Federal Register: January 30, 2014 (Volume 79, Number 20)

DOCID: FR Doc 2014-00930

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 52

FR ID: [FR Doc No: 2014-00930]

EPA ID: [EPA-R08-OAR-2012-0026, FRL9905-42-R08]

NOTICE: RULES

ACTION: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals, Disapprovals and Promulgations:

DOCUMENT ACTION: Final rule.

SUBJECT CATEGORY:

Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals, Disapprovals and Promulgations:

DATES: This final rule is effective March 3, 2014.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Wyoming on January 12, 2011, that addresses regional haze. This SIP was submitted to address the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act'') and rules that require states to address in specific ways any existing anthropogenic impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional haze program''). States are required to assure reasonable progress toward the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. EPA is approving several aspects of Wyoming's regional haze SIP that we had proposed to disapprove in our June 10, 2013 proposed rule in light of public comments and newly available information indicating the adequacy of the SIP with respect to those aspects. EPA is also approving some aspects of the State's SIP that we proposed to approve. EPA is promulgating a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to address some of the deficiencies identified in our proposed partial disapproval of Wyoming's regional haze SIP issued on June 10, 2013. EPA is taking this action pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of the CAA.

SUMMARY:

Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Definitions

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

ii. The initials AFUDC mean or refer to Allowance for Funds Utilized During Construction.

iii. The initials APA mean or refer to the Administrative Procedures Act.

iv. The initials AQRV mean or refer to Air Quality Related Value.

v. The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control Technology.

vi. The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology.

vii. The initials CAMD mean or refer to Clean Air Markets Division.

viii. The initials CAMx mean or refer to Comprehensive Air Quality Model.

ix. The initials CCM mean or refer to EPA's Control Cost Manual.

x. The initials CLRC mean or refer to the Construction Labor Research Council.

xi. The initials CMAQ mean or refer to Community MultiScale Air Quality modeling system.

xii. The initials CSAPR mean or refer to the CrossState Air Pollution Rule.

xiii. The initial DEQ mean or refer to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

xiv. The initials EGUs mean or refer to Electric Generating Units.

xv. The initials EIS mean or refer to Environmental Impact Statement.

xvi. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

xvii. The initials ESP mean or refer to electrostatic precipitator.

xviii. The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.

xix. The initials FLM mean or refer to Federal Land Managers.

xx. The initials FR mean or refer to the Federal Register.

xxi. The initials GAQM mean or refer to Guidance on Air Quality Models.

xxii. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer to Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments monitoring network.

xxiii. The initials IPM mean or refer to Integrated Planning Model.

xxiv. The initials IWAQM mean or refer to Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling.

xxv. The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX burners.

xxvi. The initials LRS mean or refer to Laramie River Station.

xxvii. The initials LTS mean or refer to long term strategy.

xxviii. The initials MATS mean or refer to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard.

xxix. The initials MW mean or refer to megawatts.

xxx. The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

xxxi. The initials NEPA mean or refer to National Environmental Policy Act.

xxxii. The initials NH 3 mean or refer to ammonia.

xxxiii. The initials NO X mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.

xxxiv. The initials OFA mean or refer to overfire air.

xxxv. The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.

xxxvi. The initials PM 2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers.

xxxvii. The initials PM 10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers.

xxxviii. The initials PTE mean or refer to potential to emit.

xxxix. The initials RAVI mean or refer to reasonably attributable visibility impairment.

xl. The initials RHR mean or refer to the Regional Haze Rule.

xli. The initials RIS mean or refer to Regulatory Impact Statement.

xlii. The initials RPG mean or refer to reasonable progress goals.

xliii. The initials RPO mean or refer to Regional Planning Organization.

xliv. The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic reduction.

xlv. The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

xlvi. The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective noncatalytic reduction.

xlvii. The initials SO 2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.

xlviii. The initials SOFA mean or refer to separated overfire air.

xlix. The initials UMRA mean or refer to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

l. The initials URP mean or refer to Uniform Rate of Progress.

