[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 491-507]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33106]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846; FRL-9246-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Federal Implementation Plan for Interstate Transport of Pollution
Affecting Visibility and Best Available Retrofit Technology
Determination
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a portion of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New Mexico
for the purpose of addressing the ``good neighbor'' requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the 1997
8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or
standards) and the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
NAAQS. The SIP revision addresses the requirement that New Mexico's SIP
must have adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from adversely
affecting another state's air quality through interstate transport. In
this action, EPA is proposing to disapprove the New Mexico Interstate
Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do not
interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state under
part C of the CAA to protect visibility. In this action, EPA is also
proposing to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to prevent
emissions from New Mexico sources from interfering with other states'
measures to protect
[[Page 492]]
visibility, and to implement nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limits necessary at one source
to prevent such interference. In addition, EPA is proposing sulfuric
acid (H2SO4) and ammonia (NH3) hourly
emission limits at the same source, to minimize the contribution of
these compounds to visibility impairment. EPA is proposing monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with such
emission limitations. EPA also proposes that compliance with the
emission limits be within three (3) years of the effective date of our
final rule. Furthermore, EPA is proposing the FIP to address the
requirement for best available retrofit technology (BART) for
NOX for this source. This action is being taken under
section 110 and part C of the CAA.
DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before March 7, 2011.
Public Hearing. EPA intends to hold a public hearing in Farmington,
New Mexico to accept oral and written comments on the proposed
rulemaking. EPA will provide notice and additional details at least 30
days prior to the hearing in the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2010-0846, by one of the following methods:
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
EPA Region 6 ``Contact Us'' Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/r6coment.htm. Please click on ``6PD (Multimedia)'' and select
``Air'' before submitting comments.
E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at [email protected]. Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.
Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-
0846. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The state submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the New Mexico Environment
Department, Air Quality Bureau, 1301 Siler Road, Building B, Santa Fe,
New Mexico 87507.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joe Kordzi, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7186, fax number
(214) 665-7263; e-mail address [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.
Outline
I. Overview of Proposed Action
II. Background
A. SIP and FIP Background
B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Addressing Interstate
Transport and Visibility
1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
2. Visibility Protection
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
4. The Western Regional Air Partnership and Evaluation of
Regional Haze Impacts
III. Our Evaluation
A. New Mexico's Interstate Transport
B. Federal Implementation Plan To Address Interstate Transport
and Visibility and the BART Requirements for NOX
1. Additional SO2 Emission Limits for the SJGS
2. Need for Additional NOX Controls
3. NOX BART Evaluation
a. The SJGS Is a BART Eligible Source
b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART
c. The SJGS NOX BART Determination
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Overview of Proposed Action
We are proposing to disapprove a portion of the SIP revision
submitted by the State of New Mexico for the purpose of addressing the
``good neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
respect to visibility for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
PM2.5 NAAQS. As a result of the proposed disapproval, we are
also proposing a FIP to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility to ensure that emissions
from New Mexico sources do not interfere with the visibility programs
of other states. We are proposing to find that New Mexico sources,
other than one, are
[[Page 493]]
sufficiently controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility
programs of other states, and for the one remaining source we are
proposing to impose specific emissions limits that will eliminate such
interstate interference. We are simultaneously evaluating whether the
source at issue meets certain other related requirements under the
Regional Haze (RH) program. As a result of this evaluation, we are
likewise proposing to find that the proposed controls for the source at
issue will address the NOX BART requirements of the RH
program. In this action, we are not addressing whether the state has
met other requirements of the RH program and will address those
requirements in later actions.
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the Act requires that states have a
SIP, or submit a SIP revision, containing provisions ``prohibiting any
source or other type of emission activity within the state from
emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will * * * interfere with
measures required to be included in the applicable implementation plan
for any other State under part C [of the CAA] to protect visibility.''
Because of the impacts on visibility from the interstate transport
of pollutants, we interpret the ``good neighbor'' provisions of section
110 of the Act described above as requiring states to include in their
SIPs measures to prohibit emissions that would interfere with the
reasonable progress goals set to protect Class I areas in other states.
New Mexico submitted a SIP to address these requirements in September
2007. In this action, we are proposing to disapprove the New Mexico SIP
submission as not meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility. The SIP submission made
by the state anticipated the timely submission of a substantive RH SIP
submission as the means of meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). New Mexico has yet to submit such a RH SIP. In
addition, the state has not revised its submission to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility
by any alternative means.
By December 17, 2007, each State with one or more Class I Federal
areas was also required to submit a RH SIP that included goals that
provide for reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility
conditions. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). We previously found that New Mexico
had failed to submit a complete RH SIP by December 17, 2007. 74 FR 2392
(January 15, 2009). This finding started a two year clock for the
promulgation of a RH FIP by EPA or the approval of a complete RH SIP
from New Mexico. CAA Sec. 110(c)(1).
To address the above concerns, we are also proposing to promulgate
a FIP that ensures that emissions from New Mexico sources do not
interfere with other states' measures to protect visibility in
accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, and also to address the requirements
under the RH program for BART by imposing limits for NOX for
the San Juan Generating Station (SJGS).\1\ This FIP will limit the
emissions of SO2 and NOX from the SJGS. Together,
the reduction in NOX from our proposed NOX BART
determination, and the proposed SO2 emission limits to
establish federal enforceability of current SO2 levels will
serve to ensure there are enforceable mechanisms in place to prohibit
New Mexico NOX and SO2 emissions from interfering
with efforts to protect visibility in other states pursuant to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. NOX
and SO2 are significant contributors to visibility
impairment in and around New Mexico. As the Four Corners Task Force
notes,\2\ ``[r]eduction of NOX is particularly important to
improve visibility at Mesa Verde National Park, which is 43 km away
from SJGS. * * * [V]isibility has degraded at Mesa Verde over the past
decade, and the portion of degradation due to nitrate has increased
(while there has been no trend in degradation due to sulfate).'' For
NOX emissions, we are proposing to require the SJGS to meet
an emission limit of 0.05 pounds per million British Thermal Units (lb/
MMBtu) at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4, representing an approximately 83%
reduction from the SJGS's baseline NOX emissions. This
NOX limit is achievable by installing and operating
Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR). For SO2, we are
proposing to require the SJGS to meet an emission limit of 0.15 lb/
MMBtu. Both of these emission limits would be measured on the basis of
a 30-day rolling average. We are also proposing hourly average emission
limits for sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and ammonia
(NH3) for the SJGS, to minimize the contribution of these
compounds to visibility impairment of Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Unless otherwise specified, when we say the ``San Juan
Generating Station,'' or ``SJGS,'' we mean units 1, 2, 3, and 4,
inclusive.
\2\ Power Plants Section, Four Corners Air Quality Task Force,
Report of Mitigation Options, November 1, 2007, available at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/4C/Docs/4CAQTF_Report_FINAL_PowerPlants.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we propose that compliance with the emission limits be
within three (3) years of the effective date of our final rule.
Additionally, we are proposing monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements to ensure compliance with emission limitations. Please see
Section IV (Proposed Action) and the proposed regulation language at
the end of this Federal Register action for more information.
II. Background
A. SIP and FIP Background
The CAA requires each state to develop a plan that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. CAA section
110(a). We establish NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the
NAAQS address six (6) criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen
dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide. The plan
developed by a state is referred to as the SIP. The content of the SIP
is specified in section 110 of the CAA, other provisions of the CAA,
and applicable regulations. A primary purpose of the SIP is to provide
the air pollution regulations, control strategies, and other means or
techniques developed by the state to ensure that the ambient air within
that state meets the NAAQS. However, another important aspect of the
SIP is to ensure that emissions from within the state do not have
certain prohibited impacts upon the ambient air in other states through
the interstate transport of pollutants. CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
States are required to update or revise SIPs under certain
circumstances. See CAA section 110(a)(1). One such circumstance is our
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Id. Each state must submit
these revisions to us for approval and incorporation into the
federally-enforceable SIP.
If a State fails to make a required SIP submittal or if we find
that the State's submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must
promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. CAA section 110(c)(1). As
discussed elsewhere in this notice, we have made findings related to
New Mexico SIP revisions needed to address interstate transport and the
requirement that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere
with measures required in the SIP of any other state to protect
visibility, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA. We are
proposing a FIP to address the deficiencies in the New Mexico
Interstate Transport SIP.
[[Page 494]]
B. Statutory and Regulatory Framework Addressing Interstate Transport
and Visibility
1. The 1997 NAAQS for Ozone and PM2.5 and CAA
110(a)(2)(D)(i)
On July 18, 1997, we promulgated new NAAQS for 8-hour ozone and for
PM2.5. 62 FR 38652. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to address a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years
after promulgation of such standards, or within such shorter period as
we may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA lists the elements that
such new SIPs must address, as applicable, including section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which pertains to the interstate transport of certain
emissions.
On April 25, 2005, we published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit
SIPs for Interstate Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
NAAQS.'' 70 FR 21147. This included a finding that New Mexico and other
states had failed to submit SIPs for interstate transport of air
pollution affecting visibility, and started a 2-year clock for the
promulgation of a FIP by us, unless a State made a submission to meet
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and we approved the
submission. Id.
On August 15, 2006, we issued our ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' (2006
Guidance). We developed the 2006 Guidance to make recommendations to
states for making submissions to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone standards and the 1997
PM2.5 standards.
