents' Motion for Partial Voluntary Remand Without Vacatur and to Stay Briefing Schedule Pending Resolution of This Motion, filed Sep. 19, 2014 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13- 9520 (10th Cir.). \6\ See Order filed Oct. 6, 2014 in WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, No. 13-9520 (10th Cir.). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- II. Public Comments and Revised EPA Responses We received adverse comments on our proposed approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP, including comments from Guardians related to our proposed approval of Colorado's BART determinations for Units 1 and 2 at the Comanche Station. We are reissuing our final approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP with respect to Comanche to provide more detailed and clearer responses to the Comanche-related adverse comments. The responses below contain our complete, updated, and clarified responses to comments related to the Comanche NOX BART determination. Comment: The commenter argues that Comanche Units 1 and 2 are currently meeting lower NOX emission rates than the State's BART emission limits that EPA proposed to approve. The commenter cited the State's BART analysis, noting that currently Unit 1 is emitting at an average annual rate of 0.124 lb/MMBtu and Unit 2 is emitting at an average annual rate of 0.165 lb/MMBtu, and compares those rates to the Colorado BART limits: a 30-day emission rate of 0.20 lb/mmBtu, and a combined annual average emission rate of 0.15 lb/mmBtu. According to the commenter, allowing these units to emit more pollution than they currently emit does not represent BART and would not lead to visibility improvements, and nothing in the CAA or EPA's regulations suggests that it is appropriate for BART limits to include any such cushion. Further, the commenter alleges that that under the annual BART limits, NOX emissions will be allowed to increase by at least 14 tons per year (tpy), and that the 30-day rolling average limits would allow Unit 1 to emit at least 40% more NOX than the baseline 30-day rolling average peak and Unit 2 to emit 12% more NOX. The commenter claims that the data demonstrates that Unit 1 could meet a 30-day rolling average NOX emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu and Unit 2 could meet a limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu without any trouble, and that the BART limits should reflect what is achievable. Accordingly, the commenter asserts that EPA must disapprove Colorado's NOX BART determinations for Comanche Unit 1 and Unit 2 and adopt a FIP that establishes BART limits that represent actual emission reductions.\7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ Comments submitted by WildEarth Guardians (hereinafter referred to as ``Guardians' Comments'') at 5-6, EPA-R08-OAR-2011- 0770-0040 Attachment 2 (May 25, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: We disagree with this comment. The State set NOX BART emission limits for Comanche Units 1 and 2 individually at a 30-day rolling average emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu and a combined annual average emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. As EPA requested in our October 26, 2010 comment letter during the state public comment process, the State considered tightening the 30-day limits, but ultimately chose not to do so. In EPA's judgment, the State could have better explained the basis for the margin for compliance, but a more robust analysis [[Page 29955]] would not have led it to reach a different conclusion as to the Comanche NOX BART limits. Further, if we were to disapprove the SIP and promulgate a FIP with lower emission limits, the actual emissions from Comanche would unlikely be significantly lower. We therefore decline to disapprove the NOX BART determination for Comanche. In our October 26, 2010 comment letter to the State, we asked Colorado to evaluate tightening Comanche's NOX limits. The State conducted that evaluation.\8\ Based on its experience, and after reviewing other state BART proposals, Colorado found that 30-day rolling average NOX emission rates could be expected to be up to approximately 15% higher than annual average emission rates. With this in mind, and also considering uncertainty regarding load fluctuations, cold-weather operating, startup, and increased cycling to back up renewable energy generation, the State concluded that a 0.20 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average emission limit was appropriate for both units. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 17-19 (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 312-14); see also Appendix C--Technical Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA- R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017), Attachment 5: Public Service Company-- Comanche Station Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a general matter, EPA finds it appropriate and reasonable to allow a margin for compliance in setting 30-day rolling average BART limits, and we have approved other state BART determinations that included such margins. The shorter 30-day averaging period results in higher variability in emissions because of load variation, startup, shutdown, and other factors. Accordingly, we have not generally required that 30-day rolling average emission limits be equal to the annual emission rates used for calculating cost-effectiveness. We find the State's application of a margin for compliance here consistent with that approach. The compliance margin included for the Comanche units is larger than we would generally expect. But we find that with respect to Comanche, the compliance margin is unlikely to lead to significant actual NOX emissions increases. After all, the lower Comanche emissions cited by the commenter occurred under permit limits identical to those the State selected as BART, and the commenter has provided no evidence that the facility will change its operations just because the State has adopted the permit limits as BART limits. Instead, emission rates are likely to remain near the baseline figures cited by the commenter, which as the commenter notes are below the BART limits. An occasional rise is possible in light of the uncertainties referred to above, which is the purpose of allowing a margin for compliance above the actual 30-day rolling average emissions levels. The commenter appeared to at least partly acknowledge this reality, stating that ``[w]e do not suggest that the State was required to set the emission limits exactly at the levels emitted.'' \9\ But none of these uncertainties suggests that there will be a consistent increase in emissions over the long term. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ Guardians' Comments at 8. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As for annual average emission rates, Colorado found that in 2009, the annual average rate for both units combined was about 0.15 lb/ MMBtu. Colorado did not propose applying a margin of compliance to the 2009 annual average rate, and set a limit at 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Because short-term emissions increases and decreases should average out over the course of any single year, we believe that setting the BART annual emission limit at about the annual emission rate from 2009 is reasonable, unless there is evidence that the source was not properly operated in 2009 or that annual average source operating conditions in 2009 were unrepresentative of future operations. The commenter has not alleged that there is any such evidence. The commenter does assert that the 0.15 lb/MMBtu annual limit would allow an increase in actual emissions if both units operate at the BART limit. The potential emissions increase calculated by the commenter, however, would only be 14 tons of NOX per year. A 14-ton increase is not significant when compared to the annual NOX emissions of approximately 3,860 tons from Comanche Units 1 and 2; it does not warrant disapproval and a subsequent FIP.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Discussing state flexibility to exempt de minimis emission levels from a BART analysis, the BART Guidelines make a similar point: ``If a State were to undertake a BART analysis for emissions of less than 40 tons of SO2 or NOX . . . from a source, it is unlikely to result in anything but a trivial improvement in visibility. This is because reducing emissions at these levels would have little effect on regional emissions loadings or visibility impairment.'' 70 FR at 39117. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The commenter alleges, but does not support or quantify, a ``likely'' further increase (beyond the claimed 14-ton increase) based on the potential for one unit to exceed 0.15 lb/MMBtu while the combined rate remains below that limit. This comment appears to be referring to a scenario in which the unit operating above 0.15 lb/MMBtu would have a higher heat input than the unit operating below 0.15 lb/ MMBtu, so that together they would still comply with the SIP's 0.15 lb/ MMBtu average emission rate limit while having higher emissions than if each unit were held to a limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. With the existing LNB/ OFA controls, though, neither unit can be operated at an emission rate much below its current emission rate, and so there is unlikely to be ``room'' for the other unit to operate much higher while still meeting the combined emission limit. Also, the two units are subject to very similar physical limits on heat input.\11\ We therefore find that any additional emissions consistent with a 0.15 lb/MMBtu combined limit would be insignificant from a visibility standpoint. Further, we note that the annual NOX BART limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu is below the average actual emissions of 0.16 lb/MMBtu for Units 1 and 2 between January and October 2010.\12\ Therefore, Colorado imposed an annual emission limit that was lower than the then most recent partial-year figures for Units 1 and 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 2, Table 1: Comanche Units 1 and 2 Technical Information (EPA- R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 297 (citing boiler ratings of 3,531 MMBtu/hr for Unit 1 and 3,482 MMBtu/hr for Unit 2). \12\ January-October 2010 is the most recent annual average emission rate period discussed by Colorado in the regional haze SIP. See id. at 18 (PDF page 313). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The commenter also argues that the 30-day rolling average limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu would allow emission increases because the actual 30-day rolling average rates have consistently been below this number. Annual emissions are controlled by the SIP's limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu for the average of the two unit's annual average emission rates, and would be so controlled even if there were no 30-day limits at all. The issue of whether the State and EPA correctly assessed how well the annual limit will control annual emissions was addressed above. Therefore, EPA understands that this comment regarding the 30-day limits of 0.20 lb/ MMBtu is meant to address the possibility that the emission rate of one or both units in 30-day periods may be higher than 0.15 lb/MMBtu, while the source could still comply with respect to the annual average limit by having lower emissions in other 30-day periods. EPA agrees that this is possible, but the State modeled the baseline visibility impact of the source assuming a constant emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, so the possibility has been fully considered. [[Page 29956]] For these reasons, we have determined that while the State could have better explained the basis for the margin for compliance it allowed, a more robust analysis would not have led it to reach a different conclusion as to the NOX emission limits for Comanche Units 1 and 2. In its next regional haze SIP, the State can review the longer history of emissions from Comanche that will be available then, and consider whether a downward adjustment in the emission limit is appropriate to ensure the best possible operation of the emission controls. Comment: The commenter asserts that the State failed to appropriately assess the cost of SCR, by assuming that SCR would achieve an emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis. But, according to the commenter, EPA has noted that SCR can achieve emission rates as low as 0.04 lb/MMBtu on an annual basis, and a 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate on an annual average basis is a more appropriate benchmark from which to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCR. The commenter claims that because the State did not assess the cost- effectiveness of SCR based on a rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, the State did not reasonably take into account the cost of compliance with SCR in accordance with the CAA. The commenter adds that although EPA and the State may claim that SCR would not be cost-effective in any case, there is no support for such an assertion, and without an adequate case- specific cost analysis, there is no support for concluding that SCR is unreasonable, particularly for Unit 2.\13\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \13\ Guardians' Comments at 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: We disagree with this comment. We have reviewed the information in the administrative record for this action again, and we find that our previous conclusion is still correct. We agree that SCR can achieve annual NOX emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, and that ideally Colorado would have used this value when assessing the SCR control option.\14\ But if the State had done so, the marginally lower emissions would not have caused the State to reach a different conclusion as to what technology is BART. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \14\ Throughout this notice, our references to the use of SCR at Comanche incorporate the effects of LNB/OFA. Thus, when we discuss comparing the effects of SCR against the baseline, we are comparing SCR operating with LNB/OFA against the post-2009 baseline of LNB/OFA alone. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- First, we note that the comment misstates the rate that Colorado actually used for the purpose of calculating cost-effectiveness. In the Comanche NOX BART analysis, the State assumed an annual emissions rate for SCR of 0.061 lb/MMBtu--not 0.07 lb/MMBtu.\15\ (The latter figure was the 30-day rolling average rate, not the annual average as the commenter contends.\16\) Therefore, the relevant comparison for the commenter's purpose would be between the 0.061 lb/ MMBtu annual average rate that the State used and the 0.05 lb/MMBtu annual average emission rate that the commenter prefers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, Tables 10 and 11, at 20-21 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 315- 16; see also Technical Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017), Attachment: Public Service Company-- Cmanche Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (.xls format spreadsheet file, tabs ``Comanche 1 NOX '' and ``Comanche 2 NOX ''). There is an inconsequential (approx. 0.33%) difference between the Unit 1 baseline numbers in these two parts of the record; the discussion in this rule uses the 1506 tpy figure from the State's technical analysis spreadsheet. \16\ Id. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Using the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual average emission rate, Colorado estimated emissions of 740 tpy for Unit 1 and 869 tpy for Unit 2 with SCR.\17\ Based on those estimated emissions, the State calculated emission reductions of 770.4 tpy for Unit 1 and 1,480 tpy for Unit 2, compared to a baseline level of emissions measured in 2009 that reflected the installation of LNB/OFA controls.\18\ Based on these reductions, the State derived cost-effectiveness values for SCR of $15,920 per ton and $9,900 per ton for Units 1 and 2, respectively.\19\ It is a simple exercise to insert the annual average emission rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu into the State's technical analysis spreadsheet.\20\ Doing so, we can see that using the figure the commenter recommends would have produced estimated emission levels of about 609 tpy for Unit 1 and 713 tpy for Unit 2 with SCR, which in turn give emission reductions of 897 tpy (Unit 1) and 1,636 tpy (Unit 2) compared to a 2009 baseline level and cost-effectiveness values of $13,670 and $8,956 per ton for Units 1 and 2, respectively.\21\ Considering that these adjusted cost-effectiveness values remain high and (as discussed below) the extent of the benefits associated with SCR remains low, we do not believe that the impact on the BART analysis would have led to a different conclusion if Colorado had used the more stringent emission rate. Therefore, we conclude that the State's use of 0.061 lb/MMBtu to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SCR at Comanche is not grounds for disapproval. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ Id. \18\ ``[T]he Division used years 2009 (annual averages and 30- day rolling) for baseline emissions for reduction and cost calculations.'' Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 3 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 298); see also id., Table 2 (``PSCo Comanche Units 1 & 2 Baseline Emissions''). \19\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, Tables 10-13, at 20-21 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 315-16). \20\ See Technical Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017), Attachment: Public Service Company-- Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (Excel spreadsheet file, tabs ``Comanche 1 NOX ''and ``Comanche 2 NOX ''). \21\ For Unit 1, the State also calculated an incremental value to assess the cost-effectiveness of SCR over SNCR. Even after making the correction to an assumed annual average rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu as described above, this value remains very high: $23,497 per ton. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The commenter states that Colorado appears to have overestimated the capital cost of SCR, in that the State's reliance on the CUECost model led to artificially inflated capital costs. According to the commenter, both EPA and the National Park Service (NPS) previously commented to the State that the State should have used EPA's Control Cost Manual, and both noted that the CUECost model relied upon by the State is not appropriate. The commenter argues that the State does not explain in the record why its use of CUECost was reasonable, particularly in light of the concerns expressed by EPA and the NPS.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \22\ Guardians' Comments at 9. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: We agree that there were flaws in Colorado's approach to estimating the costs of SCR for the Comanche BART units, and that the CUECost model likely yielded an inflated cost estimate. In the referenced correspondence, EPA stated that ``the CUECost model yields high capital costs for the Comanche facility,'' and suggested that the capital costs calculated would have been approximately 50% lower if the CCM had been followed.\23\ But even if we reduce the capital cost estimates by that percentage, and also adjust the emission rate as discussed in the previous comment, we believe that the cost of SCR at Comanche would still be high compared to the visibility benefits, and [[Page 29957]] that Colorado's decision not to require SCR would still be reasonable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Letter from Callie Videtich, EPA, to Paul Tourangeau, CDPHE (Oct. 26, 2010), at 8-9 (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0043, Attachment 19). EPA stated that using the CCM to assess SCR capital costs for the Comanche BART units yielded an estimate of approximately $120/kW, as opposed to the $247/kW (Unit 1) and $248/kW (Unit 2) derived from the CUECost model. Id. This ratio of dollars per kW results in a 51.6% lower estimate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specifically, cutting the capital cost estimate by 51.6%, and using the more stringent 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate discussed in the previous comment, produces cost-effectiveness values of $9,319 and $6,481 per ton for employing SCR at Units 1 and 2, respectively.\24\ Thus, even after addressing both of the cost issues raised by the commenter, the cost-effectiveness values remain high. Also, as discussed below in response to another comment, we have concluded that the visibility benefits that would result from SCR are insufficient to justify these high costs. Accordingly, we do not believe that Colorado would have reached a different NOX BART conclusion if it had used the CCM in its analysis (as well as the more stringent emission rate discussed previously). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ The 51.6% adjustment to capital cost can be made by multiplying the ``total capital costs'' figures on the State's technical analysis spreadsheet by 0.484. See Technical Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0770-0017), Attachment: Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (.xls format spreadsheet file, tabs ``Comanche 1 NOX '' and ``Comanche 2 NOX ''). In addition to capital costs, the cost-effectiveness calculations incorporate operating and maintenance costs, which the commenter did not challenge. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In its SIP, the State explained that, in its view, SCR for NOX control would generally be reasonable if costs did not exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant reduced, and if the controls provided a modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 deciviews (dv) or greater at the primary Class I Area affected.\25\ Considering the State's guidance, it is clear that making the adjustments that the commenter requests would not lead to a different outcome. Therefore, considering all the BART factors, we do not see a basis to conclude that using a lower capital cost estimate, combined with a 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate for SCR, would have led the State to reach a different conclusion or should lead us to disapprove the State's BART determination. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52 (R08-OAR-2011- 0770-0013, PDF page 53). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The commenter states that Colorado and EPA may claim that, even if the costs were accurately assessed, the visibility benefits of SCR would not be significant, but that there is no support for this assertion. According to the commenter, it appears that Colorado's assessment of visibility improvements is based on an assumption that the proposed BART limits, which the commenter refers to as the ``do nothing'' BART limits, would actually improve visibility. But, the commenter claims, the proposed BART limits would allow increased emissions, and therefore would not improve visibility. On the other hand, states the commenter, SCR would appear to provide significant visibility improvements. The commenter argues that for Unit 2 this is especially significant because SCR was the only available technology analyzed for BART.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ Guardians' Comments at 9-10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: We disagree with this comment. In relation to the high costs, the visibility benefits of SCR at Comanche are not sufficiently large to warrant disapproval of the State's BART determination. We would come to this conclusion regardless of whether the cost component of the BART analysis involved the State's original figures or the adjusted figures discussed above in response to previous comments. The State estimated that SCR would produce visibility improvements of 0.14 dv (Unit 1) and 0.17 dv (Unit 2) as compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA baseline.\27\ This level of expected visibility improvement from SCR is insufficient to cause us to conclude that the State's BART determination is unreasonable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, Table 15, at 24 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 319). As discussed below, the table also includes information on improvements over the pre-control baseline; this information is illustrative and was not the basis for the BART determination or for our approval of the State's action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As discussed above in response to a previous comment, we recognize that the State did not use the 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate that accurately represents the performance capabilities of SCR. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that the State would have estimated slightly greater visibility benefits from SCR if it had used the 0.05 lb/MMBtu rate. In EPA's judgment, however, the visibility benefits compared to the 2009 baseline would have remained modest. We note, for instance, that in the State's analysis of Comanche Unit 1, the difference in visibility benefit between selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) (with a NOX emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu) and SCR (with a NOX emission rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu) is only 0.03 dv.\28\ We conclude that the impact of a further reduction in emission rate to 0.05 lb/MMBtu would be similarly small.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \28\ What are labeled by the State as ``NOX emission rates'' (e.g., Table 15 of their analysis) are actually the 30-day emission limits. See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, Table 15, at 24 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 319). Actual 30-day emission rates have been lower. See id. at 18 (PDF page 313). \29\ Thus, comparing the SNCR and SCR numbers, we see that a NOX emissions rate reduction from 0.10 to 0.07 lb/MMBtu is reflected in a visibility improvement from 0.11 to 0.14 dv. If we assume, for the purpose of conservatively estimating visibility improvements, that there is a linear relationship between emission reductions and visibility improvement, then further reducing the NOX emission rate from 0.07 to 0.05 lb/MMBtu might cause visibility improvements at Units 1 and 2 to increase from 0.14 and 0.178 dv to approximately 0.16 and 0.198 dv. See Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; State of Florida; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 78 FR 53250, 53267 (Aug. 29, 2013) (``[A]n assumption of a linear response to changes in emissions is a reasonable estimation and the simplified methodology used for these BART determinations likely provides conservative overestimates of visibility impact reductions.''). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As mentioned previously, the State explained that, in its view, SCR for NOX control will generally be reasonable when costs do not exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant reduced, and when the controls provide a modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 dv or greater at the primary Class I Area affected.\30\ While we agree with the State that these guidance criteria should not be used as absolute determinants of BART outcomes, they are in general consistent with the decisions that other states and EPA have made when considering whether to require SCR as NOX BART, and generally reflect a reasonable balancing of the BART factors. In this case, we expect that even using the SCR emission rate requested by the commenter, the visibility improvement from SCR would fall well below the State's criteria. Judging these visibility improvements against the fairly high cost of SCR (again, even after adjustment to reflect the comments), we find that the State's decision not to impose SCR was reasonable. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52 (R08-OAR-2011- 0770-0013, PDF page 53). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The commenter incorrectly asserted that the State's BART determination was based on the assumption that existing controls would improve visibility compared to current levels. Colorado did not claim that its BART emission limits would result in visibility benefits compared to current levels (that is, compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA emissions baseline). The State did note that the existing level of control provided benefits when compared to the 2004 baseline, which is true. But while Colorado referred to both a pre-LNB/OFA baseline and a 2009 baseline when discussing visibility benefits, the State actually used only the 2009 baseline in calculating cost-effectiveness, and likewise relied on visibility benefits based on the 2009 baseline in making the BART determination for [[Page 29958]] Comanche.\31\ We have reviewed the visibility estimates and cost calculations that the State relied on when making its BART determination for Comanche and have confirmed that they were based on comparisons to the 2009 baseline.\32\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ Colorado stated in the SIP that ``the Division used year[ ] 2009 (annual averages and 30-day rolling) for baseline emissions for reduction and cost calculations.'' See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 20-21, 24 (R08-OAR- 2011-0770-0013, PDF pages 315-16, 319); see also Appendix C-- Technical Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA-R08-OAR- 2011-0770-0017), Attachment 5: Public Service Company--Comanche Station Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis. Likewise, the State's BART determination cites only the 0.14 dv and 0.17dv visibility improvement numbers derived from comparison to the 2009 baseline. See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 66 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 67). \32\ In replying to this comment and one other comment in the December 2012 final approval, we inadvertently made a confusing statement concerning the applicable baselines. In that notice, we stated that Colorado had ``assessed the benefit of control options relative to both the subject-to-BART baseline and to the installation of new low- NOX burners (LNB) [with over- fire air] in 2007 and 2008.'' Further, we noted that ``relative to the subject-to-BART baseline, Colorado's BART selection (combustion controls), does in fact show visibility improvement.'' These statements appeared to suggest that it was appropriate for Colorado to use a 2009 baseline when evaluating the benefits of SNCR and SCR, but a 2004 (pre-LNB/OFA) baseline to evaluate the State's proposed BART option. That was not our intention. Our reference to the 2004 subject-to-BART baseline--that is, to the emissions level before the installation of the LNB/OFA, which were required to comply with non- BART CAA requirements--was merely an observation, by which we intended to show that the installation of those controls had produced real air quality improvements over previous levels. That illustration was not, however, intended to be part of our evaluation of the State's cost or visibility analyses. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was correct for the State to use the 2009 baseline for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 in the BART determination. The CAA requires that, in making BART determinations, states and EPA take into consideration ``any existing pollution control technology in use at the source.'' \33\ As we explained in detail in our final action on the Wyoming regional haze SIP, this consideration should generally incorporate controls into baseline emissions if the controls were installed to comply with CAA requirements other than the BART requirement.\34\ That is exactly what happened with respect to Comanche Units 1 and 2. The controls in question had been placed on these units to ``net out'' of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review requirements for NOX and SO2 emissions from the new Unit 3.\35\ Therefore, it was appropriate for the State to use the 2009 emissions baseline, which reflected the reductions achieved by LNB/OFA, in its BART analysis for Comanche. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2). \34\ 79 FR 5032, 5104-05 (Jan. 30, 2014). \35\ See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control Options For Public Service Company--Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 1 (R08-OAR-2011-0770-0013, PDF page 1) (``As part of that [2004 construction] project, PSCo proposed to install control devices on the existing units.''); see also Colorado Operating Permit # 96OPPB133 (Comanche Station) (``. . . PSCo proposed to install NOX controls (low NOX burners with over-fire air) on both Units 1 and 2 . . . to `net-out' of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review requirements for NOX and SO2 ''), posted at https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/operating-permits-company-index. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, we addressed the assertion that the State's BART limits would lead to increased emissions in our response to a previous comment. The commenter has failed to offer any support for this claim, and we do not find any basis to conclude that increased emissions will result from the State's BART limits. For the above reasons, while we agree that SCR at Comanche Units 1 and 2 would result in visibility improvements, we find that the State reasonably concluded that those visibility improvements would not be sufficient to justify the cost involved. Comment: The commenter states that it is unclear why Colorado rejected SNCR for Comanche Unit 1, particularly because the proposed BART limit for Unit 1 is less stringent than Unit 1's current actual emissions. Citing EPA figures, the commenter asserts that Unit 1 would meet a 30-day rolling average emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu under an SNCR scenario. The commenter notes that the State found that the cost of $3,644 per ton of NOX reduced and the perceived ``low visibility improvement'' warranted a determination that SNCR was not reasonable for Unit 1. The commenter asserts, however, that this cost is squarely within the range of what Colorado considers to be cost- effective.