li. The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic compounds.

lii. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations.

liii. The initials WRAP mean or refer to the Western Regional Air Partnership.

liv. The words Wyoming and State mean the State of Wyoming. Table of Contents
I. Background

A. Regional Haze

i. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

ii. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

B. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs

i. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

ii. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions

iii. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals
[[Page 5033]]

iv. Best Available Retrofit Technology

v. LongTerm Strategy

vi. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment

vii. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

viii. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

C. Our Proposal

D. Public Participation
II. Final Action

III. Changes From Proposed Rule and Reasons for Changes

A. Changes to Proposed Costs and Visibility Improvements

B. Changes to Our Proposed Determinations

1. Dave Johnston Unit 3

2. Dave Johnston Unit 4

3. Naughton Units 1 and 2

4. Naughton Unit 3

5. Wyodak

6. Jim Bridger

7. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2
IV. Basis for Our Final Action

A. Laramie River

B. Jim Bridger

C. Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4

D. Naughton

E. Wyodak

F. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 (Reasonable Progress) V. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses

A. Legal Issues

1. EPA Authority and State Discretion

2. Compliance With Section 307(d)

3. Compliance With Section 169A(d)

4. Public Hearings

5. RHR and BART Guidelines

6. Reasonableness Standard

7. Reliance on Emission Reductions

8. Presumptive Limits

9. Compliance With 40 CFR 51.308

10. Legal Analysis

11. Consideration of Existing Controls

12. Consent Decree

13. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting

B. Modeling

1. General Comments

2. EPA Modeling

a. Description of Revised EPA Modeling

b. Comments on EPA Modeling

C. Overarching Comments on BART

1. BARTEligible Sources

2. Cost of Controls

3. Consideration of the Five Factors

4. Visibility Improvement

5. PM BART Determinations

6. Incremental Costs and Visibility

7. Other Comments on BART

D. BART Sources

1. Basin Electric Laramie River Station Units 13

a. General Comments

b. NOX BART Determination

2. Jim Bridger Units 14

a. NOX BART Determination

b. PM BART Determination

3. Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4

a. NOX BART Determination

b. Alternative Control Technology Proposal

4. Naughton Units 13

a. NOX BART Determination

b. Alternative Control Technology Proposal

5. Wyodak

6. Trona Mines

a. FMC Westvaco and General Chemical Green River

b. FMC Granger Trona Mine

E. Reasonable Progress

1. RPGs

2. Reasonable Progress Sources

a. Oil and Gas Sources

b. Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2

F. General Comments

1. Replacement of FIP Elements With SIP

2. Public Comment

3. Economic Concerns

4. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

5. Other
VI. NonRelevant Comments From EPA's Original June 4, 2012 Proposal

A. General Comments

B. Basin Electric Laramie River

C. Jim Bridger Units 14

D. Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4

E. Naughton Units 13

F. Wyodak

G. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2

H. Modeling
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

The CAA requires each state to develop plans, referred to as SIPs, to meet various air quality requirements. A state must submit its SIP and SIP revisions to us for approval. Once approved, a SIP is enforceable by EPA and citizens under the CAA, also known as being federally enforceable. If a state fails to make a required SIP submittal or if we find that a state's required submittal is incomplete or unapprovable, then we must promulgate a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. CAA section 110(c)(1). This action involves the requirement that states have SIPs that address regional haze.

Few states submitted a regional haze SIP prior to the December 17, 2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states, including Wyoming,\1\ the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once EPA has found that a state has failed to make a required submission, EPA is required to promulgate a FIP within two years unless the state submits a SIP and the Agency approves it within the twoyear period. CAA section 110(c)(1). Wyoming subsequently submitted a SIP addressing regional haze on January 12, 2011.
\1\ We issued a finding of failure to submit for Wyoming only for the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309(g)) regarding required SIP provisions, including NOX BART, to address visibility at Class I areas other than the 16 areas covered by the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission Report. Wyoming had submitted a SIP for the rest of the requirements under 40 CFR 51.309 prior to our January 15, 2009 finding.