As identified in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA require each state to
submit a SIP that prohibits emissions that adversely affect another
state in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of
interstate transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the state from
emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states; (2) interfere with
maintenance of the NAAQS in other states; (3) interfere with provisions
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other states; or
(4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states.
The 2006 Guidance stated that states may make a simple SIP
submission confirming that it was not possible at that time to assess
whether there is any interference with measures in the applicable SIP
for another state designed to ``protect visibility'' for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS until RH SIPs are submitted and
approved. RH SIPs were required to be submitted by December 17, 2007.
See 74 FR 2392 (January 15, 2009); see also discussion infra section
II.B.2.
On September 17, 2007 we received a SIP from New Mexico to address
the interstate transport provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997
8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. In this submission, the state
indicated that it intended to meet the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility by submission of a
timely RH SIP. To date, the state has not made a RH SIP submission. In
addition, the state has not made a submission demonstrating
noninterference with the visibility programs of other states in
accordance with section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) by any other means.
In prior actions, we approved the New Mexico SIP submittal for (1)
the ``significant contribution to nonattainment'' prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 33174, June 11, 2010) and (2) the ``interfere
with maintenance'' and ``interfere with measures to prevent significant
deterioration'' prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) (75 FR 72688,
November 26, 2010). In this action, we are proposing to disapprove the
New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP with respect to the requirement
that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures
required in the SIP of any other state to protect visibility. See CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). We are proposing to promulgate a FIP in
order to cure this defect in the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP.
2. Visibility Protection
In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing,
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \3\ which
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' CAA Sec. 169A(a)(1).
The terms ``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment''
are defined in the Act to include a reduction in visual range and
atmospheric discoloration. Id. section 169A(g)(6). In 1980, we
promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980). These regulations
represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. We
deferred action on RH that emanates from a variety of sources until
monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships
between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA section 162(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas
where visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 FR
69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area
includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions.
CAA section 162(a). Although states and tribes may designate as
Class I additional areas which they consider to have visibility as
an important value, the requirements of the visibility program set
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager'' (FLM). CAA section
302(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we
mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address RH
issues, and we promulgated regulations addressing RH in 1999. 64 FR
35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P (the
regional haze rule or RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility
regulations to integrate provisions addressing RH impairment and
established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I
areas. The requirements for RH, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are
included in our visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309.
States were required to submit the first SIP addressing RH visibility
impairment no later than December 17, 2007. 40 CFR 51.308(b).
On January 15, 2009, we published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit
State Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 regional haze rule.''
74 FR 2392. We found that New Mexico and other states had failed to
submit for our review and approval complete SIPs for improving
visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness areas by the
required date of December 17, 2007. We found that New Mexico failed to
submit the plan elements required by 40 CFR 51.309(g), the reasonable
progress requirements for areas other than the 16 Class I areas covered
by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report. New Mexico
also failed to submit the plan element required by 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4),
which
[[Page 495]]
requires BART for stationary source emissions of NOx and PM
under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2).\4\ This finding
started a 2-year clock for the promulgation of a FIP by EPA, unless the
State made a RH SIP submission and we approved it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NM has an option to submit a RH SIP under either section
51.308 or section 51.309. Although they have indicated their
preference is for the latter, the NOx BART FIP we are
proposing would apply to either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Best Available Retrofit Technology
Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of
retrofit controls at certain major stationary sources with the
potential to emit greater than 250 tons or more of any pollutant, in
order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically,
it requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may
be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility
goal, including a requirement that certain categories of existing major
stationary sources built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and
operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology,'' as determined by
the State or us in the case of a plan promulgated under section 110(c)
of the CAA. CAA section 169A(b)(2)(A). States are directed to conduct
BART determinations for such sources that may be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. The RHR
required all states to submit implementation plans that, among other
measures, contain either emission limits representing BART for certain
sources constructed between 1962 and 1977, or alternative measures that
provide for greater reasonable progress than BART. 40 CFR 51.308(e). On
July 6, 2005, we published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under
the Regional Haze Rule (``BART Guidelines'') to assist states in
determining which of their sources should be subject to the BART
requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for each
applicable source. 70 FR 39104.
The process of establishing BART emission limitations can be
logically broken down into three steps: first, states identify those
sources which meet the definition of ``BART-eligible source'' set forth
in 40 CFR 51.301 \5\; second, states determine whether each source
``emits any air pollutant which may reasonably be anticipated to cause
or contribute to any impairment of visibility in any such area'' (a
source which fits this description is ``subject to BART''); and third,
for each source subject to BART, states then identify the appropriate
type and the level of control for reducing emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ BART-eligible sources are those sources, which have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, that were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August
7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26
specifically listed source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must consider the following factors in making BART
determinations: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair
quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing pollution
control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining useful life
of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in visibility which
may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use of such
technology. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). Section 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(B)
requires that BART determinations for fossil fuel-fired electric
generating plants with a total generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts, must be made according to the BART Guidelines.\6\ A state is
encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making
BART determinations for other types of sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Appendix Y to 40 CFR Part 51--Guidelines for BART
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and
PM. We have stated that states should use their best judgment in
determining whether volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or ammonia
(NH3) and ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I
areas.
The Regional Planning Organizations (RPOs) provided air quality
modeling to the states to help them in determining whether potential
BART sources can be reasonably expected to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in a Class I area. Under the BART Guidelines,
states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling,
below which a BART-eligible source would not be expected to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. 70 FR 39104.
The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and
must state the basis for its selection of that value. Id. Any source
with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to
a BART determination review. Id. The BART Guidelines acknowledge
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at
issue and the magnitude of the individual sources' impacts. Id. Any
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5
deciview. Id.
The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric for
measuring visibility. Id. This visibility metric expresses uniform
changes in haziness in terms of common increments across the entire
range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy
conditions. Visibility is sometimes expressed in terms of the visual
range which is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which
a dark object can just be distinguished against the sky. The deciview
is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility,
because each deciview change is an equal incremental change in
visibility perceived by the human eye. Most people can detect a change
in visibility at one deciview.
A RH SIP must include source-specific BART emission limits and
compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. Once a state has
made its BART determination, the BART controls must be installed and in
operation as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five (5)
years after the date of our approval of the RH SIP. CAA section
169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by
the RHR, general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also
include all regulatory requirements related to monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting for the BART controls on the source. See
CAA section 110(a)(2).
4. The Western Regional Air Partnership and Evaluation of Regional Haze
Impacts
The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) is a voluntary
partnership of state, tribal, federal, and local air agencies dealing
with regional air quality issues in the West. Member states include
Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The
WRAP established various committees to assist in managing and
developing RH work products. New Mexico is a WRAP member. The WRAP
evaluates air quality impacts, including RH impacts, associated with
regionally significant emission sources. In so doing, the WRAP has
conducted air quality modeling. The states in the West have
[[Page 496]]
used this modeling to establish their reasonable progress goals for
RH.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ More information on WRAP and their work can be found on the
Internet at http://www.wrapair2.org and in the TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The RH program, as reflected in the regulations, recognizes the
importance of addressing the long-range transport of pollutants for
visibility and encourage states to work together to develop plans to
address haze. The regulations explicitly require each State to address
its ``share'' of the emission reductions needed to meet the reasonable
progress goals for surrounding Class I areas. States working together
through a regional planning process are required to address an agreed
upon share of their contribution to visibility impairment in the Class
I areas of their neighbors. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii). The States in the
West worked together through the WRAP to determine their contribution
to visibility impairment at the relevant federal Class I areas in the
region and the emissions reductions from each State needed to attain
the reasonable progress goals for each area. Regional planning
organizations (RPOs) such as the WRAP provided much of the technical
work necessary to develop RH SIPs, including the modeling used to
establish reasonable progress goals. The WRAP evaluated air quality
impacts, including RH impacts, associated with regionally significant
emission sources. In so doing, the WRAP conducted air quality modeling.
The modeling done by the RPOs relied on assumptions regarding emissions
over the relevant planning period. Embedded in these assumptions were
anticipated emissions reductions from each of the states in the RPO,
including reductions from BART and other measures to be adopted as part
of the states long-term strategy for addressing RH. The states in the
West, in turn, have used this modeling to establish their reasonable
progress goals for RH. The reasonable progress goals in the draft and
final RH SIPs that have now been prepared by states in the West
accordingly are based, in part, on the emissions reductions from nearby
states that were agreed on through the WRAP process.
III. Our Evaluation
A. New Mexico's Interstate Transport SIP
We received a SIP from New Mexico to address the interstate
transport provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone
and PM2.5 NAAQS on September 17, 2007. Concerning the
provision preventing sources in the state from emitting pollutants in
amounts which will interfere with efforts to protect visibility in
other states, New Mexico stated that:
New Mexico sources of emissions do not interfere with
implementation of reasonably attributable visibility impairment;
Its December 2003 RH SIP demonstrated reasonable progress
in reducing impacts on Class I areas on the Colorado Plateau;\8\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ In December, 2003, New Mexico submitted its RH SIP pursuant
to the requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the CAA and the
regional haze rule. However, in American Corn Growers Ass'n v. EPA,
291 F.3d 1 (DC Cir. 2002), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling vacating and remanding
the BART provisions of the regional haze rule. In 2006, EPA issued
BART guidelines to address the court's ruling in that case. See 70
FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). On January 13, 2009, New Mexico resubmitted
portions of its RH SIP, but not the requirements addressing
reasonable progress pursuant to 40 CFR 51.309(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2007 SIP update for RH will analyze any impacts from
New Mexico that extend beyond the Colorado Plateau and determine
appropriate long-term strategies for control measures. As mentioned
previously, New Mexico has yet to provide this SIP revision.