\36\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \36\ Guardians' Comments at 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: We find that the State's rejection of SNCR was reasonable based on its weighing of the BART factors. The State concluded that the cost of SNCR was not warranted given the relatively modest 0.11 dv visibility improvement that would result. Even if a control technology is cost-effective on a dollar per ton basis, a state may conclude that the control technology is not warranted based on a reasonable consideration of all five BART factors. Comment: The commenter states that Colorado's analysis indicates that SNCR would achieve greater emission reductions than an emission rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. According to the commenter, although the State asserts that the visibility improvement from SNCR would amount to 0.11 dv, it is unclear why such improvements are not reasonable or are insignificant, particularly given that the purpose of BART is to reduce or eliminate visibility impairment. The commenter argues that there is no explanation in the record supporting the State's assertion. Further, the commenter argues that it appears as if the State's assessment of visibility improvements is based on an incorrect assumption that the proposed BART limit would actually improve visibility. The commenter states that when compared to the real impacts of the State's proposed BART limit for Comanche Unit 1, SNCR appears to provide significant visibility improvements, because, as opposed to the proposed BART limit, SNCR would actually achieve improvements. Therefore, the commenter concludes, EPA must promulgate a FIP that establishes an appropriate NOX BART limit for Comanche Unit 1.\37\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \37\ Guardians' Comments at 10. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: The commenter is correct that the State predicted that SNCR would result in additional improvement in visibility over the control technology that the State selected as BART. However, this does not mean that the CAA or our regulations required the State to select SNCR as BART. For the reasons stated above, we find that it was reasonable for the State to reject SNCR based on consideration of all five BART factors. We agree that SNCR would result in visibility improvements, but as with SCR, we agree with the State's assessment that the visibility improvements were insufficient to justify the cost involved. Regarding the commenter's claim that the State's selected limits will lead to an increase in emissions, as discussed above in detail, the commenter has presented no evidence that any emissions increase will occur. III. Final Action With respect to the Comanche Station, EPA is re-finalizing its approval of the Colorado regional haze SIP submitted on May 25, 2011. Because this re-finalization merely gives additional explanation in response to comments and does not alter any previous determinations, it does not affect any applicable SIP compliance deadlines. Our action is based on an evaluation of Colorado's regional haze SIP submittal for Comanche against the regional haze [[Page 29959]] requirements at 40 CFR 51.300-51.309 and CAA sections 169A and 169B. All general SIP requirements contained in CAA section 110, other provisions of the CAA, and our regulations applicable to this action were also evaluated. The purpose of this action is to ensure compliance with these requirements and to provide additional rationale to support our conclusions. IV. Incorporation by Reference In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Colorado revisions to its SIP to address the requirements of EPA's regional haze rule discussed in section III, Final Action, of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information). V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act, 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 criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve the use of measurement or other standards; and Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 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 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). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides. Dated: May 8, 2015. Debra H. Thomas, Acting Regional Administrator Region 8. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart G--Colorado 0 2. Section 52.320 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(124) introductory text to read as follows: Sec. 52.320 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (124) On May 25, 2011 the State of Colorado submitted revisions to its State Implementation Plan to address the requirements of EPA's regional haze rule. On December 31, 2012, EPA issued a final rule approving this submittal and responding to public comments. On May 26, 2015 EPA reissued the final rule with respect to the nitrogen oxides (NO X ) best available retrofit technology (BART) determination for the Comanche Generating Station to provide additional responses to public comments. * * * * * [FR Doc. 2015-12491 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29953
During the enforcement period, persons via the Local Notice to Mariners, Federal, State, or local law enforcement
and vessels are prohibited from entering Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and local agencies in enforcing this regulation.
into, transiting through, or anchoring advertising by the event sponsor. This notice of enforcement is issued
within this regulated area unless If the Coast Guard determines that the under authority of 33 CFR 165.118 and
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or regulated area need not be enforced for 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this
his designated representative. the full duration stated on this notice, notification in the Federal Register, the
DATES: The regulations for the safety then a Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Coast Guard will provide mariners with
zone listed in 33 CFR 165.1123, Table other communications coordinated with advanced notification of enforcement
1, Item 7, will be enforced from 8:30 the event sponsor will grant general periods via the Local Notice to Mariners
p.m. to 10:30 p.m. on several dates permission to enter the regulated area. and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. If the
between May 23, 2015, and September Dated: May 8, 2015. COTP determines that the regulated area
6, 2015. need not be enforced for the full
J.A. Janszen,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If duration stated in this notice of
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting, Captain
you have questions on this publication, enforcement, a Broadcast Notice to
of the Port San Diego.
call or email Petty Officer Nick Mariners may be used to grant general
[FR Doc. 2015–12555 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am]
Bateman, Waterways Management, U.S. permission to enter the regulated area.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
Coast Guard Sector San Diego, CA; Dated: April 22, 2015.
telephone (619) 278–7656, email D11- J.C. O’Connor, III,
PF-MarineEventsSanDiego@uscg.mil. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Coast SECURITY Port Boston.
Guard will enforce the safety zone in [FR Doc. 2015–11814 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am]
Mission Bay, California, for the annual Coast Guard BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
2015 Sea World San Diego Fireworks
Display (Item 7 on Table 1 of 33 CFR 33 CFR Part 165
165.1123), on May 23 through May 25, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
June 13 through June 30, July 1 through [Docket No. USCG–2015–0224] AGENCY
July 31, August 1 through August 9,
August 15, August 22, August 29, Safety Zones; Recurring Events in 40 CFR Part 52
September 5, and September 6, 2015. Captain of the Port Boston Zone;
Charles River 1-Mile Swim [EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770; FRL–9928–16–
The safety zone is located off of the Region 8]
south side of Fiesta Island adjacent to AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.
Sea World. Approval and Promulgation of
Under the provisions of 33 CFR ACTION: Notice of enforcement of
regulation. Implementation Plans; State of
165.1123, persons and vessels are Colorado; Regional Haze State
prohibited during the fireworks display SUMMARY: The Coast Guard will enforce Implementation Plan
times from entering into, transiting the subject safety zone in the Captain of
through, or anchoring within the 800 AGENCY: Environmental Protection
the Port Boston Zone on the specified
foot regulated area safety zone around Agency.
date and time listed below. This action
the fireworks barge, located in is necessary to ensure the protection of ACTION: Final rule.
approximate position 32°46′03″ N., the maritime public and event
117°13′11″ W., unless authorized by the SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
participants from the hazards associated Agency (EPA) is reissuing its final
Captain of the Port, or his designated with this annual recurring event.
representative. Persons or vessels approval of the Colorado regional haze
DATES: The subject safety zone will be State Implementation Plan (SIP)
desiring to enter into or pass through
enforced on June 6, 2015 from 7:30 a.m. revision submitted on May 25, 2011
the safety zone may request permission
to 9:30 a.m., instead of from 8:00 a.m. with respect to the State’s best available
from the Captain of the Port or a
to 9:00 a.m. on the usual second Sunday retrofit technology (BART)
designated representative. The Coast
in July. determination for the Comanche
Guard Captain of the Port or designated
representative can be reached via VHF FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If Generating Station (Comanche) near
CH 16 or at (619) 278–7033. If you have questions on this notice of Pueblo, Colorado. EPA originally
permission is granted, all persons and enforcement, call or email Mr. Mark finalized its approval of the Colorado
vessels shall comply with the Cutter, Coast Guard Sector Boston regional haze SIP on December 31, 2012.
instructions of the Captain of the Port or Waterways Management Division, In response to a petition for review of
designated representative. Spectator telephone 617–223–4000, email that final action in the United States
vessels may safely transit outside the Mark.E.Cutter@uscg.mil. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit,
regulated area, but may not anchor, SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EPA successfully moved for a voluntary
block, loiter, or impede the transit of subject event is listed in Table 1 of 33 remand, without vacatur, to more
official fireworks support, event vessels CFR 165.118 as enforced annually on adequately respond to public comments
or enforcement patrol vessels. The Coast the second Sunday in July, from 8:00 concerning Comanche. EPA is providing
Guard may be assisted by other Federal, a.m. to 9:00 p.m. In 2015, it will be new responses to those comments in
enforced on June 6, 2015. this rulemaking notice.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
State, or local law enforcement agencies
in enforcing this regulation. Under the provisions of 33 CFR DATES: This final rule is effective on
This notice is issued under authority 165.118, no person or vessel, except for June 25, 2015.