States in the west were given the option to meet the requirements of the RHR either under 40 CFR 51.309 or 40 CFR 51.308. Wyoming chose to adopt the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. Section 309 requires states to adopt regional haze strategies that are based on recommendations from the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission for protecting the 16 Class I areas in the Colorado Plateau area, including a sulfur dioxide (SO2) backstop cap and trade program, SO2 milestones, and other requirements such as smoke management, a program to address mobile sources, and pollution prevention. Also, section 309(g) includes requirements for SIP provisions, including NOX BART, to address visibility impairment at other Class I areas. On December 12, 2012, we finalized approval of Wyoming's 309 regional haze SIP for the requirements relating to the SO2 backstop cap and trade program, milestones and the other
requirements.\2\ Today's action addresses the remaining portion of Wyoming's SIP, including the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and particulate matter (PM).

\2\ 77 FR 73926 (Dec. 12, 2012).

In a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, environmental groups sued EPA for our failure to take timely action with respect to the regional haze requirements of the CAA and our regulations.\3\ In particular, the lawsuits alleged that we had failed to promulgate FIPs for these requirements within the twoyear period allowed by CAA section 110(c) or, in the alternative, fully approve SIPs addressing these requirements.
\3\ WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, 1:11cvCMAMEH (D. Colo.).

As a result of these lawsuits, we entered into a consent decree. The consent decree requires that we sign a notice of final rulemaking addressing the regional haze requirements for Wyoming by January 10, 2014.\4\ We are meeting that requirement with the signing of this final rule
\4\ WildEarth Guardians v. Jackson, 1:11cvCMAMEH (D. Colo.) (Dkt. Nos. 73, 74).

A. Regional Haze

Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a multitude of sources and activities which are located across a broad geographic area and emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide
(SO2),
[[Page 5034]]
NOX, and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). Fine particle precursors react in the atmosphere to form PM2.5, which impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility impairment reduces the clarity, color, and visible distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.

Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the ``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and wilderness areas. The average visual range \5\ in many Class I areas (i.e., national parks and memorial parks, wilderness areas, and international parks meeting certain size criteria) in the western United States is 100150 kilometers, or about onehalf to twothirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air pollution. In most of the eastern Class I areas of the United States, the average visual range is less than 30 kilometers, or about onefifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
\5\ Visual range is the greatest distance, in kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be viewed against the sky. i. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR)

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 \6\ which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, EPA 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.'' 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
\6\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I additional areas 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.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal area.''

Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR part 51, subpart P. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.30051.309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in section III of this preamble. The requirement to submit a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment no later than December 17, 2007.\7\
\7\ EPA's regional haze regulations require subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(i).

Few states submitted a regional haze SIP prior to the December 17, 2007 deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA found that 37 states (including Wyoming), the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands, had failed to submit SIPs addressing the regional haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once EPA has found that a state has failed to make a required submission, EPA is required to promulgate a FIP within two years unless the state submits a SIP and the Agency approves it within the twoyear period. CAA section110(c)(1).

ii. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and various federal agencies. As noted above, pollution affecting the air quality in Class I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to effectively address the problem of visibility impairment in Class I areas, states need to develop strategies in coordination with one another, taking into account the effect of emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another.

Because the pollutants that lead to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad geographic areas, EPA has encouraged the states and tribes across the United States to address visibility impairment from a regional perspective. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first evaluated technical information to better understand how their states and tribes impact Class I areas across the country, and then pursued the development of regional strategies to reduce emissions of pollutants that lead to regional haze.

The Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of state governments, tribal governments, and various federal agencies established to initiate and coordinate activities associated with the management of regional haze, visibility and other air quality issues in the western United States. WRAP member state governments include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Tribal members include Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San Felipe, and ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall.

B. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

The following is a summary of the requirements of the RHR. See 40 CFR 51.308 for further detail regarding the requirements of the rule. i. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations require states to establish longterm strategies for making reasonable progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in [[Page 5035]]
existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail below.
ii. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility Conditions

The RHR establishes the deciview as the principal metric or unit for expressing visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 39118. This visibility metric expresses uniform changes in the degree of haze in terms of common increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction using a logarithmic function. The deciview is a more useful measure for tracking progress in improving visibility than light extinction itself 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.\8\
\8\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).

The deciview is used in expressing RPGs (which are interim visibility goals towards meeting the national visibility goal), defining baseline, current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air pollution by reducing anthropogenic emissions that cause regional haze. The national goal is a return to natural conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair visibility in Class I areas.

To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401437), and as part of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I area at the time of each regional haze SIP submittal and periodically review progress every five years midway through each 10year implementation period. To do this, the RHR requires states to determine the degree of impairment (in deciviews) for the average of the 20 percent least impaired (``best'') and 20 percent most impaired (``worst'') visibility days over a specified time period at each of their Class I areas. In addition, states must also develop an estimate of natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based on those estimates. We have provided guidance to states regarding how to calculate baseline, natural and current visibility conditions.\9\ \9\ Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, EPA454/B03005, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/Regional_Haze_envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as ``our 2003 Natural Visibility Guidance''); and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze Rule, (September 2003, EPA454/B03004, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as our ``2003 Tracking Progress

Guidance'').

For the first regional haze SIPs that were due by December 17, 2007, ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 percent least impaired days and 20 percent most impaired days for each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the fiveyear period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement necessary to attain natural visibility, while the future comparison of baseline conditions to the then current conditions will indicate the amount of progress made. In general, the 20002004 baseline period is considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.

iii. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze SIPs from the states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two distinct goals, one for the ``best'' and one for the ``worst'' days) for every Class I area for each (approximately) 10year implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(d), (f). The RHR does not mandate specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward achieving natural visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, states must provide for an improvement in visibility for the most impaired days over the (approximately) 10year period of the SIP, and ensure no degradation in visibility for the least impaired days over the same period. Id.

In establishing RPGs, states are required to consider the following factors established in section 169A of the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of compliance; and (4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. States must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable Class I area. In setting the RPGs, states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to as the ``uniform rate of progress'' (URP) or the ``glidepath'') and the emission reduction measures needed to achieve that rate of progress over the 10year period of the SIP. Uniform progress towards achievement of natural conditions by the year 2064 represents a rate of progress, which states are to use for analytical comparison to the amount of progress they expect to achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with one or more Class I areas (``Class I state'') must also consult with potentially ``contributing states,'' i.e., other nearby states with emission sources that may be affecting visibility impairment at the state's Class I areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining whether a state's goals for visibility improvement provide for reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions, EPA is required to evaluate the demonstrations developed by the state pursuant to paragraphs 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR
51.308(d)(1)(iii).

iv. Best Available Retrofit Technology

Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 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
[[Page 5036]]
stationary sources\10\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct BART determinations for such ``BARTeligible'' sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring sourcespecific BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than BART. \10\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subjecttoBART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``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. In making a BART determination for a fossil fuelfired electric generating plant with a total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state must use the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. Generally, a state is encouraged, but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations for other types of sources. Regardless of source size or type, a state must meet the requirements of the CAA and our regulations for selection of BART, and the state's BART analysis and determination must be reasonable in light of the overarching purpose of the regional haze program.

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 ``BARTeligible source'' set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; \11\ second, states determine which of such sources ``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 subjecttoBART, states then identify the best available type and level of control for reducing emissions. \11\ BARTeligible sources are those sources that have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a visibilityimpairing air pollutant, were not in operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed source categories. 40 CFR 51.301.

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source in the BART determination process. The most significant visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA has stated that states should use their best judgment in determining whether VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility in Class I areas.

Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold value for their BART modeling, below which a BARTeligible source would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The state must document this exemption threshold value in the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. Any source with emissions that model above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination review. 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. Any exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section III.A.1.