New Mexico's submission addressed the requirement that it not
interfere with the visibility programs of other states by stating that
it would submit an approvable RH SIP by December 2007. The state did
not otherwise establish that emissions from its sources would not
interfere with the visibility programs of other states. After
intervening events precluded the development of an approvable RH SIP,
the state did not make any subsequent SIP submission to address the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to impacts on
the visibility programs of other states. Consequently, because the
State did not submit a RH SIP or an alternative means of demonstrating
that emissions from its sources would not interfere with the visibility
programs of other States, we are proposing disapproval of the SIP
received September 17, 2007, with respect to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and
visibility protection. Further, as described in subsequent sections, we
are proposing that additional controls are necessary to prevent
emissions from New Mexico from interfering with measures to protect
visibility in other States.
B. Federal Implementation Plan To Address Interstate Transport and
Visibility and the BART Requirements for NOX
As an initial matter, we note that section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) does
not explicitly specify how we should ascertain whether a state's SIP
contains adequate provisions to prevent emissions from sources in that
state from interfering with measures required in another state to
protect visibility. Thus, the statute is ambiguous on its face, and we
must interpret that provision.
Our 2006 Guidance recommended that a state could meet the
visibility prong of the transport requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA by submission of the RH SIP, due in
December 2007. Our reasoning was that the development of the RH SIPs
was intended to occur in a collaborative environment among the states.
In fact, in developing their respective reasonable progress goals, WRAP
states consulted with each other through the WRAP's work groups.\9\ As
a result of this process, the common understanding was that each State
would take action to achieve the emissions reductions relied upon by
other states in their reasonable progress demonstrations under the RHR.
This effort included all states in the WRAP region contributing
information to a Technical Support System (TSS) which provides an
analysis of the causes of haze, and the levels of contribution from all
sources within each state to the visibility degradation of each Class I
area. The WRAP states consulted in the development of reasonable
progress goals, using the products of this technical consultation
process to co-develop their reasonable progress goals for the Western
Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Consultation provided through the WRAP have been documented
in calls and meetings on the WRAP Web site, available at http://www.wrapair.org/cal/calendar.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that the analysis conducted by the WRAP provides an
appropriate means for designing a FIP that will ensure that emissions
from sources in New Mexico are not interfering with the visibility
programs of other states, as contemplated in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). In developing their visibility projections using
photochemical grid modeling, the WRAP states assumed a certain level of
emissions from sources within New Mexico. Although we have not yet
received all RH SIPs, we understand that the WRAP states used the
visibility projection modeling to establish their own respective
reasonable progress goals. Thus, we believe that an implementation plan
that provides for emissions reductions consistent with the assumptions
used in the WRAP modeling will ensure that emissions from New Mexico
sources do not
[[Page 497]]
interfere with the measures designed to protect visibility in other
states.
Accordingly, we have reviewed the WRAP photochemical modeling
emission projections used in the demonstration of reasonable progress
towards natural visibility conditions and compared them to current
emission levels from sources in New Mexico. We have concluded that all
of the sources in New Mexico are achieving the emission levels assumed
by the WRAP in its modeling except for the SJGS. The WRAP modeling
assumed the SJGS's NOX emissions would be 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for
units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4, in 2018. The WRAP
modeling also assumed SO2 emissions would be 0.15 lbs/MMBtu
in 2018 for the four SJGS units.
The SJGS consists of four (4) coal-fired generating units and
associated support facilities. Each coal-fired unit burns pulverized
coal and No. 2 diesel oil (for startup) in a boiler, and produces high-
pressure steam which powers a steam turbine coupled with an electric
generator. Electric power produced by the units is supplied to the
electric power grid for sale. Coal for the units is supplied by the
adjacent San Juan Mine and is delivered to the facility by conveyor.
Units 1 and 2 have a unit capacity of 350 and 360 MW, respectively.
Units 3 and 4 each have a unit capacity of 544 MW.
In 2005, the operator of the SJGS, Public Service Company of New
Mexico (PNM), entered into a consent decree with the Grand Canyon
Trust, Sierra Club, and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) to
reduce emissions of NOX, SO2, particulate matter
and mercury.\10\ The consent decree imposed emissions restrictions,
including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Consent Decree in The Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club,
Plaintiffs, The State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. Public
Service Company of New Mexico, Defendant, (CV 02-552 BB/ACT (ACE)),
lodged in the United States District Court, District of New Mexico,
on March 10, 2005, at 15-16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX: 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling average.
SO2: 90% annual average control, not to exceed
0.250 lb/mmBtu for a seven-day block average.
In a permit modification to the construction permit for SJGS, NMED
issued a revised construction permit (NSR Air Quality Permit No. 0063-
M6) on April 22, 2008 to incorporate some of the conditions from the
consent decree. The construction permit was issued by the Air Quality
Bureau of the NMED to SJGS pursuant to the New Mexico Air Quality
Control Act and regulations and is considered a federally enforceable
permit. We were not a party to the consent decree, but the inclusion of
limits from the consent decree that have been included in the
construction permit for the facility were issued pursuant to the
federally approved construction permitting program of the New Mexico
SIP. Specifically, the construction permit includes the NOX
and SO2 limits from the consent decree that are identified
above.\11\ Therefore, these NOX and SO2 emissions
restrictions are federally enforceable. This permit has since been
superseded by a further construction permit modification that also
includes the consent decree limits on NOX and SO2
emissions and is federally enforceable.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NOX limit of 0.30 lb/mmBtu on a 30-day rolling
average for each of the four units; SO2 limit of 90%
annual average control for each unit, with a short-term limit not to
exceed 0.250 lb/mmBtu for a seven-day block average.
\12\ New Mexico Environment Department Air Quality Bureau NSR
Air Quality Permit No. 0063-M6R1 was issued on September 12, 2008
and superseded Permit No. 0063-M6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although the SJGS is subject to a federally enforceable permit, the
permit's 30-day rolling average NOX emission limit of 0.30
lb/mmBtu for all units is less restrictive than the emission rates
modeled by the WRAP of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units 1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/
MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in assessing the daily visibility impacts. We
also note the WRAP photochemical modeling utilized an SO2
emission rate of 0.15 lbs/MMBtu on a continuous basis for all four
units. In previous communications to New Mexico and the WRAP, PNM
indicated that the 90% annual average control specified in the permit
would be expected to yield roughly an annual average emission rate of
0.195 lb/mmBtu of SO2,\13\ which is much higher than the
0.15 lb/mmBtu emission rate utilized in the WRAP's photochemical
modeling for assessing daily level impacts. Also, the 90%
SO2 control restriction specified in the permit is an annual
average, which allows for short term fluctuations. It also is not
directly translatable to an emission limit (e.g., lbs/MMBtu), and
requires knowledge of the sulfur content of the coal being burned.
Therefore, this limit can further fluctuate depending upon the annual
average sulfur content of the coal. This presents an unnecessary
enforcement complication. The permit also specifies a 0.250 lb/mmBtu on
a 7-day block average for each unit, which is much less restrictive
than the 0.15 lb/mmBtu emission rate that was used within the WRAP's
photochemical modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Comments Received to-Date on the Draft 2018 Base Case
Projections, Version: December 21, 2005, available at http://www.wrapair.org/forums/ssjf/documents/eictts/Projections/Summary%20of%20Comments_122105_final.pdf, pdf pagination 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, the permit does not provide the necessary emission
limits and enforceable mechanisms to ensure the NOX and
SO2 emissions used in the WRAP photochemical modeling for
the SJGS units will be met. In the absence of an approvable RH SIP, we
do not have an enforceable mechanism for ensuring that sources in New
Mexico do not impact visibility in other states. Other WRAP states are
relying on levels modeled for the SJGS units, developed in
consultation, in their demonstration of reasonable progress towards
natural visibility conditions. Therefore, any discrepancies between
what was included in the WRAP photochemical modeling and what is
presently enforceable, is a concern. We have evaluated these
discrepancies and determined they are significant due to the changes in
visibility projections in the modeling. We have concluded that it is
appropriate to establish federally enforceable limits for pollutants
that impact visibility projections within the WRAP photochemical
modeling.
As discussed in II.A, we are proposing to disapprove New Mexico
Interstate Transport SIP provisions that address the requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) that emissions from New Mexico sources do
not interfere with measures required in the SIP of any other state
under part C of the CAA to protect visibility. In addition, since New
Mexico has not submitted a complete RH SIP that should have, among
other things, included a review of BART for NOX at the SJGS,
and for both of these requirements we have made a finding of failure to
submit,\14\ giving us the authority and responsibility to issue a FIP
to address the deficiencies in the State's plan, we are also proposing
to find that New Mexico sources, except the SJGS, are sufficiently
controlled to eliminate interference with the visibility programs of
other states. For the SJGS we are proposing to impose specific
emissions limits that will eliminate such interstate interference based
on current emissions that satisfies the assumptions in the WRAP
modeling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See Finding of Failure to Submit SIPs for Interstate
Transport for the 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. 70 FR
21147 (April 25, 2005); see also Finding of Failure To Submit State
Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 Regional Haze Rule. 74 FR
2392 (January 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following sections outline our proposal for addressing the BART
requirements for NOX at SJGS and for ensuring that the SJGS
has the controls necessary to prevent emissions from
[[Page 498]]
New Mexico from interfering with the reasonable progress goals in other
states.