of 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 33 CFR 165.1123. the safety vessels assisting with the ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
In addition to this notice in the Federal event may enter the safety zone unless docket for this action under Docket ID
Register, the Coast Guard will provide given permission from the COTP or the No. EPA–R08– OAR–2011–0770. All
the maritime community with advance designated on-scene representative. The documents in the docket are listed on
notification of this enforcement period Coast Guard may be assisted by other the www.regulations.gov index.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30053/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29955
would not have led it to reach a limits. Instead, emission rates are likely operating below 0.15 lb/MMBtu, so that
different conclusion as to the Comanche to remain near the baseline figures cited together they would still comply with
NOX BART limits. Further, if we were by the commenter, which as the the SIP’s 0.15 lb/MMBtu average
to disapprove the SIP and promulgate a commenter notes are below the BART emission rate limit while having higher
FIP with lower emission limits, the limits. An occasional rise is possible in emissions than if each unit were held to
actual emissions from Comanche would light of the uncertainties referred to a limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. With the
unlikely be significantly lower. We above, which is the purpose of allowing existing LNB/OFA controls, though,
therefore decline to disapprove the NOX a margin for compliance above the neither unit can be operated at an
BART determination for Comanche. actual 30-day rolling average emissions emission rate much below its current
In our October 26, 2010 comment levels. The commenter appeared to at emission rate, and so there is unlikely
letter to the State, we asked Colorado to least partly acknowledge this reality, to be ‘‘room’’ for the other unit to
evaluate tightening Comanche’s NOX stating that ‘‘[w]e do not suggest that the operate much higher while still meeting
limits. The State conducted that State was required to set the emission the combined emission limit. Also, the
evaluation.8 Based on its experience, limits exactly at the levels emitted.’’ 9 two units are subject to very similar
and after reviewing other state BART But none of these uncertainties suggests physical limits on heat input.11 We
proposals, Colorado found that 30-day that there will be a consistent increase therefore find that any additional
rolling average NOX emission rates in emissions over the long term. emissions consistent with a 0.15 lb/
could be expected to be up to As for annual average emission rates, MMBtu combined limit would be
approximately 15% higher than annual Colorado found that in 2009, the annual insignificant from a visibility
average emission rates. With this in average rate for both units combined standpoint. Further, we note that the
mind, and also considering uncertainty was about 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Colorado did annual NOX BART limit of 0.15 lb/
regarding load fluctuations, cold- not propose applying a margin of MMBtu is below the average actual
weather operating, startup, and compliance to the 2009 annual average emissions of 0.16 lb/MMBtu for Units 1
increased cycling to back up renewable rate, and set a limit at 0.15 lb/MMBtu. and 2 between January and October
energy generation, the State concluded Because short-term emissions increases 2010.12 Therefore, Colorado imposed an
that a 0.20 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling and decreases should average out over annual emission limit that was lower
average emission limit was appropriate the course of any single year, we believe than the then most recent partial-year
for both units. that setting the BART annual emission figures for Units 1 and 2.
As a general matter, EPA finds it limit at about the annual emission rate The commenter also argues that the
appropriate and reasonable to allow a from 2009 is reasonable, unless there is 30-day rolling average limits of 0.20 lb/
margin for compliance in setting 30-day evidence that the source was not MMBtu would allow emission increases
rolling average BART limits, and we properly operated in 2009 or that annual because the actual 30-day rolling
have approved other state BART average source operating conditions in average rates have consistently been
determinations that included such 2009 were unrepresentative of future below this number. Annual emissions
margins. The shorter 30-day averaging operations. The commenter has not are controlled by the SIP’s limit of 0.15
period results in higher variability in alleged that there is any such evidence. lb/MMBtu for the average of the two
emissions because of load variation, The commenter does assert that the 0.15 unit’s annual average emission rates,
startup, shutdown, and other factors. lb/MMBtu annual limit would allow an and would be so controlled even if there
Accordingly, we have not generally increase in actual emissions if both were no 30-day limits at all. The issue
required that 30-day rolling average units operate at the BART limit. The of whether the State and EPA correctly
emission limits be equal to the annual potential emissions increase calculated assessed how well the annual limit will
emission rates used for calculating cost- by the commenter, however, would only control annual emissions was addressed
effectiveness. We find the State’s be 14 tons of NOX per year. A 14-ton above. Therefore, EPA understands that
application of a margin for compliance increase is not significant when this comment regarding the 30-day
here consistent with that approach. compared to the annual NOX emissions limits of 0.20 lb/MMBtu is meant to
The compliance margin included for of approximately 3,860 tons from address the possibility that the emission
the Comanche units is larger than we Comanche Units 1 and 2; it does not rate of one or both units in 30-day
would generally expect. But we find warrant disapproval and a subsequent periods may be higher than 0.15 lb/
that with respect to Comanche, the FIP.10 MMBtu, while the source could still
compliance margin is unlikely to lead to The commenter alleges, but does not comply with respect to the annual
significant actual NOX emissions support or quantify, a ‘‘likely’’ further average limit by having lower emissions
increases. After all, the lower Comanche increase (beyond the claimed 14-ton in other 30-day periods. EPA agrees that
emissions cited by the commenter increase) based on the potential for one this is possible, but the State modeled
occurred under permit limits identical unit to exceed 0.15 lb/MMBtu while the the baseline visibility impact of the
to those the State selected as BART, and combined rate remains below that limit. source assuming a constant emission
the commenter has provided no This comment appears to be referring to rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, so the possibility
evidence that the facility will change its a scenario in which the unit operating has been fully considered.
operations just because the State has above 0.15 lb/MMBtu would have a
adopted the permit limits as BART higher heat input than the unit 11 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal,
Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for
8 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, 9 Guardians’ Comments at 8. BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for Options For Public Service Company—Comanche
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
10 Discussing state flexibility to exempt de
BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control minimis emission levels from a BART analysis, the Station, Units 1 and 2, at 2, Table 1: Comanche
Options For Public Service Company—Comanche BART Guidelines make a similar point: ‘‘If a State Units 1 and 2 Technical Information (EPA–R08–
Station, Units 1 and 2, at 17–19 (EPA–R08–OAR– were to undertake a BART analysis for emissions OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 297 (citing boiler
2011–0770–0013, PDF pages 312–14); see also of less than 40 tons of SO2 or NOX . . . from a ratings of 3,531 MMBtu/hr for Unit 1 and 3,482
Appendix C—Technical Support Documents for source, it is unlikely to result in anything but a MMBtu/hr for Unit 2).
BART Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770– trivial improvement in visibility. This is because 12 January–October 2010 is the most recent annual
0017), Attachment 5: Public Service Company— reducing emissions at these levels would have little average emission rate period discussed by Colorado
Comanche Station Units 1 and 2 Technical effect on regional emissions loadings or visibility in the regional haze SIP. See id. at 18 (PDF page
Analysis. impairment.’’ 70 FR at 39117. 313).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30053/page/3.svg)
![29956 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
For these reasons, we have lb/MMBtu—not 0.07 lb/MMBtu.15 (The and 1,636 tpy (Unit 2) compared to a
determined that while the State could latter figure was the 30-day rolling 2009 baseline level and cost-
have better explained the basis for the average rate, not the annual average as effectiveness values of $13,670 and
margin for compliance it allowed, a the commenter contends.16) Therefore, $8,956 per ton for Units 1 and 2,
more robust analysis would not have led the relevant comparison for the respectively.21 Considering that these
it to reach a different conclusion as to commenter’s purpose would be between adjusted cost-effectiveness values
the NOX emission limits for Comanche the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual average rate remain high and (as discussed below)
Units 1 and 2. In its next regional haze that the State used and the 0.05 lb/ the extent of the benefits associated
SIP, the State can review the longer MMBtu annual average emission rate with SCR remains low, we do not
history of emissions from Comanche that the commenter prefers. believe that the impact on the BART
that will be available then, and consider Using the 0.061 lb/MMBtu annual analysis would have led to a different
whether a downward adjustment in the average emission rate, Colorado conclusion if Colorado had used the
emission limit is appropriate to ensure estimated emissions of 740 tpy for Unit more stringent emission rate. Therefore,
the best possible operation of the 1 and 869 tpy for Unit 2 with SCR.17 we conclude that the State’s use of 0.061
emission controls. Based on those estimated emissions, the lb/MMBtu to evaluate the cost-
Comment: The commenter asserts that State calculated emission reductions of effectiveness of SCR at Comanche is not
the State failed to appropriately assess 770.4 tpy for Unit 1 and 1,480 tpy for grounds for disapproval.