In their SIPs, states must identify the sources that are subject toBART and document their BART control determination analyses for such sources. In making their BART determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that states consider the following factors when evaluating potential control technologies: (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.

A regional haze SIP must include sourcespecific BART emission limits and compliance schedules for each source subjecttoBART. 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 years after the date of EPA approval of the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 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 e.g. CAA section 110(a). As noted above, the RHR allows states to implement an alternative program in lieu of BART so long as the alternative program can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal than would BART.

v. LongTerm Strategy

Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15year strategy for making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires that states include a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The LTS is the compilation of all control measures a state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The LTS must include ``enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals'' for all Class I areas within, or affected by emissions from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).

When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the contributing state must demonstrate that it has included, in its SIP, all measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). The RPOs have provided forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional consultations between states may be required to sufficiently address interstate visibility issues. This is especially true where two states belong to different RPOs.

States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment in developing their longterm strategy, including stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken into account in developing their LTS: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net
[[Page 5037]]
effect on visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source emissions over the period addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v).
vi. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must provide for a periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three years until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing regional haze visibility impairment, which was due December 17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, the state must revise its plan to provide for review and revision of a coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI and regional haze, and the state must submit the first such coordinated LTS with its first regional haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS's, and periodic progress reports evaluating progress towards RPGs, must be submitted consistent with the schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a state's LTS must report on both regional haze and RAVI impairment and must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision.
vii. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through
``participation'' in the IMPROVE network, i.e., review and use of monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be reviewed every five years. The monitoring strategy must also provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met.

The SIP must also provide for the following:

  • Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
  • Procedures for using monitoring data and other information in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
  • Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, and where possible, in electronic format;
  • Developing a statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a baseline year, emissions for the most recent year for which data are available, and estimates of future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to update the inventory periodically; and
  • Other elements, including reporting, recordkeeping, and other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.

    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial implementation period extending to the year 2018, with a comprehensive reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of section 51.308(d) with the exception of BART. The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first regional haze SIP. Facilities subjecttoBART must continue to comply with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable progress will continue to be met.
    viii. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers (FLMs)

    The RHR requires that states consult with FLMs before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must provide FLMs an opportunity for consultation, in person and at least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including development and review of SIP revisions, fiveyear progress reports, and the implementation of other programs having the potential to contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

    C. Our Proposal

    We signed our notice of proposed rulemaking on May 23, 2013,\12\ and it was published in the Federal Register on June 10, 2013 (78 FR 34738). In our 2013 proposal, we proposed to approve many of Wyoming's regional haze SIP, including the State's identification of its BART sources, its identification of those BART sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment, and the State's BART determinations for PM. Because of deficiencies in Wyoming's NOX BART analyses, however, we proposed to disapprove the NOX BART emissions limitations for a number of sources, as well as the reasonable progress goals and longterm strategy. We proposed to address the NOX BART requirements for these sources and the other deficiencies in the Wyoming plan in a FIP, based on our analysis of the relevant factors. For several BART sources we also asked in the proposed rulemaking if interested parties had additional information regarding the BART factors and EPA's proposed determinations, for example our weighing of average costs, incremental costs, visibility improvement, and timing of installation of such controls, and in light of such information, whether the interested parties thought the Agency should consider another BART control technology option that could be finalized either instead of, or in conjunction with, BART as proposed.\13\
    \12\ On May 15, 2012 the EPA signed the first proposed rule on the Wyoming Regional Haze SIP which proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove the Wyoming state plan. The EPA published the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public comment on June 4, 2012. This public Federal Register notice may be found at 77 FR 33022 (June 4, 2012). EPA then obtained an extension to the Consent Decree deadline in order to repropose the Wyoming regional haze plan based on data generated after the conclusion of the original comment period. In this document, all references to ``proposal'' or ``proposal notice'' refer to the notice published on June 10, 2013 unless otherwise stated.
    \13\ E.g., 78 FR 34777. The proposed notice also explained that ``[t]he Agency will take the comments and testimony received, as well as any further SIP revisions submitted by the State, into consideration in our final promulgation. Supplemental information received may lead the Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP regulations that reflect a different BART control technology option, or impact other proposed regulatory provisions, which differ from this proposal.'' 78 FR 34777.