1. Additional SO2 Emission Limits for the SJGS
As we discuss above, there are no federally enforceable limits that
restrict the SJGS's SO2 emissions at 0.15 lbs/MMBtu, the
rate assumed by the WRAP in its modeling. Therefore, as part of this
action, we are proposing to impose an SO2 emission rate of
0.15 lbs/MMBtu on a 30 day rolling average for units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of
the SJGS. By imposing this limit through this action, we will insure
that SO2 emissions from this source are not interfering with
the visibility programs of other states. We note an examination of the
SJGS's actual emission rates based on emissions reported by our Clean
Air Markets Division \15\ indicates units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS
are already meeting these SO2 emission limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are not making a finding that this SO2 emission limit
satisfies BART for SO2. NMED has indicated they will submit
a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.309, thus SO2 BART for the SJGS
will be addressed through New Mexico's participation in an
SO2 trading program, under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). Should NMED
instead submit a RH SIP under 40 CFR 51.308, the SJGS would be subject
to an SO2 BART analysis under 40 CFR 51.308(e).
2. Need for Additional NOX Controls
As we discuss above, the WRAP assumed in its modeling that the SJGS
would achieve NOX emission rates of 0.27 lbs/MMBtu for units
1 and 3, and 0.28 lbs/MMBtu for units 2 and 4 in its evaluation of
daily impacts in photochemical modeling. Based on our approach of
relying on the assumptions in the WRAP modeling, additional control
would, therefore, be necessary to ensure that emissions from New Mexico
sources do not interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other
states pursuant to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of
the CAA.
Unlike the case for SO2, the SJGS will have to install
controls and therefore make capital investments to achieve these
additional NOX reductions. As we note above, on January 15,
2009, we published a ``Finding of Failure to Submit State
Implementation Plans Required by the 1999 regional haze rule.'' 74 FR
2392. This finding included the plan element required by 40 CFR
51.309(d)(4), which requires BART for stationary source emissions of
NOX and PM under either 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1) or 51.308(e)(2).
Therefore, rather than making an initial determination to require the
controls needed to prevent interference with the visibility programs of
other states based on the assumptions in the WRAP photochemical
modeling to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requirements, followed
soon thereafter by a separate NOX BART evaluation, we find
it is appropriate to perform that BART evaluation at this time.
Addressing both outstanding obligations at this time will be more
efficient and will provide greater certainty to the source as to the
appropriate NOX controls needed to meet these two separate
but related requirements. Our evaluation of BART for NOX
follows.
3. NOX BART Evaluation
In June, 2007, PNM submitted its BART evaluation to NMED. That
evaluation was revised multiple times to incorporate additional
visibility modeling analyses, control technology considerations, and
cost analyses. Although not officially submitted to us, NMED completed
a NOX and PM BART determination for the SJGS (referred to
herein as the ``NMED BART evaluation''), which we have found to be
thorough and comprehensive.\16\ In making our NOX BART
determination for the SJGS, we drew heavily upon the NOX
BART portion of that document, and used it to help inform our
NOX BART determination for the SJGS. We have incorporated it
into our Technical Support Document (TSD) found in the electronic
docket for this action. The electronic docket can be found at the Web
site http://www.regulations.gov (docket number EPA-R06-OAR-2010-0846).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ New Mexico Environment Department, Air Quality Bureau, BART
Determination, Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan
Generating Station, Units 1-4, June 21, 2010, available at http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/documents/AppxA_NM_SJGS_NOxBARTDetermination_06212010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have determined, as outlined below, that the SJGS is subject to
BART and are proposing to require that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 meet an
emission limit for NOX of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu. This limit is
based on the installation of SCR on each of the units. The following
steps outline how we came to this determination. For more detail,
please see the TSD. Any BART determinations for other pollutants that
may be warranted under the RHR will be addressed in future rulemakings.
a. The SJGS Is a BART-Eligible Source
The first step of a BART evaluation is to determine whether a
source meets the definition of a ``BART-eligible source'' in 40 CFR
51.301. BART-eligible sources are those sources which have the
potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibility-impairing air
pollutant, were put in place between August 7, 1962 and August 7, 1977,
and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed
source categories. We find, based on emissions reported by our Clean
Air Markets Division,\17\ that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS each
have historically emitted much more than 250 tons of NOX.
Also, according to the NMED SJGS Title V Statement of Basis, units 1,
2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS meet the requirement of being ``in existence''
on August 7, 1977 but not ``in operation'' before August 7, 1962.
Lastly, we find that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS fall under
category 1 of the 26 listed BART categories, which is fossil-fuel fired
steam electric plants of more than 250 million British thermal units
(BTU) per hour heat input. Therefore, we propose to find that units 1,
2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are BART-eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ http://camddataandmaps.epa.gov/gdm/index.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. The SJGS Is Subject to BART
Section III of the BART Guidelines outlines several approaches for
identifying sources that are subject to BART. This entails making a
determination of whether the units of the SJGS cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in nearby Class I areas. Among the options we
recommended was the use of dispersion modeling for assessing the
impacts of a single source. As we note in the BART Guidelines, one of
the first steps in this approach to determining whether a source causes
or contributes to visibility impairment is to establish a threshold
(measured in deciviews). A single source that is responsible for a 1.0
deciview change or more should be considered to ``cause'' visibility
impairment; a source that causes less than a 1.0 deciview change may
still contribute to visibility impairment and thus be subject to BART.
We note in the BART Guidelines that states (and by extension EPA when
promulgating a FIP) have flexibility in determining an appropriate
threshold for determining whether a source ``contributes to any
visibility impairment'' for the purposes of BART. However, this
threshold should not be higher than 0.5 deciviews.\18\ In the case of
the SJGS, this establishment of a precise threshold for contribution is
moot, since visibility modeling indicates that even using the upper
bound contribution threshold of 0.5 deciviews, the SJGS contributes to
[[Page 499]]
visibility impairment at a number of Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 40 FR 39161 (July 6, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The WRAP performed the initial BART screening modeling for the
state of New Mexico. The procedures used are outlined in the WRAP
Regional Modeling Center (RMC) BART Modeling Protocol.\19\ The WRAP
screening modeling evaluated sources that were identified as BART-
eligible and determined the only sources that did not screen out were
the SJGS units. The results of this analysis indicated that SJGS, on a
facility-wide basis, causes visibility impairment at all 16 Class I
areas within 300 km of the facility. However, this modeling was based
on the installed control technology at the time and does not reflect
emission reductions due to the installation of consent decree controls.
Revised modeling performed by NMED and by us, including controls
required by the consent decree and currently installed, further
confirmed that SJGS still ``causes'' visibility impairment at more than
half of the Class I areas in the vicinity of the facility and
contributes (above 0.5 deciviews) to visibility impairment at the
remaining areas on a facility-wide basis. On an individual unit basis,
all units ``cause'' visibility impairment at Mesa Verde National Park,
and cause or contribute to visibility impairment at a number of other
Class I areas. Our modeling indicates that the visibility impairment is
primarily dominated by nitrate particulates. Therefore, as the WRAP
screening modeling has previously concluded and further New Mexico and
our modeling confirms that even with post-consent decree control levels
on SJGS units, the SJGS units 1, 2, 3, and 4 still have a significant
impact at surrounding Class I areas. Consequently, we propose to find
that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are subject to BART. More details
on this determination can be found in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States'', Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph
Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006, available at
http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. The SJGS NOX BART Determination
Having established that units 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the SJGS are
subject to BART, the next requirement is to perform the BART Analysis.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii); see also BART Guidelines, Section IV. The BART
analysis identifies the best system of continuous emission reduction
and, as laid out in the BART Guidelines, consists of the following five
basic steps:
Step 1: Identify All Available Retrofit Control
Technologies;
Step 2: Eliminate Technically Infeasible Options;
Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness of Remaining
Control Technologies;
Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and Document the Results; and
Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts.
As we stated above, for our BART analysis we have heavily drawn
upon the NMED BART Evaluation. Except for the following points, we
agree with NMED's conclusions regarding Steps 1-5:
PNM's cost estimate. NMED questioned PNM's cost estimate
for the installation of SCR but accepted it as being cost effective. We
too questioned PNM's cost estimate for SCR, and hired a consultant to
undertake an accurate assessment of the cost of SCR and the emission
limits that SCR is capable of attaining. (For more information, please
see the TSD).
BART for NOX. NMED evaluated the visibility
benefits of SCR at the SJGS based on an emission limit of 0.07 lbs/
MMBtu, but noted the potential for greater control at rates as low as
0.03 lbs/MMBtu. As discussed further below, we have concluded that a
NOX emission limit of 0.05 lbs/MMBtu is BART for the SJGS,
and performed our visibility modeling on that basis. (Additional
information is provided in the TSD).
SO2 to SO3 Conversion. NMED
concluded BART for the SJGS was SCR plus sorbent injection to remove
sulfur trioxide (SO3) in the flue gas by reaction with an
alkaline material. As discussed further below, we have concluded that
sorbent injection is not necessary, as the SJGS burns a low sulfur
coal, and catalysts are available with a low SO2 to
SO3 conversion rate. (Please see the TSD for further
information).
The following is a summary of our BART analysis. In general, our
analysis is the same as NMED's analysis of Steps 1-5, as modified to
incorporate the areas discussed above in which we differ with NMED.
i. Identification of All Available Retrofit Emission Control
Technologies
To address step 1, NMED reviewed a number of potential
retrofittable NOX control technologies, including: Selective
Non Catalytic Reduction (SNCR), SCR, SNCR/SCR Hybrid, Natural Gas
Reburn, Nalco Mobotec ROFA and Rotamix, NOxStar, ECOTUBE, PowerSpan
ECO, Phenix Clean Combustion, and e-SCRUB. We drew upon PNM's June,
2007 BART submission to NMED and its subsequent revisions in our
evaluation, and agree that the potential technologies for
NOX controls that have been identified.
ii. Elimination of Technically Infeasible Options
For step 2, again drawing upon the NMED analysis, we have
determined the following potentially retrofittable NOX
control technologies are not technically feasible, or have not been
thoroughly demonstrated on similar size and type units: Natural Gas
Reburn, NOxStar, ECOTUBE, PowerSpan ECO, Phenix Clean Combustion, and
e-SCRUB. In determining BART, we have considered the remaining
technologies, SCR, SNCR, SNCR/SCR Hybrid, and the Nalco Mobotec ROFA
and Rotamix to be technically feasible.
iii. Evaluation of Control Effectiveness of Remaining Control
Technologies
Step 3 involves evaluating the control effectiveness of all the
technically feasible control alternatives identified in Step 2. Two key
issues in this process include: (1) Ensuring the degree of control is
expressed using a metric that ensures a level comparison of emissions
performance levels among options; and (2) giving appropriate treatment
and consideration of control techniques that can operate over a wide
range of emission performance levels. With the exception of SCR, Table
1 represents the control efficiencies and control emission rates PNM
reported as part of its BART analyses \20\ to NMED for the
NOX controls that were found to be technically feasible. In
our own SCR cost analysis, which we present later in this section, we
have revised the control efficiency for SCR from 0.07 lbs/MMBtu to 0.05
lbs/MMBtu.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Public Service Company of New Mexico, San Juan Generating
Station, Best Available Retrofit Technology Analysis, June 6, 2007.
PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART Analysis of SNCR, May 30,
2008.
PNM San Juan Generating Station, BART Analysis of Nalco Mobotec
NOX Control Technologies, August 29, 2008.
[[Page 500]]
Table 1--Projected NOX Control Effectiveness for Units 1-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Controlled
Control technology Control emission rate (lb/
efficiency (%) MMbtu)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROFA.............................. 13-15 0.26
Rotamix (SNCR).................... 23-25 0.23
ROFA/Rotamix...................... 33-35 0.20
SCR/SNCR Hybrid................... 40-41 0.18
SCR............................... 77 0.07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
iv. Evaluation of Impacts and Documentation of Results
Under step 4 of the BART determination process, we conducted the
following analysis of the possible impacts due to the installation of
the technically feasible NOX control options:
Costs of Compliance.
Energy Impacts.
Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts.
Remaining Useful Life.
When performing BART analyses on each of the technically feasible
NOX control options, PNM considered the energy impacts, non-
air quality environmental impacts, and the remaining useful life. PNM
accounted for the additional cost of certain energy impacts in the cost
impacts analysis. It did not note any other energy impacts as being
significant. With regard to non-air quality environmental impacts, PNM
did not identify any significant or unusual environmental impacts
associated with the control alternatives that had the potential to
affect the selection or elimination of that control alternative. For
SCR and SCR/SNCR Hybrid technologies, the non-air quality environmental
impacts included the consideration of water usage and waste generated
from each control technology. Lastly, the remaining useful life was
defined by PNM as 20 years. Therefore, no additional cost adjustments
for a short remaining useful boiler life were claimed by PNM.
PNM calculated the costs of each of the technically feasible
NOX control options \21\. This information was assessed by
NMED in its BART analysis. We checked that information and present it
below in Tables 2-5 (with a few minor corrections). It summarizes our
evaluation of the impacts of the BART analyses, including updated cost
data for the SCR option:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Tables 2-5 were constructed to incorporate costs due to
sorbent injection, as a means of SO3 control in
conjunction with SCR. This was done by PNM in response to a request
by NMED. As NMED notes in its BART analysis, it understands there
are SCR catalysts now on the market that are capable of a much
smaller SO2 to SO3 conversion. In our own
analysis, we have concurred with this finding and hence do not
consider sorbent injection.
Table 2--Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of NOX Control Technologies for Unit 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total Incremental
Control technology Emission NOX NOX capital annualized Cost cost Energy Non-air
limit emissions reduction investment cost (TAC) effectiveness effectiveness impacts impacts
(lbs/MMBtu) (tpy) (tpy) (TCI) (1,000$) ($/ton) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)
(1,000$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCR + sorbent................................................... 0.07 966 3,174 164,732 21,998 6,931 3,815 1,569 \1\ NA
SNCR/SCR Hybrid................................................. 0.18 2,484 1,656 104,436 16,207 9,787 34,221 706 1,762
ROFA/Rotamix.................................................... 0.20 2,760 1,380 29 6,762 4,900 7,766 1,413 3
Rotamix (SNCR).................................................. 0.23 3,174 966 11,306 3,547 3,672 222 51 4
ROFA............................................................ 0.26 3,588 552 18,293 3,455 6,259 -2,896 1,363 \1\ NA
Consent Decree.................................................. 0.30 4,140 1,254 14,580 1,422 1,134 NA \1\ NA \1\ NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3--Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of NOX Control Technologies for Unit 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Emission NOX NOX capital Total Cost Incremental Energy Non-air
Control technology limit emissions reduction investment annualized effectivness cost impacts impacts
(TCI) cost (TAC) effectiveness
(lbs/MMBtu) (tpy) (tpy) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCR + sorbent.................................................... 0.07 961 3,158 177,178 23,364 7,399 4,432 1,565 \1\ NA
SNCR/SCR Hybrid.................................................. 0.18 2,471 1,648 108,628 16,670 10,118 36,082 346 1,762
ROFA/Rotamix..................................................... 0.20 2,746 1,373 29,350 6,762 4,925 7,805 1,413 3
Rotamix (SNCR)................................................... 0.23 3,158 961 11,306 3,547 3,691 223 51 4
ROFA............................................................. 0.26 3,570 549 18,293 3,455 6,291 -1,375 1,363 \1\ NA
Consent Decree................................................... 0.30 4,119 2,060 14,126 1,378 669 NA \1\ NA \1\ NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of NOX Control Technologies for Unit 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Emission NOX NO[ihel3] capital Total Cost Incremental Energy Non-air
Control technology limit emissions reduction investment annualized effectiveness cost impacts impacts
(TCI) cost (TAC) effectiveness
(lbs/MMBtu) (tpy) (tpy) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCR + sorbent................................................... 0.07 1,501 4,930 227,774 30,527 6,192 2,087 2,267 \1\ NA
[[Page 501]]
SNCR/SCR Hybrid................................................. 0.18 3,859 2,572 168,507 25,606 9,954 37,221 507 2,658
ROFA/Rotamix.................................................... 0.20 4,287 2,144 34,070 9,648 4,501 7,338 2,810 5
Rotamix (SNCR).................................................. 0.23 4,930 1,501 13,316 4,929 3,285 -303 84 5
ROFA............................................................ 0.26 5,574 857 20,983 5,124 5,976 -2,264 2,725 \1\ NA
Consent Decree.................................................. 0.30 6,431 2,573 12,715 1,240 482 NA \1\ NA \1\ NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Impact Analysis and Cost Effectiveness of NOX Control Technologies for Unit 4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Emission NOX NOX capital Total Cost Incremental Energy Non-air
Control technology limit emissions reduction investment annualized effectiveness cost impacts impacts
(TCI) cost (TAC) effectiveness
(lbs/MMBtu) (tpy) (tpy) (1,000$) (1,000$) ($/ton) ($/ton) (1,000$) (1,000$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCR + sorbent................................................... 0.07 1,472 4,837 211,764 28,760 5,946 1,691 2,288 \1\ NA
SNCR/SCR Hybrid................................................. 0.18 3,785 2,524 161,572 24,849 9,847 36,141 507 2,658
ROFA/Rotamix.................................................... 0.20 4,206 2,103 34,070 9,648 4,588 7,480 2,810 5
Rotamix (SNCR).................................................. 0.23 4,837 1,472 13,316 4,929 3,348 -309 84 5
ROFA............................................................ 0.26 5,468 841 20,983 5,124 6,091 -2,299 2,275 \1\ NA
Consent Decree.................................................. 0.30 6,309 2,524 12,870 1,256 498 NA \1\ NA \1\ NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ PNM performed an impact analysis for these technologies and incorporated any monetized energy or non-air environmental impacts into the cost analysis
We find that the energy impacts, non-air quality environmental
impacts, and the remaining useful life do not present sufficient reason
to disqualify any of the technically feasible NOX control
technologies.
v. Evaluation of Visibility Impacts and Cost Analysis
Under step 5 of the BART Guidelines, we evaluate the visibility
improvement for each feasible control technology. NMED modeled \22\ the
visibility benefits of each of the NOX control technologies
listed in Tables 2-5, above, on 16 Class I areas. NMED used the CALPUFF
modeling system, which consists of a meteorological data pre-processor
(CALMET), an air dispersion model (CALPUFF), and post-processor
programs (POSTUTIL, CALSUM, CALPOST). The CALPUFF modeling system is
the recommended model for conducting BART visibility analysis. First,
the model was run using the pre-BART, consent decree conditions to
establish a baseline. The model was then run for each of the control
technologies identified for each unit during the BART engineering
analysis. These visibility impacts were then compared to the baseline
to evaluate the visibility benefit of each control. NMED modeled the
visibility impacts of each of the control scenarios individually for
each of the SJGS units, as well as calculated visibility impacts on a
facility-wide basis. The NMED modeling used the original IMPROVE
equation within CALPOST to estimate visibility impairment from the
modeled pollutant concentrations. Table 6, below, summarizes the
results of the latter exercise, for the maximum impacts of the 98th
percentile delta-dv impacts from 2001-2003.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NMED performed some modeling as well as reviewed modeling
protocols and results supplied by PNM and prepared by the contractor
Black & Veatch found in: Public Service Company of New Mexico BART
Technology Analysis for the San Juan Generating Station (June 6,
2007 and submittal updates). When we say ``NMED modeling'' or ``NMED
modeled'' we are referring to the modeling performed or reviewed by
NMED.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All of the WRAP and NMED refined modeling was conducted with the
version of the CALPUFF system recommended by the WRAP BART modeling
protocol \23\ and followed the WRAP protocol for source-specific
applications. As we note in the TSD, NMED and the WRAP utilized CALMET
version 6.211 to create the necessary meteorological database for input
into the CALPUFF model. Some technical concerns have been identified
with this non-regulatory version of the model. The concerns are
discussed in the technical support document. Our regulatory version of
the model is CALMET 5.8, which we used in our modeling. Two pollutants
must be given special consideration when estimating the impact of
various control technologies on visibility improvement: Background
ammonia (NH3) and sulfuric acid
(H2SO4) emissions. NMED utilized a variable
monthly background NH3 concentration rather than using the
default recommended value. As discussed later, we utilized both
approaches for background NH3 in our modeling so as to be
able to compare the results. For estimating H2SO4
emissions, NMED estimated the fraction of particulate matter (PM)
emissions that are classified as inorganic condensable PM and assumed
that 100% of this fraction is H2SO4. Additional
H2SO4 due to SCR operation was calculated
assuming 1% conversion of SO2 to SO3. As noted in
the TSD and briefly described below, our approach to these two factors
differed from the NMED approach. The results provided by NMED, and
included in Table 6 below, demonstrate that SCR is by far the most
advantageous approach to NOX control. The differences in our
and New Mexico's approaches should not change the relative advantage
that SCR has over other control methods in improving visibility since
these concerns are present in all the NMED modeling and would have
similar impacts on the modeling results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ ``CALMET/CALPUFF Protocol for BART Exemption Screening
Analysis for Class I Areas in the Western United States'', Western
Regional Air Partnership (WRAP); Gail Tonnesen, Zion Wang; Ralph
Morris, Abby Hoats and Yiqin Jia, August 15, 2006. available at
http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf.
[[Page 502]]
Table 6--NMED Modeled Maximum Impacts of the 98th Percentile delta-dv Impacts From 2001-2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consent
Class I area Distance to decree SCR + SCR/ SNCR ROFA/ Rotamix ROFA
SJGS (km) baseline Sorbent Hybrid Rotamix
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches....................................................... 222 1.69 1.10 1.58 1.58 1.61 1.63
Bandelier Wilderness......................................... 210 1.56 0.80 1.33 1.28 1.35 1.41
Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness...................... 203 1.15 0.63 0.94 0.93 0.98 1.04
Canyonlands.................................................. 170 2.26 1.59 2.17 2.10 2.13 2.17
Capitol Reef................................................. 232 1.81 1.08 1.64 1.55 1.62 1.68
Grand Canyon................................................. 285 0.97 0.53 0.80 0.79 0.84 0.88
Great Sand Dunes National Monument........................... 269 0.71 0.40 0.64 0.60 0.61 0.65
La Garita Wilderness......................................... 169 0.94 0.45 0.78 0.74 0.79 0.83
Maroon Bells Snowmass Wilderness............................. 271 0.56 0.28 0.48 0.47 0.50 0.52
Mesa Verde................................................... 40 3.80 2.46 4.42 3.58 3.58 3.59
Pecos Wilderness............................................. 248 1.09 0.66 0.90 0.88 0.92 0.97
Petrified Forest............................................. 213 0.82 0.48 0.73 0.73 0.77 0.78
San Pedro Parks Wilderness................................... 155 2.01 1.13 1.80 1.67 1.77 1.86
West Elk Wilderness.......................................... 216 0.91 0.43 0.73 0.71 0.76 0.80
Weminuche Wilderness......................................... 98 1.48 0.90 1.33 1.24 1.32 1.36
Wheeler Peak Wilderness...................................... 258 0.89 0.50 0.72 0.70 0.75 0.79
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... ........... 22.65 13.42 20.99 19.55 20.30 20.96
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note NMED's modeling indicated there was little difference
between the SCR/SNCR hybrid, ROFA/Rotamix, and ROFA NOX
control technologies. However, as Tables 2-5 indicate, there is a
significant difference in the cost of those controls, with the SNCR/SCR
hybrid being more than twice as expensive as the ROFA/Rotamix, and
approximately five times as expensive as both the Rotamix (SNCR) and
the ROFA options. None of these NOX control technologies was
capable of significantly improving the visibility at any of the 16
Class I areas; therefore, we did not further evaluate them. However, we
note that SCR was capable of uniformly improving the visibility at all
of the 16 Class I areas, but at a higher cost.
The costs of the controls in Tables 2-5, were calculated by PNM.
Because we found the costs projected by PNM to be high in comparison to
other SCR retrofits we have reviewed, we refined the cost of
retrofitting the SJGS with SCR (see the TSD for more information), and
the NOX emission level SCR was capable of achieving when
retrofitted to the SJGS. This analysis indicated that the cost of SCR
at this source would be considerably lower than calculated by PNM. We
believe that PNM overestimated the cost of SCR due to several basic
errors that PNM made in constructing its SCR cost analysis:
PNM did not follow the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost
Manual, where possible,\24\ as directed by the BART Guidelines.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ U.S. EPA, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Report
EPA/452/B-02-001, 6th Ed., January 2002 (``Cost Manual''), The EPA
Air Pollution Control Cost Manual is the current name for what was
previously known as the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, the name for the
Cost Manual in previous (pre-2002) editions of the Cost Manual.
\25\ In order to maintain and improve consistency, cost
estimates should be based on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where
possible. 70 FR 39104, 39166 (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PNM scaled many of the cost items from another project
that has significant design differences when compared to the SJGS. We
made changes in many of these items to adjust them from budgetary to
final contract; to exclude equipment and modifications not required for
the SJGS SCR installations; to correct errors; and to factor out
installation, freight, and other costs that were included in the
contract awards and double counted elsewhere in PNM's cost estimate. We
have concluded that these adjustments are correct, and provide a more
accurate estimate of the costs at SJGS.
PNM performed their SCR cost estimate on the basis of a
NOX control rate of 0.07 lbs/MMBtu. We concluded that SCR
could reliably achieve NOX control at a rate of 0.05 lbs/
MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average basis, for each of the four units of
the SJGS. Because this did not require a change in the capital cost of
the SCR unit, and only necessitated the purchase of additional reagent,
this had the effect of improving the cost effectiveness. We have
concluded that the analysis concerning the achievability of the
emissions limit, and the cost of achieving those limits, is more
accurate.
The results of that analysis are presented as Table 7:
Table 7--EPA Determined Cost Effectiveness of SCR for the SJGS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Cost
Unit Emission limit NOX emissions NOX reduction Total capital annualized effectiveness
(lbs/MMBtu) (tpy) (tpy) investment cost ($/ton)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....................................................... 0.05 690 3,450 $53,230,469 $6,373,573 1,847
2....................................................... 0.05 686 3,433 55,664,049 6,591,720 1,920
3....................................................... 0.05 1,071 5,360 70,464,306 8,631,234 1,610
4....................................................... 0.05 1,051 5,258 67,223,223 8,304,143 1,579
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 503]]
Based on our refined cost and control effectiveness analysis, we
conclude that SCR is cost effective for all units of the SJGS.
Although we generally regard the visibility modeling analyses
performed by NMED to be of high quality, we noted some minor issues we
wished to rectify in order to address consistency with modeling
guidance we have provided to the states. We remodeled the visibility
impacts of the SJGS using revised emission estimates and meteorology
results from the regulatory version of the CALPUFF and CALMET models.
As detailed in the TSD, we utilized a different approach based on the
best current information from the Electric Power Research Institute
(EPRI) \26\ to estimate the sulfuric acid released from combustion in
the boiler for all scenarios and for operation of the SCR, assuming a
0.5% SO2 to SO3 conversion efficiency \27\ of the
SCR catalyst (compared to a 1% conversion assumed by NMED). We
determined that the SCR could achieve an emission rate of 0.05 lb
NOX/MMBtu and included this emission rate in modeling the
SCR control scenario (compared to 0.07 lb NOX/MMBtu assumed
by NMED). We modeled a revised baseline with the SO2
emissions lowered to the BART presumptive limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu that
was assumed by the WRAP for regional photochemical visibility modeling
to demonstrate reasonable progress towards natural visibility
conditions. Finally, modeling was performed utilizing both the monthly
variable background NH3 concentration used by NMED and the
default background NH3 concentration of 1.0 ppb to evaluate
the sensitivity of the results to these assumptions. Visibility
impairment from our modeled pollutant concentrations were calculated
using both the original IMPROVE equation (Method 6) used by NMED and
the revised IMPROVE equation (Method 8) to calculate visibility
impairment from the modeled pollutant concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Electric Power Research Institute, Estimating Total
Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants, 1016384
Technical Update, March 2008.
\27\ Emails between Anita Lee, EPA Region 9 and Anthony C.
Favale P.E., Director--SCR Products, Hitachi Power Systems America,
Ltd. Favale: ``Catalyst development has progressed over the last few
years to the point that an initial SO2 conversion rate of
0.5% can be guaranteed with 80 to 90% NOX reduction.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Table 8 indicates, in considering the visibility impacts
associated with the use of SCR, we focused on the 98th percentile of
modeled results to avoid giving undue weight to any extreme
results.\28\ The results are presented as the visibility impacts from
SJGS and the associated changes in visibility at each Class I area
within 300 kilometers of the facility resulting from the use of SCR.
These results employ our revised baseline, a 1 ppb background
NH3 concentration assumption, our revised SO2 to
SO3 conversion calculation, and the new IMPROVE equation
(Method 8). The other methods that we utilized in our sensitivity
modeling approaches using Method 6 and/or the variable NH3
are documented in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See 70 FR at 39,121.
Table 8--EPA Modeled Maximum Impacts of the 98th Percentile delta-dv Impacts From 2001-2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Visibility Visibility
Distance to visibility impact with improvement
Class I area SJGS (km) impact SCR with SCR
([Delta]dv) ([Delta]dv) ([Delta]dv)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arches.......................................... 222 3.50 1.12 2.38
Bandelier Wilderness............................ 210 1.39 0.48 0.91
Black Canyon of the Gunnison Wilderness......... 203 1.41 0.42 0.99
Canyonlands..................................... 170 4.64 1.53 3.11
Capitol Reef.................................... 232 2.38 0.82 1.56
Grand Canyon.................................... 285 0.93 0.33 0.60
Great Sand Dunes National Monument.............. 269 1.53 0.49 1.04
La Garita Wilderness............................ 169 1.93 0.57 1.36
Maroon Bells Snowmass Wilderness................ 271 0.70 0.28 0.42
Mesa Verde...................................... 40 5.15 2.27 2.88
Pecos Wilderness................................ 248 1.27 0.47 0.80
Petrified Forest................................ 213 0.52 0.21 0.31
San Pedro Parks Wilderness...................... 155 2.20 0.74 1.46
West Elk Wilderness............................. 216 1.59 0.45 1.14
Weminuche Wilderness............................ 98 2.92 0.87 2.05
Wheeler Peak Wilderness......................... 258 1.12 0.44 0.68
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total Delta dv.............................. .............. 33.18 11.48 21.69
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen from Table 8, our visibility modeling indicates that
SCR NOX control offers visibility improvement at every one
of the 16 Class I areas and significant visibility improvement at the
overwhelming majority of areas. Therefore, after having identified all
available retrofittable NOX control technologies, eliminated
those that were not technically feasible, evaluated the NOX
control effectiveness of those remaining, evaluated the impacts and
having documented the results, we propose that NOX BART for
all the units of the SJGS is SCR with a 30 day rolling average of 0.05
lbs/MMBtu.
In addition, our visibility analysis relied in part on estimates of
H2SO4 mist emissions. The amount of
H2SO4 emissions depends, in part, on proper
design and operation of the SCR unit. Therefore, we believe it is
appropriate to set emission limits for H2SO4. We
believe that our estimates of these emissions are appropriate based on
the use of low reactivity catalyst that will reduce the rate of
SO2 to SO3 conversion. To ensure these levels are
met, we are proposing that emissions of H2SO4 be
limited to 1.06 x 10-4 lb/MMBtu for each unit. These
emission limits are based on the most current information from the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), information on the sulfur
content of the coal, and assuming a maximum of 0.5% SO2 to
SO3 conversion efficiency of the SCR catalyst. We note that
there is some potential variation in the methodologies
[[Page 504]]
and the assumptions used method for calculating
H2SO4 emissions. The assumptions associated with
our calculation are discussed further in the TSD. We are soliciting
comment on setting the emission limit in the range between our proposed
limit of 1.06 x 10-4 lb/MMBtu and an upper range of sulfuric
acid mist emissions of 7.87 x 10-4 lb/MMBtu.\29\ Comments on
our proposed H2SO4 limit and alternative limits
should include consideration of the use of a low conversion rate SCR
catalyst and be sufficiently justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Upper range value is based on information from PNM's Toxics
Release Inventory report and previous PNM calculations of the amount
of additional H2SO4 from the installation and
operation of SCR. For details on the derivation of this upper bound
value, see the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As there are no continuous emission monitoring techniques for
H2SO4 mist, we are proposing that compliance be
based on an hourly average, confirmed by annual stack testing using EPA
Test Method 8A (CTM-013).\30\ We note that our proposed limits
challenge the detection limits of the test method. We solicit comment
on this issue, including suggestions for test methods that will better
measure these low concentrations and other approaches to determine
continuous compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ http://www.epa.gov/ttn/emc/ctm/ctm-013.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, our visibility analysis also relied in part on estimates
of ammonia (NH3) slip, emissions of NH3 that pass
through the SCR. NH3 contribute to visibility impairment.
Limiting NH3 emissions depends on proper design and
operation of the SCR. Therefore, we are proposing to set a limit to
minimize the contribution of NH3 to visibility impairment.
We are proposing that emissions of NH3 be limited to 2.0
parts per million volume dry (ppmvd), adjusted to 6 percent oxygen for
each of the four SJGS units.\31\ We are also soliciting comment on
setting this limit in the range of 2-6 ppmvd, adjusted to 6 percent
oxygen. Comments on our proposed limit and alternative limits should
consider visibility impairment. Compliance will be based on an hourly
average confirmed by an initial performance test using EPA Conditional
Test Method 27 (40 CFR 51, Appendix M). We are also proposing that a
CEM for NH3 be installed and operated. We solicit comment on
other approaches to determine continuous compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ PNM materials previously indicated that a 2 ppm ammonia
slip limit would be appropriate for SCR at the Public Service
Company of New Mexico Black and Veatch report titled: ``San Juan
Generating Station Best Available Retrofit Technology Analysis''
Issue Date and Revision June 6, 2007, Final; Appendix B, page B-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we note above in section II.B.3, the RHR requires that BART
controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than five (5) years after the date of our
approval of the RH SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). Based on the retrofit
of other SCR installations we have reviewed, we find that three (3)
years from the date our final determination becomes effective is a
conservative and adequate estimate of time for the planning,
engineering, installation, and start-up of these controls.\32\ Many
installations have been completed in much shorter times.\33\ We solicit
comment on alternative timeframes, up to five (5) years from the date
our final determination becomes effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Typical Installation Timelines for NOx Emissions Control
Technologies on Industrial Sources, Institute of Clean Air
Companies, December 4, 2006, available at http://www.icac.7com/files/public/ICAC_NOx_Control_Installation_Timing_120406.pdf;
see also Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation
of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies, EPA-600/R-02/
073, October 2002, available at http://www.epa.gov/clearskies/pdfs/multi102902.pdf.
\33\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Proposed Action
We are proposing to disapprove a portion of the SIP revision
submitted by the State of New Mexico for the purpose of addressing the
``good neighbor'' provisions of the CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the PM2.5 NAAQS. We are
proposing to disapprove the New Mexico Interstate Transport SIP
provisions that address the requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
that emissions from New Mexico sources do not interfere with measures
required in the SIP of any other state under part C of the CAA to
protect visibility. As a result of the proposed disapproval, we are
also proposing a FIP to address the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) with respect to visibility. With regard to whether
emissions from New Mexico sources interfere with the visibility
programs of other states, we are proposing to find that New Mexico
sources, except the SJGS, are sufficiently controlled to eliminate
interference with the visibility programs of other states, and for the
SJGS source we are proposing to impose specific SO2 and
NOX emissions limits that will eliminate such interstate
interference. In addition, EPA is proposing the FIP to address the
requirement for BART for NOX for the SJGS.
Based on our evaluation we are proposing to find that the SJGS is
subject to BART under section 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4), and/or 51.308(e).
Our proposed NOX controls for SJGS will partially address
the BART requirements of the RH program. Specifically, we are proposing
a FIP that imposes NOX BART limits for the SJGS. Together,
the reduction in NOX from our proposed NOX BART
determination, and the proposed SO2 emission limits will
serve to ensure there are enforceable mechanisms in place to prevent
New Mexico NOX and SO2 emissions from interfering
with efforts to protect visibility in other states pursuant to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) of the CAA.
For NOX emissions, we are proposing to require the SJGS
to meet an emission limit of 0.05 pounds per million British Thermal
Units (lb/MMBtu) individually at Units 1, 2, 3, and 4. This
NOX limit is achievable by installing and operating SCR. For
SO2, we are proposing to require the SJGS to meet an
emission limit of 0.15 lb/MMBtu. Both of these emission limits would be
measured on the basis of a 30 day rolling average. We are also
proposing hourly average emission limits of 1.06 x 10-4 lb/
MMBtu for H2SO4 and 2.0 ppmvd, for
NH3, to minimize the contribution of these compounds to
visibility impairment. Additionally, we are proposing monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure compliance with
emission limitations.
We also propose that compliance with the emission limits be within
three (3) years of the effective date of our final rule. We solicit
comments on alternative timeframes, up to five (5) years from the
effective date our final rule.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993), and is therefore not subject to review under the Executive
Order. This action proposes a source-specific FIP for the San Juan
Power Generating Station (SJGS) in New Mexico.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *.'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
applies to a single facility, (SJGS), the Paperwork
[[Page 505]]
Reduction Act does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The FIP for SJGS being proposed today does not impose any new
requirements on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc.
v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted to inflation) in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The
provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows
EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by State,
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. In
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely prescribes EPA's
action to address the State not fully meeting its obligation to
prohibit emissions from interfering with other states measures to
protect visibility. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to
any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it limits emissions of pollutants from an existing single stationary
source. Because this proposed action only applies to a single existing
source and is not a proposed rule of general applicability, it is not
[[Page 506]]
economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
does not have a disproportionate effect on children. However, to the
extent that the rule will limit emissions of NOX and
SO2 the rule will have a beneficial effect on children's
health by reducing air pollution.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed
rule would require all sources to meet the applicable monitoring
requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number
of voluntary consensus standards. Consistent with the Agency's
Performance Based Measurement System (PBMS), part 75 sets forth
performance criteria that allow the use of alternative methods to the
ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is intended to be more
flexible and cost effective for the regulated community; it is also
intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved
data quality. At this time, EPA is not recommending any revisions to
part 75; however, EPA periodically revises the test procedures set
forth in part 75. When EPA revises the test procedures set forth in
part 75 in the future, EPA will address the use of any new voluntary
consensus standards that are equivalent. Currently, even if a test
procedure is not set forth in part 75, EPA is not precluding the use of
any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or
not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified; however,
any alternative methods must be approved through the petition process
under 40 CFR 75.66 before they are used.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not
have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population. This proposed rule limits emissions of pollutants
from a single stationary source, SJGS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, Interstate
transport of pollution, Regional haze, Best available control
technology.
Dated: December 20, 2010.
Samuel J. Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
Title 40, chapter I, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Add Sec. 52.1628 to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1628 Interstate pollutant transport and regional haze
provisions; What are the FIP requirements for San Juan Generating
Station emissions affecting visibility?
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator of the coal burning equipment designated as
Units 1, 2, 3, or 4 at the San Juan Generating Station in San Juan
County, New Mexico (the plant).
(b) Compliance dates. Compliance with the requirements of this
section is required upon the effective date of this rule unless
otherwise indicated by compliance dates contained in specific
provisions.
(c) Definitions. All terms used in this part but not defined herein
shall have the meaning given them in the Clean Air Act and in parts 51
and 60 of this chapter. For the purposes of this section:
24-hour period means the period of time between 12:01 a.m. and 12
midnight.
Air pollution control equipment includes baghouses, particulate or
gaseous scrubbers, and any other apparatus utilized to control
emissions of regulated air contaminants which would be emitted to the
atmosphere.
Daily average means the arithmetic average of the hourly values
measured in a 24-hour period.
Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a Unit and
does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air,
recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources. Heat
input shall be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 75.
Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises the plant or any of the coal burning equipment
designated as Units 1, 2, 3, or 4 at the plant.
Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) means all oxides of nitrogen except
nitrous oxide, as measured by test methods set forth in 40 CFR part 60.
Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of EPA
Region 6 or his/her authorized representative.
(d) Emissions limitations and control measures. (1) Within 180 days
of the effective date of this paragraph (d), the owner or operator
shall submit a plan to the Regional Administrator that identifies the
air pollution control equipment and schedule for complying with
paragraph (d) of this section. The owner or operator shall submit
amendments to the plan to the Regional Administrator as changes occur.
The NOX and SO2 limits shall be effective no
later than 3 years after the effective date of this rule. No owner or
operator shall discharge or cause the discharge of NOX or
SO2 into the atmosphere from Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 in excess
of the limits for these pollutants.
(2) NOX emission limit. The NOX limit for each unit in
the plant, expressed as nitrogen dioxide (NO2), shall be
0.05 pounds per million British thermal
[[Page 507]]
units (lb/MMBtu) as averaged over a rolling 30 calendar day period. For
each unit, NOX emissions for each calendar day shall be
determined by summing the hourly emissions measured in pounds of
NOX. For each unit, heat input for each calendar day shall
be determined by adding together all hourly heat inputs, in millions of
BTU. Each day the thirty-day rolling average for a unit shall be
determined by adding together the pounds of NOX from that
day and the preceding 29 days and dividing the total pounds of
NOX by the sum of the heat input during the same 30-day
period. The result shall be the 30-day rolling average in terms of lb/
MMBtu emissions of NOX. If a valid NOX pounds per
hour or heat input is not available for any hour for a unit, that heat
input and NOX pounds per hour shall not be used in the
calculation of the 30-day rolling average for NOX.
(3) SO2 emission limit. The sulfur dioxide emission limit for each
unit shall be 0.15 lb/MMBtu as averaged over a rolling 30-calendar-day
period. For each unit, SO2 emissions for each calendar day
shall be determined by summing the hourly emissions measured in pounds
of sulfur dioxide. For each unit, heat input for each calendar day
shall be determined by adding together all hourly heat inputs, in
millions of BTU. Each day the thirty-day rolling average shall be
determined by adding together pounds of sulfur dioxide from that day
and the preceding 29 days and dividing the total pounds of sulfur
dioxide by the sum of the heat input during the same 30-day period. The
results shall be the 30-day rolling average for lb/MMBtu emissions of
SO2. If a valid SO2 pounds per hour or heat input
is not available for any hour for a unit, that heat input and SO2
pounds per hour shall not be used in the calculation of the 30-day
rolling average for SO2.
(4) H2SO4 emission limit: Emissions of
H2SO4 from each unit shall be limited to 1.06 x
10-4 lb/MMBtu on an hourly basis.
(5) Ammonia emission limit: Emissions of ammonia (NH3)
from each unit will be limited to 2.0 parts per million by volume, dry
(ppmvd), adjusted to 6 percent oxygen, on an hourly average basis.
(e) Testing and monitoring. (1) On and after the effective date of
this regulation, the owner or operator shall install, calibrate,
maintain and operate Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for
NOX, SO2, and NH3 on Units 1, 2, 3,
and 4 in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f), and (h), and
Appendix B of Part 60. The owner or operator shall comply with the
quality assurance procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75.
Compliance with the emission limits for NOX, SO2
and NH3 shall be determined by using data from a CEMS.
(2) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods
of operation of the coal burning equipment, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous
monitoring systems for measuring SO2, NOX,
NH3 and diluent gas shall complete a minimum of one cycle of
operation (sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive
15-minute period. Hourly averages shall be computed using at least one
data point in each fifteen minute quadrant of an hour. Notwithstanding
this requirement, an hourly average may be computed from at least two
data points separated by a minimum of 15 minutes (where the unit
operates for more than one quadrant in an hour) if data are unavailable
as a result of performance of calibration, quality assurance,
preventive maintenance activities, or backups of data from data
acquisition and handling system, and recertification events. When valid
SO2 pounds per hour, NOX pounds per hour,
SO2 pounds per million Btu emission data, NOX
pounds per million Btu emission data, or NH3 ppmvd data are
not obtained because of continuous monitoring system breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, or zero and span adjustments, emission
data must be obtained by using other monitoring systems approved by the
EPA to provide emission data for a minimum of 18 hours in each 24 hour
period and at least 22 out of 30 successive boiler operating days.
(3) Emissions of H2SO4 shall be measured
within 180 days of start up of the NOX control device and
annually thereafter using EPA Test Method 8A (CTM-013).
(4) Emissions of ammonia shall be measured within 180 days of
startup of the NOX control device using EPA Conditional Test
Method 27.
(5) The facility shall install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
CEMS to measure and record the concentrations of NH3.
(f) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Unless otherwise
stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications, and other
communications to the Regional Administrator required by this section
shall be submitted, unless instructed otherwise, to the Director,
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 6, to the attention of Mail Code: 6PD, at
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. For each unit
subject to the emissions limitation in this section and upon completion
of the installation of CEMS as required in this section, the owner or
operator shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) For each emissions limit in this section, comply with the
notification and recordkeeping requirements for CEMS compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d).
(2) For each day, provide the total NOX and
SO2 emitted that day by each emission unit. For any hours on
any unit where data for hourly pounds or heat input is missing,
identify the unit number and monitoring device that did not produce
valid data that caused the missing hour.
(g) Equipment operations. At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the Plant including associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Regional Administrator
which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of
operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of the Plant.
(h) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant as
to whether the Plant would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not the owner or
operator has violated or is in violation of any standard or applicable
emission limit in the plan.
(2) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission
limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission limit.
[FR Doc. 2010-33106 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P