the cost of SCR, by assuming that SCR Unit 2, compared to a baseline level of
would achieve an emission rate of 0.07 emissions measured in 2009 that Comment: The commenter states that
lb/MMBtu on an annual average basis. reflected the installation of LNB/OFA Colorado appears to have overestimated
But, according to the commenter, EPA controls.18 Based on these reductions, the capital cost of SCR, in that the
has noted that SCR can achieve the State derived cost-effectiveness State’s reliance on the CUECost model
emission rates as low as 0.04 lb/MMBtu values for SCR of $15,920 per ton and led to artificially inflated capital costs.
on an annual basis, and a 0.05 lb/ $9,900 per ton for Units 1 and 2, According to the commenter, both EPA
MMBtu emission rate on an annual respectively.19 It is a simple exercise to and the National Park Service (NPS)
average basis is a more appropriate insert the annual average emission rate previously commented to the State that
benchmark from which to assess the of 0.05 lb/MMBtu into the State’s the State should have used EPA’s
cost-effectiveness of SCR. The technical analysis spreadsheet.20 Doing Control Cost Manual, and both noted
commenter claims that because the State so, we can see that using the figure the that the CUECost model relied upon by
did not assess the cost-effectiveness of commenter recommends would have the State is not appropriate. The
SCR based on a rate of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, produced estimated emission levels of commenter argues that the State does
the State did not reasonably take into about 609 tpy for Unit 1 and 713 tpy for not explain in the record why its use of
account the cost of compliance with Unit 2 with SCR, which in turn give CUECost was reasonable, particularly in
SCR in accordance with the CAA. The emission reductions of 897 tpy (Unit 1) light of the concerns expressed by EPA
commenter adds that although EPA and and the NPS.22
the State may claim that SCR would not 15 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal,
Response: We agree that there were
be cost-effective in any case, there is no Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for
flaws in Colorado’s approach to
support for such an assertion, and BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company—Comanche estimating the costs of SCR for the
without an adequate case-specific cost Station, Units 1 and 2, Tables 10 and 11, at 20–21 Comanche BART units, and that the
analysis, there is no support for (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF pages 315–16; CUECost model likely yielded an
concluding that SCR is unreasonable, see also Technical Support Documents for BART
inflated cost estimate. In the referenced
particularly for Unit 2.13 Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770–0017),
Attachment: Public Service Company—Cmanche correspondence, EPA stated that ‘‘the
Response: We disagree with this
Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (.xls CUECost model yields high capital costs
comment. We have reviewed the format spreadsheet file, tabs ‘‘Comanche 1 NOX’’ for the Comanche facility,’’ and
information in the administrative record and ‘‘Comanche 2 NOX’’). There is an
suggested that the capital costs
for this action again, and we find that inconsequential (approx. 0.33%) difference between
the Unit 1 baseline numbers in these two parts of calculated would have been
our previous conclusion is still correct.
the record; the discussion in this rule uses the 1506 approximately 50% lower if the CCM
We agree that SCR can achieve annual tpy figure from the State’s technical analysis had been followed.23 But even if we
NOX emission rates of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, spreadsheet.
reduce the capital cost estimates by that
and that ideally Colorado would have 16 Id.
percentage, and also adjust the emission
used this value when assessing the SCR 17 Id.
18 ‘‘[T]he Division used years 2009 (annual rate as discussed in the previous
control option.14 But if the State had
averages and 30-day rolling) for baseline emissions comment, we believe that the cost of
done so, the marginally lower emissions for reduction and cost calculations.’’ Colorado SCR at Comanche would still be high
would not have caused the State to Regional Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical compared to the visibility benefits, and
reach a different conclusion as to what Support Documents for BART Determination),
technology is BART. BART Analysis of Control Options For Public
Service Company—Comanche Station, Units 1 and 21 For Unit 1, the State also calculated an
First, we note that the comment 2, at 3 (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 298); incremental value to assess the cost-effectiveness of
misstates the rate that Colorado actually see also id., Table 2 (‘‘PSCo Comanche Units 1 & SCR over SNCR. Even after making the correction
used for the purpose of calculating cost- 2 Baseline Emissions’’). to an assumed annual average rate of 0.05 lb/
effectiveness. In the Comanche NOX 19 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, MMBtu as described above, this value remains very
Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for high: $23,497 per ton.
BART analysis, the State assumed an
BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control 22 Guardians’ Comments at 9.
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
annual emissions rate for SCR of 0.061 Options For Public Service Company—Comanche 23 Letter from Callie Videtich, EPA, to Paul
Station, Units 1 and 2, Tables 10–13, at 20–21 (R08– Tourangeau, CDPHE (Oct. 26, 2010), at 8–9 (EPA–
13 Guardians’ Comments at 9. OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF pages 315–16). R08–OAR–2011–0770–0043, Attachment 19). EPA
14 Throughout this notice, our references to the 20 See Technical Support Documents for BART stated that using the CCM to assess SCR capital
use of SCR at Comanche incorporate the effects of Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770–0017), costs for the Comanche BART units yielded an
LNB/OFA. Thus, when we discuss comparing the Attachment: Public Service Company—Comanche estimate of approximately $120/kW, as opposed to
effects of SCR against the baseline, we are Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Analysis (Excel the $247/kW (Unit 1) and $248/kW (Unit 2) derived
comparing SCR operating with LNB/OFA against spreadsheet file, tabs ‘‘Comanche 1 NOX’’and from the CUECost model. Id. This ratio of dollars
the post-2009 baseline of LNB/OFA alone. ‘‘Comanche 2 NOX’’). per kW results in a 51.6% lower estimate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30053/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29957
that Colorado’s decision not to require increased emissions, and therefore reduction in emission rate to 0.05 lb/
SCR would still be reasonable. would not improve visibility. On the MMBtu would be similarly small.29
Specifically, cutting the capital cost other hand, states the commenter, SCR As mentioned previously, the State
estimate by 51.6%, and using the more would appear to provide significant explained that, in its view, SCR for NOX
stringent 0.05 lb/MMBtu emission rate visibility improvements. The control will generally be reasonable
discussed in the previous comment, commenter argues that for Unit 2 this is when costs do not exceed $5,000 per ton
produces cost-effectiveness values of especially significant because SCR was of pollutant reduced, and when the
$9,319 and $6,481 per ton for employing the only available technology analyzed controls provide a modeled visibility
SCR at Units 1 and 2, respectively.24 for BART.26 benefit of 0.50 dv or greater at the
Thus, even after addressing both of the primary Class I Area affected.30 While
Response: We disagree with this we agree with the State that these
cost issues raised by the commenter, the
comment. In relation to the high costs, guidance criteria should not be used as
cost-effectiveness values remain high.
the visibility benefits of SCR at absolute determinants of BART
Also, as discussed below in response to
Comanche are not sufficiently large to outcomes, they are in general consistent
another comment, we have concluded
warrant disapproval of the State’s BART with the decisions that other states and
that the visibility benefits that would
result from SCR are insufficient to determination. We would come to this EPA have made when considering
justify these high costs. Accordingly, we conclusion regardless of whether the whether to require SCR as NOX BART,
do not believe that Colorado would have cost component of the BART analysis and generally reflect a reasonable
reached a different NOX BART involved the State’s original figures or balancing of the BART factors. In this
conclusion if it had used the CCM in its the adjusted figures discussed above in case, we expect that even using the SCR
analysis (as well as the more stringent response to previous comments. The emission rate requested by the
emission rate discussed previously). State estimated that SCR would produce commenter, the visibility improvement
In its SIP, the State explained that, in visibility improvements of 0.14 dv (Unit from SCR would fall well below the
its view, SCR for NOX control would 1) and 0.17 dv (Unit 2) as compared to State’s criteria. Judging these visibility
generally be reasonable if costs did not the 2009 post-LNB/OFA baseline.27 This improvements against the fairly high
exceed $5,000 per ton of pollutant level of expected visibility improvement cost of SCR (again, even after
reduced, and if the controls provided a from SCR is insufficient to cause us to adjustment to reflect the comments), we
modeled visibility benefit of 0.50 conclude that the State’s BART find that the State’s decision not to
deciviews (dv) or greater at the primary determination is unreasonable. impose SCR was reasonable.