    In our 2013 proposal we proposed to disapprove the following: [[Page 5038]]

  • The State's nitrogen oxides (NOX) best available retrofit technology (BART) determinations for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3.
  • The State's NOX reasonable progress determinations for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
  • Wyoming's reasonable progress goals (RPGs).
  • The State's monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
  • Portions of the State's longterm strategy (LTS) that rely on or reflect other aspects of the regional haze SIP that we are disapproving.
  • The provisions necessary to meet the requirements for the coordination of the review of the reasonably attributable visibility impairment (RAVI) and the regional haze LTS.

    We proposed the promulgation of a FIP to address the deficiencies in the Wyoming regional haze SIP that we identified in the proposed notice. The proposed FIP included the following elements:

  • NOX BART determinations and limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3.
  • NOX reasonable progress determinations and limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2.
  • RPGs consistent with the SIP limits proposed for approval and the proposed FIP limits.
  • Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements applicable to all BART and reasonable progress sources for which there is a SIP or FIP emissions limit.
  • LTS elements pertaining to emission limits and compliance schedules for the proposed BART and reasonable progress FIP emission limits.
  • Provisions to ensure the coordination of the RAVI and regional haze LTS.

    We also requested comment on an alternative proposal, related to the State's NOX BART determinations, for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, that would involve disapproval and the promulgation of a FIP.

    D. Public Participation

    We requested comments on all aspects of our proposed action. In our proposed rulemaking, we provided a 60day comment period, with the comment period closing on August 9, 2013. We also held a public hearing on June 24, 2013, in Cheyenne, Wyoming. We received requests from Wyoming's governor, congressional delegation, and Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), among others, for additional public hearings and an extended public comment period. As a result, we held two more public hearings. We held a hearing on July 17, 2013, in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and on July 26, 2013, in Casper, Wyoming. We also extended the comment period to August 26, 2013. We provided public notice of the additional hearings and extension of the public comment period on July 8, 2013. 78 FR 40654.

    II. Final Action

    Based upon comments received on our proposed action, in this final action we are partially approving and partially disapproving Wyoming's regional haze SIP submitted on January 12, 2011. We are approving the majority of the State's regional haze determinations. For the fifteen coal fired power plant units in Wyoming subject to the regional haze requirements, we are approving the State's NOX emission control technology decisions for 10 of those units. We are also approving the State's plan for the nonpower plant facilities subject to regional haze requirements and the State's plan for control of PM. We are approving all aspects of Wyoming's SIP, except for the following elements which we are disapproving:

  • The State's NOX BART determinations for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3.
  • Wyoming's RPGs.
  • The State's monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP.
  • Portions of the State's LTS that rely on or reflect other aspects of the regional haze SIP that we are disapproving.
  • The provisions necessary to meet the requirements for the coordination of the review of the RAVI and the regional haze LTS.

    The final FIP includes the following elements:

  • NOX BART determinations and emission limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3.
  • RPGs consistent with the SIP emission limits finalized for approval and the finalized FIP emission limits.
  • Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements applicable to all BART sources for which there is a SIP or FIP emissions limit.
  • LTS elements pertaining to emission limits and compliance schedules for the finalized FIP emission limits.
  • Provisions to ensure the coordination of the RAVI and regional haze LTS.

    Although we are promulgating a Federal plan, a state may always submit a new regional haze SIP to EPA for review and we would welcome such a submission. The CAA requires EPA to take action on such a SIP submittal that is determined to be complete within 12 months. If the State were to submit a revision meeting the requirements of the CAA and the regional haze regulations, we would propose approval of the State's plan as expeditiously as practicable. We are mindful of the costs of our final action but have considered the costs and visibility improvement that other states and EPA have required for BART controls.

    Table 1 shows the NOX BART control technologies, associated cost, and emission reductions for each source that is subject to the FIP.
    Table 1Control Technologies, Costs, Emission Limits, and Cost Effectiveness for Sources Subject to the FIP Emission limitlb/ Average cost Source Technology * MMBtu (30day Total capital cost Total annualized effectiveness ($/ rolling average) ($) cost ($) ton) Dave Johnston Unit 3.............. New lowNOX burners (LNBs) 0.28 (for LNBs with $15,976,696 (for LNBs $1,828,137 (for LNBs $644 (for LNBs with with overfire air (OFA) OFA). with OFA). with OFA). OFA). and shut down in 2027; or new LNBs with OFA and
    selective catalytic
    reduction (SCR) **.
    [[Page 5039]]

    Laramie River Unit 1.............. New LNBs/OFA and SCR...... 0.07................. $180,254,572......... $21,770,134......... $4,461. Laramie River Unit 2.............. New LNBs with OFA and SCR. 0.07................. $188,826,333......... $22,691,467......... $4,424. Laramie River Unit 3.............. New LNBs with OFA and SCR. 0.07................. $188,437,953......... $22,666,982......... $4,375. Wyodak Unit 1..................... New LNBs with OFA and SCR. 0.07................. $119,501,862......... $12,714,153......... $4,036. \*\ The technology listed is the technology evaluated as BART, but sources can choose to use another technology or combination of technologies to meet established limits.
    \**\ As used in this and the following tables, ``new'' means replacing the control technology that was in place at the time of the State's BART analyses in May 2009 with new control technology, most of which was installed post2009. III. Changes From Proposed Rule and Reasons for Changes

    A. Changes to Proposed Costs and Visibility Improvements

    As described in this section and elsewhere in today's final rule, we have revised our cost of compliance analysis and visibility improvement modeling from our June 10, 2013 proposed action for all of the BART and reasonable progress electric generating units (EGUs).

    EPA revised the cost analyses from those found in the proposed rule based upon input from various commenters. Some of factors that caused us to revise our cost estimates included accounting for site elevation in the SCR capital cost, change in SCR reagent to anhydrous ammonia from urea, change in auxiliary electrical cost from market price to generating cost, change in urea SNCR chemical utilization for some units due to high furnace temperatures, and consideration of shorter plant lifetimes in some instances. In addition, EPA incorporated some of the costs provided by commenters in their site specific cost estimates where we found those costs to be sufficiently supported. Per EPA's Control Cost Manual (CCM), use of site specific cost estimates is preferable to the use of generalized costs where those site specific costs can be supported and are appropriate.

    EPA addressed comments on the visibility improvement modeling in the proposed rule by developing a new protocol that makes several improvements in the modeling, including the use of the current regulatory version of the CALPUFF model (version 5.8), the use of an improved method to assess the effects of pollutants on light scattering and visibility impairment (Method 8), the use of lower background ammonia concentrations, and the use of an ammonia limiting correction for BART sources with multiple units. In particular, we have used new values for ammonia background that reflect robust monitoring data and the appropriate default concentrations for the geography in the state.

    The results of our revised cost analysis, along with the revised visibility impacts, are presented in Tables 2 through 17 below and summarized for each source below the set of tables for that source. Details regarding our revised cost analysis and visibility improvement modeling can be found in the docket.14 15
    \14\ Andover Technology Partners, ``Cost of NOX Controls on Wyoming EGUs'', October 28, 2013; Wyoming EGU BART and Reasonable Progress Costs10/28/2013; Wyoming EGU BART and
    Reasonable Progress Costs for Jim Bridger10/28/2013.
    \15\ Air Quality Modeling Protocol: Wyoming Regional Haze Federal Implementation Plan, U.S. EPA, January, 2014.
    Table 2Summary of EPA's Laramie River Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis Visibility improvement (Delta Emission rate Incremental deciview for (lb/MMBtu; Emission Annualized Average cost cost the maximum Control technology annual reduction costs effectiveness effectiveness 98th average) (tpy) ($/ton) ($/ton) percentile impact at Badlands National Park) New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.19 1,556 $2,268,806 $1,458 .............. 0.18 New LNBs with OFA and selective noncatalytic reduction 0.15 2,445 8,554,896 3,485 $6,993 0.28 (SNCR).................................................
    New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 4,880 21,770,134 4,461 5,449 0.57 [[Page 5040]]
    Table 3Summary of EPA's Laramie River Unit 2 NOX BART Analysis Visibility improvement (Delta Emission rate Incremental deciview for (lb/MMBtu; Emission Annualized Average cost cost the maximum Control technology annual reduction costs effectiveness effectiveness 98th average) (tpy) ($/ton) ($/ton) percentile impact at Badlands National Park) New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.19 1823 $2,268,806 $1,244 .............. 0.18 New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.15 2,717 8,531,631 3,140 $7,006 0.27 New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 5,129 22,691,467 4,424 5,871 0.53 Table 4Summary of EPA's Laramie River Unit 3 NOX BART Analysis Visibility improvement (Delta Emission rate Incremental deciview for (lb/MMBtu; Emission Annualized Average cost cost the maximum Control technology annual reduction costs effectiveness effectiveness 98th average) (tpy) ($/ton) ($/ton) percentile impact at Badlands National Park) New LNBs with OFA....................................... 0.19 1789 $2,268,806 $1,268 .............. 0.18 New LNBs with OFA and SNCR.............................. 0.15 2,706 8,643,839 3,194 $6,951 0.27 New LNBs with OFA and SCR............................... 0.05 5,181 22,666,982 4,375 5,667 0.52

    EPA's January 2014 modeling protocol, Appendix H, shows the model predicted visibility improvement for each emissions control technology at each of the Class I areas that we modeled in our analysis. For Laramie River we modeled visibility impairment at Badlands National Park, Wind Cave National Park, Rawah Wilderness Area, and Rocky Mountain National Park. At Laramie River Unit 1 the model visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were 0.57 deciviews at Badlands National Park, 0.47 deciviews at Wind Cave National Park, 0.25 deciviews at Rawah Wilderness Area, and 0.39 at Rocky Mountain National Park. At Laramie River Unit 2 the model visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were 0.53 deciviews at Badlands, 0.43 deciviews at Wind Cave, 0.26 deciviews at Rawah, and 0.31 at Rocky Mountain. At Laramie River Unit 3 the model visibility improvements with LNB/OFA/SCR were 0.52 deciviews at Badlands, 0.44 deciviews at Wind Cave, 0.23 deciviews at Rawah, and 0.28 at Rocky Mountain.
    Table 5Summary of EPA's Jim Bridger Unit 1 NOX BART Analysis Visibility improvement (Delta deciview for Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum Control technology (lb/MMBtu; reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th annual (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile average) ($/ton) impact at Bridger Wilderness Area) ** New LNBs with SOFA...................................... 0.18 4,558 $1,167,297 $256 .............. 0.17/0.23 New LNBs with SOFA and SNCR............................. 0.14 5,332 4,330,052 812 $4,088 0.20/0.27 New LNBs with SOFA and SCR.............................. 0.05 7,352 19,372,105 2,635 7,447 0.27/0.37 * Values shown are model results using ammonia based on monitoring and default data; values in straight font are model results using a monitored monthly varying concentration/values in italics are model results using an IWAQM default 0.5 ppb background ammonia. Table 6Summary of EPA's Jim Bridger Unit 2 NOX BART Analysis Visibility improvement (Delta deciview for Emission rate Emission Average cost Incremental the maximum Control technology (lb/MMBtu; reduction Annualized effectiveness cost 98th annual (tpy) costs ($/ton) effectiveness percentile average) ($/ton) impact at Bridger Wilderness

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

    Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, Mailcode 8PAR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 802021129, (303) 3126144, dygowski.laurel@epa.gov.