Class I Area affected.25 Considering the As discussed above in response to a The commenter incorrectly asserted
State’s guidance, it is clear that making previous comment, we recognize that that the State’s BART determination was
the adjustments that the commenter the State did not use the 0.05 lb/MMBtu based on the assumption that existing
requests would not lead to a different emission rate that accurately represents controls would improve visibility
outcome. Therefore, considering all the the performance capabilities of SCR. compared to current levels. Colorado
BART factors, we do not see a basis to Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect did not claim that its BART emission
conclude that using a lower capital cost limits would result in visibility benefits
that the State would have estimated
estimate, combined with a 0.05 lb/ compared to current levels (that is,
slightly greater visibility benefits from
MMBtu emission rate for SCR, would compared to the 2009 post-LNB/OFA
SCR if it had used the 0.05 lb/MMBtu
have led the State to reach a different emissions baseline). The State did note
rate. In EPA’s judgment, however, the
conclusion or should lead us to that the existing level of control
visibility benefits compared to the 2009
disapprove the State’s BART provided benefits when compared to the
baseline would have remained modest. 2004 baseline, which is true. But while
determination. We note, for instance, that in the State’s
Comment: The commenter states that Colorado referred to both a pre-LNB/
analysis of Comanche Unit 1, the OFA baseline and a 2009 baseline when
Colorado and EPA may claim that, even difference in visibility benefit between
if the costs were accurately assessed, the discussing visibility benefits, the State
selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) actually used only the 2009 baseline in
visibility benefits of SCR would not be (with a NOX emission rate of 0.10 lb/
significant, but that there is no support calculating cost-effectiveness, and
MMBtu) and SCR (with a NOX emission likewise relied on visibility benefits
for this assertion. According to the rate of 0.07 lb/MMBtu) is only 0.03 dv.28
commenter, it appears that Colorado’s based on the 2009 baseline in making
We conclude that the impact of a further the BART determination for
assessment of visibility improvements is
based on an assumption that the 26 Guardians’ Comments at 9–10. 29 Thus, comparing the SNCR and SCR numbers,
proposed BART limits, which the 27 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, we see that a NOX emissions rate reduction from
commenter refers to as the ‘‘do nothing’’ Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 0.10 to 0.07 lb/MMBtu is reflected in a visibility
BART limits, would actually improve BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control improvement from 0.11 to 0.14 dv. If we assume,
visibility. But, the commenter claims, Options For Public Service Company—Comanche for the purpose of conservatively estimating
Station, Units 1 and 2, Table 15, at 24 (R08–OAR– visibility improvements, that there is a linear
the proposed BART limits would allow 2011–0770–0013, PDF page 319). As discussed relationship between emission reductions and
below, the table also includes information on visibility improvement, then further reducing the
24 The 51.6% adjustment to capital cost can be improvements over the pre-control baseline; this NOX emission rate from 0.07 to 0.05 lb/MMBtu
made by multiplying the ‘‘total capital costs’’ information is illustrative and was not the basis for might cause visibility improvements at Units 1 and
figures on the State’s technical analysis spreadsheet the BART determination or for our approval of the 2 to increase from 0.14 and 0.178 dv to
by 0.484. See Technical Support Documents for State’s action. approximately 0.16 and 0.198 dv. See Approval and
BART Determination (EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0770– 28 What are labeled by the State as ‘‘NO emission Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
X
0017), Attachment: Public Service Company— rates’’ (e.g., Table 15 of their analysis) are actually State of Florida; Regional Haze State
Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical the 30-day emission limits. See Colorado Regional Implementation Plan, 78 FR 53250, 53267 (Aug. 29,
Analysis (.xls format spreadsheet file, tabs Haze Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support 2013) (‘‘[A]n assumption of a linear response to
‘‘Comanche 1 NOX’’ and ‘‘Comanche 2 NOX’’). In Documents for BART Determination), BART changes in emissions is a reasonable estimation and
addition to capital costs, the cost-effectiveness Analysis of Control Options For Public Service the simplified methodology used for these BART
calculations incorporate operating and maintenance Company—Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, Table determinations likely provides conservative
costs, which the commenter did not challenge. 15, at 24 (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page overestimates of visibility impact reductions.’’).
25 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52 319). Actual 30-day emission rates have been lower. 30 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal at 52
(R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 53). See id. at 18 (PDF page 313). (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF page 53).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30053/page/5.svg)
![29958 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Comanche.31 We have reviewed the Therefore, it was appropriate for the reductions than an emission rate of 0.20
visibility estimates and cost calculations State to use the 2009 emissions baseline, lb/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average.
that the State relied on when making its which reflected the reductions achieved According to the commenter, although
BART determination for Comanche and by LNB/OFA, in its BART analysis for the State asserts that the visibility
have confirmed that they were based on Comanche. improvement from SNCR would amount
comparisons to the 2009 baseline.32 Finally, we addressed the assertion to 0.11 dv, it is unclear why such
It was correct for the State to use the that the State’s BART limits would lead improvements are not reasonable or are
2009 baseline for NOX emissions from to increased emissions in our response insignificant, particularly given that the
Units 1 and 2 in the BART to a previous comment. The commenter purpose of BART is to reduce or
determination. The CAA requires that, has failed to offer any support for this eliminate visibility impairment. The
in making BART determinations, states claim, and we do not find any basis to commenter argues that there is no
and EPA take into consideration ‘‘any conclude that increased emissions will explanation in the record supporting the
existing pollution control technology in result from the State’s BART limits. State’s assertion. Further, the
use at the source.’’ 33 As we explained For the above reasons, while we agree commenter argues that it appears as if
in detail in our final action on the that SCR at Comanche Units 1 and 2 the State’s assessment of visibility
Wyoming regional haze SIP, this would result in visibility improvements, improvements is based on an incorrect
consideration should generally we find that the State reasonably assumption that the proposed BART
incorporate controls into baseline concluded that those visibility limit would actually improve visibility.
emissions if the controls were installed improvements would not be sufficient The commenter states that when
to comply with CAA requirements other to justify the cost involved. compared to the real impacts of the
than the BART requirement.34 That is Comment: The commenter states that State’s proposed BART limit for
exactly what happened with respect to it is unclear why Colorado rejected Comanche Unit 1, SNCR appears to
Comanche Units 1 and 2. The controls SNCR for Comanche Unit 1, particularly provide significant visibility
in question had been placed on these because the proposed BART limit for improvements, because, as opposed to
units to ‘‘net out’’ of Prevention of Unit 1 is less stringent than Unit 1’s the proposed BART limit, SNCR would
Significant Deterioration (PSD) review current actual emissions. Citing EPA actually achieve improvements.
requirements for NOX and SO2 figures, the commenter asserts that Unit Therefore, the commenter concludes,
emissions from the new Unit 3.35 1 would meet a 30-day rolling average EPA must promulgate a FIP that
emission rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu under establishes an appropriate NOX BART
31 Colorado stated in the SIP that ‘‘the Division
an SNCR scenario. The commenter limit for Comanche Unit 1.37
used year[ ] 2009 (annual averages and 30-day Response: The commenter is correct
rolling) for baseline emissions for reduction and notes that the State found that the cost
cost calculations.’’ See Colorado Regional Haze of $3,644 per ton of NOX reduced and that the State predicted that SNCR
Submittal, Appendix C (Technical Support the perceived ‘‘low visibility would result in additional improvement
Documents for BART Determination), BART
improvement’’ warranted a in visibility over the control technology
Analysis of Control Options For Public Service that the State selected as BART.
Company—Comanche Station, Units 1 and 2, at 20– determination that SNCR was not
21, 24 (R08–OAR–2011–0770–0013, PDF pages reasonable for Unit 1. The commenter However, this does not mean that the
315–16, 319); see also Appendix C—Technical
asserts, however, that this cost is CAA or our regulations required the
Support Documents for BART Determination (EPA– State to select SNCR as BART. For the
R08–OAR–2011–0770–0017), Attachment 5: Public squarely within the range of what
Service Company—Comanche Station Units 1 and Colorado considers to be cost- reasons stated above, we find that it was
2 Technical Analysis. Likewise, the State’s BART reasonable for the State to reject SNCR
effective.36
determination cites only the 0.14 dv and 0.17dv based on consideration of all five BART
visibility improvement numbers derived from Response: We find that the State’s
factors. We agree that SNCR would
comparison to the 2009 baseline. See Colorado rejection of SNCR was reasonable based
Regional Haze Submittal at 66 (R08–OAR–2011– result in visibility improvements, but as
on its weighing of the BART factors. The
0770–0013, PDF page 67). with SCR, we agree with the State’s
State concluded that the cost of SNCR
32 In replying to this comment and one other assessment that the visibility
comment in the December 2012 final approval, we was not warranted given the relatively
improvements were insufficient to
inadvertently made a confusing statement modest 0.11 dv visibility improvement
concerning the applicable baselines. In that notice, justify the cost involved.
that would result. Even if a control Regarding the commenter’s claim that
we stated that Colorado had ‘‘assessed the benefit
of control options relative to both the subject-to-
technology is cost-effective on a dollar the State’s selected limits will lead to an
BART baseline and to the installation of new low- per ton basis, a state may conclude that increase in emissions, as discussed
NOX burners (LNB) [with over-fire air] in 2007 and the control technology is not warranted above in detail, the commenter has
2008.’’ Further, we noted that ‘‘relative to the based on a reasonable consideration of
subject-to-BART baseline, Colorado’s BART presented no evidence that any
selection (combustion controls), does in fact show all five BART factors. emissions increase will occur.
visibility improvement.’’ These statements Comment: The commenter states that
appeared to suggest that it was appropriate for Colorado’s analysis indicates that SNCR III. Final Action
Colorado to use a 2009 baseline when evaluating
the benefits of SNCR and SCR, but a 2004 (pre-LNB/
would achieve greater emission With respect to the Comanche Station,
OFA) baseline to evaluate the State’s proposed EPA is re-finalizing its approval of the
BART option. That was not our intention. Our BART Determination), BART Analysis of Control
Options For Public Service Company—Comanche
Colorado regional haze SIP submitted
reference to the 2004 subject-to-BART baseline—
that is, to the emissions level before the installation Station, Units 1 and 2, at 1 (R08–OAR–2011–0770– on May 25, 2011. Because this re-
of the LNB/OFA, which were required to comply 0013, PDF page 1) (‘‘As part of that [2004 finalization merely gives additional
with non-BART CAA requirements—was merely an construction] project, PSCo proposed to install explanation in response to comments
observation, by which we intended to show that the control devices on the existing units.’’); see also
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
installation of those controls had produced real air Colorado Operating Permit # 96OPPB133
and does not alter any previous
quality improvements over previous levels. That (Comanche Station) (‘‘. . . PSCo proposed to install determinations, it does not affect any
illustration was not, however, intended to be part NOX controls (low NOX burners with over-fire air) applicable SIP compliance deadlines.
of our evaluation of the State’s cost or visibility on both Units 1 and 2 . . . to ‘net-out’ of Prevention Our action is based on an evaluation of
analyses. of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review
33 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2). requirements for NOX and SO2’’), posted at https://
Colorado’s regional haze SIP submittal
34 79 FR 5032, 5104–05 (Jan. 30, 2014). www.colorado.gov/pacific/cdphe/operating- for Comanche against the regional haze
35 See Colorado Regional Haze Submittal, permits-company-index.
Appendix C (Technical Support Documents for 36 Guardians’ Comments at 10. 37 Guardians’ Comments at 10.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30053/page/6.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29959
requirements at 40 CFR 51.300–51.309 Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
and CAA sections 169A and 169B. All 1999); Environmental protection, Air
general SIP requirements contained in • Is not an economically significant pollution control, Incorporation by
CAA section 110, other provisions of the regulatory action based on health or reference, Intergovernmental relations,
CAA, and our regulations applicable to safety risks subject to Executive Order Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,
this action were also evaluated. The 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Sulfur oxides.
purpose of this action is to ensure • Is not a significant regulatory action
compliance with these requirements subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Dated: May 8, 2015.
and to provide additional rationale to 28355, May 22, 2001); Debra H. Thomas,
support our conclusions. • Is not subject to requirements of Acting Regional Administrator Region 8.
Section 12(d) of the National 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
IV. Incorporation by Reference Technology Transfer and Advancement
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because PART 52—APPROVAL AND
regulatory text that includes this action does not involve the use of PROMULGATION OF
incorporation by reference. In measurement or other standards; and IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR • Does not provide EPA with the
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the discretionary authority to address, as ■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52
incorporation by reference of Colorado appropriate, disproportionate human continues to read as follows:
revisions to its SIP to address the health or environmental effects, using Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
requirements of EPA’s regional haze practicable and legally permissible
rule discussed in section III, Final methods, under Executive Order 12898 Subpart G—Colorado
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Action, of this preamble. The EPA has
• The SIP is not approved to apply on ■ 2. Section 52.320 is amended by
made, and will continue to make, these
any Indian reservation land or in any revising paragraph (c)(124) introductory
documents generally available other area where EPA or an Indian tribe text to read as follows:
electronically through has demonstrated that a tribe has
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian § 52.320 Identification of plan.
copy at the appropriate EPA office (see country, the rule does not have tribal * * * * *
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble implications and will not impose (c) * * *
for more information). substantial direct costs on tribal (124) On May 25, 2011 the State of
V. Statutory and Executive Order governments or preempt tribal law as Colorado submitted revisions to its State
Reviews specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Implementation Plan to address the
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). requirements of EPA’s regional haze
Under the Clean Air Act, the The Congressional Review Act, 5 rule. On December 31, 2012, EPA issued
Administrator is required to approve a U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small a final rule approving this submittal and
SIP submission that complies with the Business Regulatory Enforcement responding to public comments. On
provisions of the Act and applicable Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides May 26, 2015 EPA reissued the final
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); that before a rule may take effect, the rule with respect to the nitrogen oxides
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP agency promulgating the rule must (NOX) best available retrofit technology
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve submit a rule report, which includes a (BART) determination for the Comanche
state choices, provided that they meet copy of the rule, to each House of the Generating Station to provide additional
the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Congress and to the Comptroller General responses to public comments.
Accordingly, this action merely of the United States. EPA will submit a * * * * *
approves state law as meeting federal report containing this action and other [FR Doc. 2015–12491 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am]
requirements and does not impose required information to the U.S. Senate, BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
additional requirements beyond those the U.S. House of Representatives, and
imposed by state law. For that reason, the Comptroller General of the United
this action: States prior to publication of the rule in ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory the Federal Register. A major rule AGENCY
action’’ subject to review by the Office cannot take effect until 60 days after it
of Management and Budget under is published in the Federal Register. 40 CFR Part 52
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as [EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0422; FRL–9927–90–
October 4, 1993); defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Region 3]
• Does not impose an information Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
collection burden under the provisions Air Act, petitions for judicial review of Approval and Promulgation of Air
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 this action must be filed in the United Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); States Court of Appeals for the Revisions to the Attainment Plans for
• Is certified as not having a appropriate circuit by July 27, 2015. the Commonwealth of Virginia Portion
significant economic impact on a Filing a petition for reconsideration by of the Washington, DC–MD–VA 1990 1-
substantial number of small entities the Administrator of this final rule does Hour and 1997 8-Hour Ozone
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 not affect the finality of this action for Nonattainment Areas and the
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); the purposes of judicial review nor does Maintenance Plan for the
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
• Does not contain any unfunded it extend the time within which a Fredericksburg 1997 8-Hour Ozone
mandate or significantly or uniquely petition for judicial review may be filed, Maintenance Area To Remove the
affect small governments, as described and shall not postpone the effectiveness Stage II Vapor Recovery Program
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of such rule or action. This action may AGENCY: Environmental Protection
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); not be challenged later in proceedings to Agency (EPA).
• Does not have federalism enforce its requirements. See section
ACTION: Direct final rule.
implications as specified in Executive 307(b)(2).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30053/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-21 10:31:31
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 10:31:31
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on June 25, 2015. | |
| Contact | Gail Fallon, Air Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6281, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 29953 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Particulate Matter and Sulfur Oxides |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR