50936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Nevada Energy BART Analysis Reports, 

Reid_Gardner_1_10–03–08.pdf, 

Reid_Gardner_2_10–03–08.pdf, 

Reid_Gardner_3_10–03–08.pdf. Available in Docket 

Item No. EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130–0007. 

a. General. Mailers must sack 

separately, items bearing customs forms 

from items not bearing customs forms. 

When there are 3 pounds or more of 

mail addressed to the same country, the 

mail must be enclosed in a direct 

country sack. All types of mail, 

including letter-size bundles, flat-size 

bundles, and loose items, can be 

commingled in the same sack for each 

destination and counted toward the 3- 

pound minimum, provided items 

bearing a customs form are sacked 

separately from items not bearing 

customs forms. The maximum weight of 

the sack and contents must not exceed 

66 pounds. 

b. Direct Country Sack Tags. For each 

direct country sack, the mailer must do 

the following: 

1. Complete both sides of PS Tag 155, 

Surface Airlift Mail, which identifies the 

mail to ensure it receives priority 

handling. On the front of the tag, the 

mailer must identify the destination 

country and the foreign office of 

exchange code as listed in Exhibit 

293.452. On the back of the tag, the 

mailer must specify the price group as 

listed in Exhibit 293.452. In addition, 

mailers must apply to the tag a barcode 

that indicates the mailer’s permit 

number, the product code, the service 

type code, the receptacle type, the 

destination office of exchange, and the 

serial number of the sack. To request 

technical specifications for the barcode, 

send an email to 

globalbusinesssales@usps.gov. 

* * * * * 

We will publish an amendment to 39 

CFR part 20 to reflect these changes. 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20583 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130, FRL 9700–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Regional Haze State and Federal 

Implementation Plans; BART 

Determination for Reid Gardner 

Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part the remaining 

portion of the Nevada Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

implements the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

Regional Haze Rule requiring states to 

prevent any future and remedy any 

existing man-made impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

through a regional haze program. EPA is 

approving Nevada’s selection of a 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions limit of 

0.20 lb/MMBtu as Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) for the Reid 

Gardner Generating Station (RGGS) at 

Units 1 and 2. EPA is disapproving two 

provisions of Nevada’s BART 

determination for NOX at RGGS: The 

emissions limit for Unit 3 and the 

compliance method for all three units. 

EPA is promulgating a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) which 

replaces the disapproved provisions by 

establishing a BART emissions limit for 

NOX of 0.20 lb/MMBtu at Unit 3, and a 

30-day averaging period for compliance 

on a heat input-weighted basis across all 

three units. We encourage the State to 

submit a revised SIP to replace all 

portions of our FIP. Moreover, we stand 

ready to work with the State to develop 

a revised plan. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 24, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0130 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket are available electronically at 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, California. Please 

note that while many of the documents 

in the docket are listed at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may not be specifically listed in the 

index to the docket and may be publicly 

available only at the hard copy location 

(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, 

multi-volume reports or otherwise 

voluminous materials), and some may 

not be available at either locations (e.g., 

confidential business information). To 

inspect the hard copy materials, please 

schedule an appointment during normal 

business hours with the contact listed 

directly below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 

Planning Office, Air Division, AIR–2, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105. Thomas Webb can be reached at 

telephone number (415) 947–4139 and 

via electronic mail at 

webb.thomas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, wherever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our,’’ is used, we mean 

the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

Table of Contents 

I. Background and Purpose 

II. EPA Responses to Public Comments 

III. Summary of EPA Actions 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background and Purpose 

A detailed explanation of the 

requirements for regional haze SIPs and 

EPA’s analysis of the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection’s (NDEP) 

BART determination for NOX at RGGS 

is provided in our Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making and is not restated here. 

See 77 FR 21896 (April 12, 2012). 

RGGS consists of four coal-fired 

boilers, three of which are BARTeligible units with generating capacity 

of 100 megawatts (MW) each. A fourth 

unit (250 MW) is not BART-eligible. 

Nevada Energy, the owner of RGGS, 

performed a NOX BART analysis for the 

three BART-eligible units at RGGS and 

submitted the results of its analysis to 

NDEP.1 In its BART analysis, Nevada 

Energy considered several NOX control 

technologies and evaluated the cost of 

compliance and visibility improvement 

associated with each technology. In 

preparing the SIP, NDEP relied on 

certain aspects of Nevada Energy’s 

analysis while performing updated 

analyses for other aspects. 

EPA proposed to fully approve 

Nevada’s SIP on June 22, 2011 (see 76 

FR 36450), but received numerous 

comments on our proposed approval of 

the BART determination for NOX at 

RGGS. A detailed description of those 

comments is in our final rule, which 

approved all of the Nevada regional 

haze SIP, except for the BART 

determination for NOX at RGGS. See 77 

FR 17334 (March 26, 2012). After 

reviewing the public comments, EPA 

performed additional analyses of the 

cost-effectiveness and visibility 

improvement associated with the 

various NOX control technologies 

considered by NDEP in determining 

BART for NOX at RGGS. Based upon 

these additional analyses, EPA did not 

take final action on the chapters of the 

SIP containing the NOX BART 

determination for RGGS, including the 

corresponding emission limits and 

schedules of compliance for NOX at 

RGGS. Specifically, EPA did not take 

final action on sections 5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 

7.2 of NDEP’s SIP, addressing the NOX

BART control analyses, visibility 

improvement, and implementation at 

RGGS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50937 

2As explained in our proposal, NDEP originally 

selected rotating opposed fire air (ROFA) with 

RotamixTM as BART for RGGS Units 1–3, but more 

recently informed us that it will submit a SIP that 

evaluates the substitution of SNCR with LNB and 

OFA for ROFA with RotamixTM. 77 FR at 21898. 

Therefore, we are not approving NDEP’s prior 

selection of ROFA with RotamixTM as the control 

type for BART. Rather, we are approving NDEP’s 

BART emissions limits for Units 1 and 2 of 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu. According to the most recent information 

received from NDEP, these limits can be achieved 

either with ROFA with RotamixTM or with SNCR 

with LNB and OFA. ROFA with RotamixTM

combines a conventional SNCR system with a 

proprietary air and reagent injection system. 

3Throughout the preamble we use the term ‘‘heat 

input-weighted average’’ in describing the 30 

successive day rolling emission limit. The 

regulation does not actually average the data for the 

3 units, but sums the total NOX lb/hr over 30 boiler 

operating days and divides that total NOX lb by the 

sum of the heat input over the same days. The use 

of the term ‘‘heat input-weighted average’’ is meant 

to be descriptive of the time period and of the fact 

that it combines all three units to determine 

compliance. 

4The Consortium’s comment letter was signed by 

representatives of Sierra Club, National Parks 

Conservation Association, Moapa Band of Paiutes, 

Citizens for Dixie’s Future, Defend Our Desert, 

Friends of Gold Butte, Grand Canyon Trust, and 

Western Resource Advocates. 

5 In future discussions comparing SNCR and SCR, 

both technologies include use of modern LNB and 

OFA to meet the emission rates discussed in this 

rule. We will not continue to list the combustion 

controls separately. 

EPA published a new proposal to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove NDEP’s BART determination 

for NOX at RGGS on April 12, 2012. See 

77 FR 21896. Based on its additional 

analyses described above, EPA proposed 

revised control cost calculations for 

installation and operation of low NOX

burners (‘‘LNB’’) and overfire air 

(‘‘OFA’’) combined with either selective 

non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) or 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

technology.2 EPA also performed new 

CALPUFF visibility modeling to 

evaluate the visibility improvement 

from installing and operating LNB with 

OFA and either SNCR or SCR. 

As discussed in detail in our 

responses to comments, EPA’s 

independent modeling results showed a 

very small visibility improvement at the 

Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) as 

a result of installing and operating SCR 

with an 85 percent reduction in NOX on 

all three units. The modeled visibility 

improvement for this scenario was 0.38 

dv at the GCNP. The incremental 

visibility improvement for installing 

LNB with OFA and SCR rather than 

LNB with OFA and SNCR was only 0.10 

dv at GCNP. 

EPA has considered the comments we 

received on our proposed approval and 

proposed disapproval. In this final 

action, EPA is approving NDEP’s 

determination that NOX BART for RGGS 

for Units 1 and 2 is an emissions limit 

of 0.20 lb/MMBtu that can be achieved 

by installing and operating LNB with 

OFA and SNCR. EPA is disapproving 

NDEP’s NOX BART emissions limit of 

0.28 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3. EPA is also 

disapproving the 12-month rolling 

average that NDEP adopted for all three 

units. Concurrently, EPA is finalizing a 

FIP for RGGS setting a NOX emissions 

limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu for Unit 3 and 

a 30 successive boiler operating day 

(BOD) rolling NOX emissions limit on a 

heat input-weighted average across all 

three units.3 This represents a change to 

the averaging period included in our 

proposed action on April 12, 2012, 

which was based on a straight 30 

calendar day average. EPA concludes 

that the change is a logical outgrowth of 

the proposal and the comments 

received. 

EPA takes very seriously a decision to 

disapprove these provisions in Nevada’s 

plan, as we believe that it is preferable 

that all emission control requirements 

needed to protect visibility be 

implemented through the Nevada SIP. A 

revised state plan need not contain 

exactly the same provisions that EPA 

has included in the FIP, but EPA must 

be able to find that the state plan is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

CAA. Further, EPA’s oversight role 

requires that we assure fair 

implementation of CAA requirements 

by states across the country, even while 

acknowledging that individual 

decisions from source to source or state 

to state may not have identical 

outcomes. In this instance, we believe 

that NDEP’s NOX BART determination 

for RGGS generally meets those 

requirements except for the specific 

emissions limit for Unit 3 and the 

compliance averaging time. As a result, 

EPA believes this combined approval, 

disapproval, and FIP is consistent with 

the CAA at this time, while full 

approval of the SIP would be 

inconsistent with the CAA. We look 

forward to working with NDEP to 

replace the FIP provisions with a 

revised SIP. 

II. EPA Responses to Public Comments 

EPA received written and oral 

comments before the close of the public 

comment period on June 4, 2012. We 

received major comments in writing 

from a consortium of environmental and 

conservation organizations 4

(‘‘Consortium’’), the National Park 

Service, the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection, Nevada 

Energy, the Moapa Band of Paiutes, 

Clark County Rural Democratic Caucus, 

and about ten individuals. We received 

comments from the two public hearings 

held near RGGS on May 3, 2012, that 

were attended by about 150 people, 

many of whom testified. We also 

received over 13,000 comments from 

mass mailings initiated by Sierra Club, 

National Parks Conservation 

Association, and CREDO Action (Rural 

Nevada Democratic Caucus). The 

comment letters, transcripts of the 

public testimony, and samples of the 

mass mailers are available for review 

online in Docket EPA–R09–OAR–2011– 

0130 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

While the written comments focus 

largely on the cost of compliance and 

degree of visibility improvement 

associated with SCR and SNCR, other 

topics are included. The oral comments 

provided as testimony at the public 

hearings focus largely on SCR and 

SNCR, but with an emphasis on 

sustaining jobs in the local community 

and the health issues experienced by the 

Moapa Band of Paiutes who live 

adjacent to Reid Gardner. We respond 

below to the full range of comments 

received from all sources. 

A. National Consistency 

Comment 1: EPA’s proposed BART 

determination for NOX at RGGS is 

inconsistent with EPA’s decision to 

require SCR on other similar facilities 

including the San Juan Generating 

Station in New Mexico. 

Response 1: It is important to note 

that EPA is approving Nevada’s 

determination that the NOX BART for 

RGGS is the emissions rate achievable 

using modern LNB with OFA and 

SNCR. We are approving NDEP’s 

decision to reject requiring SCR as NOX

BART because we believe that NDEP’s 

conclusion, that the small improvement 

in visibility at GCNP did not justify the 

cost of LNB with OFA and SCR 

technology, is adequately supported by 

the facts in this situation.5 Congress 

crafted the CAA to provide for states to 

take the lead in developing 

implementation plans, but balanced that 

decision by requiring EPA to ensure the 

plans meet the requirements of the 

CAA. EPA’s review of a SIP is not 

limited to a ministerial approval of a 

state’s decisions. EPA must evaluate 

whether a state considered the 

appropriate factors and acted reasonably 

in doing so. In undertaking such a 

review, EPA does not usurp a state’s 

authority but ensures that such 

authority is reasonably exercised. 

The CAA and EPA’s regional haze 

regulations set forth five factors that a 

state should evaluate to reach a BART 

determination. However, the CAA and 

our regulations provide flexibility to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6Per 76 FR 503, Table 8, EPA Region 6 modeled 

visibility benefits of 3.11 deciviews (single Class I 

area with greatest impact), and 21.69 deciviews 

(cumulative, all Class I areas within 300 km). 

7 Jeffrey Energy Center 1 and 2, La Cygne Unit 2. 

8EPA Region 6 proposed approval of the NOX

portions of the Oklahoma RH SIP. See Muskogee 

Station Unit 4 and 5, Sooner Station Units 1 and 

2. 

state in deciding how the factors in the 

analysis are weighed. Moreover, for 

power plants that are smaller than 750 

MW, our regulations allow the state to 

conduct a five-factor analysis that does 

not conform in all respects to our BART 

Guidelines for larger sources. See 70 FR 

39131 (July 6, 2005). 

For San Juan Generating Station and 

other examples cited in the comments, 

EPA disapproved BART determinations 

submitted by the states because they did 

not meet the CAA requirements. Under 

CAA section 110(c), EPA is required to 

promulgate a Federal Implementation 

Plan following disapproval of a state 

implementation plan submission in 

whole or in part. EPA’s role of making 

the initial BART determination in a FIP 

is not directly comparable to EPA’s role 

in deciding whether the state’s SIP is 

approvable. EPA and the states 

generally consider the same factors in 

the initial BART determination but may 

weigh those factors differently provided 

the determination in each case is 

reasonable. BART determinations are 

case by case analyses. For example, in 

the case of San Juan Generating Station, 

EPA modeled very significant visibility 

improvement in numerous surrounding 

Class I areas resulting from emissions 

reductions associated with SCR, and 

thus concluded based on its five factor 

analysis that SCR was BART.6 However, 

at RGGS, the visibility improvement 

from SCR compared to SNCR is very 

small. The units at San Juan Generating 

Station are also significantly larger than 

the units at RGGS, and the application 

of the BART Guidelines is mandatory 

when performing the five-factor 

analysis. This is not the case for RGGS. 

NDEP on the other hand indicated 

that it had determined SNCR rather than 

SCR was NOX BART for RGGS based on 

weighing the small incremental 

visibility improvement of SCR against 

its incremental cost effectiveness. When 

EPA reviewed NDEP’s NOX BART 

determination, we found problems in 

the method NDEP used to calculate costeffectiveness and in the assumptions on 

which the modeling was based. 

Accordingly, EPA independently 

calculated cost-effectiveness and 

performed new modeling. In our review, 

EPA considered both average and 

incremental cost-effectiveness and 

visibility improvement. The results of 

our own analysis of the incremental 

visibility improvement and cost for SCR 

differ from NDEP’s analysis in certain 

respects, but support NDEP’s decision to 

establish an emissions limit that can be 

achieved by installing SNCR 

technology. 

NDEP reasonably determined that 

NOX emissions reductions achievable 

with SNCR would provide some 

visibility improvement at GCNP at a 

reasonable cost. Our decision to approve 

NDEP’s determination that the 

emissions rate achievable with LNB 

with OFA and SNCR is NOX BART for 

RGGS is consistent with other national 

BART SIP approvals as well as proposed 

FIPs and final FIPs. See, e.g., 77 FR 

24385 (April 24, 2012) (Final Maine SIP 

approval); 77 FR 24027 and 24034 

(April 20, 2012) (Proposed Montana 

FIP); and 77 FR 20894 (April 6, 2012) 

(Final North Dakota FIP). Other SIPs 

have rejected more effective controls 

such as SCR if those controls were 

found to provide little visibility 

improvement relative to significant cost. 

See, e.g., 76 FR 80754, 80758 (Dec. 27, 

2011) (Final Kansas SIP approval 7); 76 

FR 16168 (March 22, 2011) (Proposed 

Oklahoma SIP approval 8). Therefore, 

our approval of NDEP’s BART 

determination is consistent with EPA’s 

action on other regional haze SIPs as 

well as proposed and final EPA FIPs. 

In summary, EPA thoroughly and 

independently reviewed NDEP’s basis 

for selecting a NOX emissions rate 

achievable with SNCR as BART for 

RGGS rather than selecting SCR. In 

reaching this determination, NDEP 

weighed the small visibility 

improvement against the costs of the 

more effective control option. EPA 

calculated a lower average and 

incremental cost-effectiveness value 

than NDEP. EPA’s modeling relied on 

the regulatory version of the CALPUFF 

modeling system and improved 

meteorological inputs, and predicted 

much less visibility improvement at 

GCNP from selecting SCR as NOX BART 

(average: 0.38 dv, incremental: 0.10 dv). 

We also evaluated the visibility 

improvement that would result at four 

other Class I areas within 300 km of 

RGGS. Our modeling indicated that SCR 

would result in only minimal 

improvement at these four areas. 

Although we found shortcomings in 

NDEP’s cost-effectiveness and visibility 

improvement values, we are taking final 

action to approve NDEP’s conclusion 

that the small visibility improvement 

does not justify the cost of requiring 

SCR as NOX BART. The comment before 

us does not change our decision that 

NDEP reasonably applied the statutory 

and regulatory factors to determine that 

the NOX BART emission rate achievable 

from SNCR (0.20 lb/MMBtu) is BART 

for RGGS. 

EPA acknowledges that NDEP has 

greater discretion in applying the BART 

factors because RGGS is an electric 

generating unit smaller than 750 MW. In 

evaluating SIPs, EPA exercises judgment 

about SIP adequacy, not just to meet and 

maintain the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS), but also to 

meet other requirements that do not 

have a specific ambient standard, such 

as visibility at Class I areas. In this case, 

Congress established a requirement for 

BART, and EPA is charged to assure that 

states meet the requirement. Here, 

contrary to the commenter’s assertion, 

we are exercising judgment within the 

parameters laid out in the CAA and 

consistent with other actions nationally 

applying our regional haze regulations. 

Our interpretation of our regulations 

and the CAA, and our technical 

judgments, are entitled to deference. 

See, e.g., Michigan Dep’t. of Envtl. 

Quality v. Browner, 230 F.3d 181 (6th 

Cir. 2000); Connecticut Fund for the 

Env’t., Inc. v. EPA, 696 F.2d 169 (2nd 

Cir. 1982); Voyageurs Nat’l Park Ass’n 

v. Norton, 381 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2004); 

Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United 

States EPA, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1056 

(9th Cir. January 19, 2012). 

Therefore, we are finalizing our 

approval of NDEP’s NOX BART 

emissions rate of 0.20 lb/MMBtu, 

achievable using modern LNB with OFA 

and SNCR, for RGGS with two 

exceptions. For Unit 3, EPA is taking 

final action disapproving the SIP and 

promulgating a FIP setting the NOX

emissions limit at 0.20 lb/MMBtu. In 

addition, EPA is finalizing a 30 

successive boiler operating day rolling 

NOX emissions FIP limit on a heat 

input-weighted average across all three 

units rather than the 12-month rolling 

average NDEP included in its SIP, 

which EPA is disapproving. 

B. BART Evaluation Process 

Comment 2: EPA did not correctly 

follow the BART process for evaluating 

the five factors, which should have 

resulted in selecting SCR and an 

emission limit corresponding to 90 

percent control of NOX.

Response 2: EPA was not conducting 

a BART analysis, but was reviewing the 

adequacy and reasonableness of NDEP’s 

BART analysis. NDEP noted that RGGS 

is not the size of a facility for which 

application of the BART guidelines is 

mandatory when performing its fivefactor analysis. In evaluating the five 

factors, NDEP evaluated visibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50939 

9Coal rank: The classification of coals according 

to their degree of progressive alteration from lignite 

to anthracite. In the United States, the standard 

ranks of coal include lignite, subbituminous coal, 

bituminous coal, and anthracite and are based on 

fixed carbon, volatile matter, heating value, and 

agglomerating (or caking) properties. http:// 

205.254.135.7/tools/glossary/index.cfm?id=C. 

10 Journal of the Air & Waste Management 

Association, Volume 55, September 2005, Nitrogen 

Oxides Emission Control Options for Coal-Fired 

Electric Utility Boilers. 

11EPA cost estimates, as listed in Appendix B of 

the TSD to our April 4 proposed action [Appendix 

B—Control Cost Estimate Revisions (September 

2011 updated estimates)]. 

impacts by relying on visibility 

modeling included in the BART 

analysis submitted to NDEP by Nevada 

Energy. NDEP concluded that the small 

improvement in visibility that could be 

achieved with SCR did not justify the 

cost of SCR. We are generally approving 

the State’s BART determination because 

we find NDEP’s conclusions as to the 

appropriate level of BART controls to be 

reasonable.. 

NDEP did not consider a SCR system 

that would achieve 90 percent 

reduction. For SCR, NDEP assumed the 

technology would achieve control 

efficiencies of 78 to 82 percent. See 

Table 1 in 77 FR 21900 (April 12, 2012). 

The significance of the control 

efficiency assumption is that it affects 

the cost-effectiveness of the control 

technology. Cost-effectiveness ($/ton) is 

calculated by dividing the total annual 

cost ($) by the total annual tons of the 

pollutant reduced (tons). Assuming that 

two different levels of control (e.g., 82 

percent versus 90 percent) bear the same 

cost, higher control efficiency 

assumptions (e.g., 90 percent) will result 

in lower cost per ton values because the 

denominator in the equation is larger. 

In reviewing the reasonableness of 

NDEP’s NOX BART determination, EPA 

assumed a higher efficiency than NDEP. 

EPA determined that SCR could reduce 

85 percent of the NOX emissions from 

the stack exhaust. EPA continues to find 

that the correct assumption for the 

removal efficiency in this case is 85 

percent rather than 90 percent. One of 

the factors EPA considered is that RGGS 

is not limited in its coal purchase by a 

contract. RGGS may purchase coal on 

the spot market, meaning that the rank 9

and nitrogen content of the coal 

combusted may vary. Bituminous coals 

from Utah have a very high btu per 

pound, which leads to higher NOX

produced during combustion. Coals 

with high nitrogen content also produce 

more NOX when combusted.10 Since 

RGGS has access by rail line to a 

number of different ranks of coal with 

varying nitrogen, these factors can affect 

the emission level that can be achieved 

with the SCR. 

Assuming arguendo that EPA agreed 

with the comment that SCR should 

achieve 90 percent reduction 

continuously, we would not necessarily 

change our decision to approve NDEP’s 

BART determination. As noted above, 

90 percent control efficiency 

assumption would lead to a lower 

average and incremental costeffectiveness. Even with that, NDEP’s 

BART determination may have been 

reasonable based on weighing the small 

incremental visibility improvement of 

SCR against its incremental cost 

effectiveness. However, that issue was 

not before EPA in this action since EPA 

determined that only 85% reduction 

could be assumed in this case. 

Comment 3: The commenter states 

that EPA did not follow the two-step 

process described in 40 CFR 51.301, 

which involves first identifying the best 

control technology for reducing NOX

and then applying the five factors to 

determine the best emissions limit 

achievable by that technology. A 

different emission limit should be 

chosen only if the technology fails to 

meet one of the five factors. Instead, 

EPA provided a list of all feasible 

methods to remove NOX, ranked from 

least effective (worst) to most effective 

(best) based on their NOX control 

efficiency. In sorting through the ranked 

list of control options to pick the BART 

control technology, the EPA started at 

the bottom, with the worst control, and 

moved up to the best control, thus 

corrupting the entire process. 

Response 3: We reiterate that EPA was 

not conducting a BART determination 

for NOX at RGGS. Rather, we were 

reviewing the adequacy of NDEP’s 

BART analysis. NDEP noted, correctly, 

that RGGS is not the size of a facility for 

which application of the BART 

Guidelines is mandatory. 

The process described in the 

comment is comparable to the process 

for determining Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) established in the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

regulations. The states, however, are not 

required to use a top-down BACT 

process for making a BART 

determination. EPA stated in its final 

BART rule that, ‘‘States should retain 

the discretion to evaluate control 

options in whatever order they choose, 

so long as the State explains its analysis 

of the CAA factors.’’ See 70 FR 39130 

(July 6, 2005). NDEP’s determination to 

eliminate SCR from consideration as 

BART was based on weighing the small 

incremental visibility improvement 

from SCR against its incremental costeffectiveness. This decision is within 

the discretion that a state can exercise 

in evaluating BART because it 

considered the appropriate factors and 

came to a reasonable determination, 

especially in this case which was not 

required to meet all aspects of EPA’s 

BART guidelines. 

Comment 4: The proposal does not 

demonstrate that a NOX limit of 0.05 lb/ 

MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average 

basis using SCR has any adverse 

impacts when subjected to a sitespecific, case-by-case, five-factor 

analysis. 

Response 4: The comment does not 

set forth the appropriate standard for a 

BART analysis. The process described 

by the commenter is analogous to a topdown control technology review 

conducted when determining the BACT 

for new major stationary sources or 

major modifications at existing 

stationary sources. As stated in 

Response 3, states are not required to 

use a top-down BACT process for 

making a BART determination, and 

states retain discretion to evaluate 

control options in whatever order they 

choose, as long as the state explains its 

analysis of the CAA factors. 

NDEP applied the five-factor BART 

analysis for NOX at RGGS. NDEP 

weighed the five factors and concluded 

that the small visibility improvement 

expected from installation of SCR did 

not justify the incremental cost of SCR. 

EPA independently and thoroughly 

evaluated NDEP’s determination. EPA 

also considered both average and 

incremental cost effectiveness as well as 

visibility improvement. Although we 

disagree with NDEP’s calculation of the 

cost effectiveness of SCR compared to 

SNCR, our modeling analysis has 

demonstrated that the visibility 

improvement from SCR is very small at 

GCNP. The visibility improvement from 

SCR is only 0.38 dv, and the 

incremental visibility improvement 

between SCR and SNCR is only 0.10 dv. 

The annualized cost of SNCR is 

approximately $1.02 million per unit, 

and the annualized cost of SCR is 

approximately $3.8 million per unit, 

making it four times as expensive as 

SNCR.11 NDEP’s determination that 

NOX BART is an emissions rate that is 

achievable with SNCR is reasonable 

based on its weighing of the small 

visibility improvement against the cost 

of SCR. 

Comment 5: The statute and 

regulations do not require EPA to 

compare the best technology to the next 

best technology, and then reject the best 

technology based on incremental 

differences. 

Response 5: EPA was not conducting 

its own BART analysis but was 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

reviewing the adequacy of NDEP’s 

BART analysis. We agree with the 

commenter that the CAA and regional 

haze regulations do not require the state 

to reject the best technology based on 

incremental differences. However, we 

note that the state has the discretion to 

compare the incremental costeffectiveness and incremental visibility 

improvement that will result from 

various technologies. See 70 FR 39129 

(July 6, 2005). The state must evaluate 

the differences between control 

technologies reasonably and provide a 

justification for rejecting a technology. 

For the RGGS NOX BART 

determination, we are finalizing our 

approval of NDEP’s elimination of SCR 

as BART based on the small visibility 

improvement that would result at the 

GCNP weighed against its costeffectiveness. In addition, NDEP noted 

that RGGS is the size of a facility for 

which application of the BART 

Guidelines is not mandatory. Thus, EPA 

concluded that NDEP’s NOX BART 

determination was reasonable. 

Comment 6: EPA’s consideration of 

the incremental visibility improvement 

between SCR and SNCR is contrary to 

law because there is no incremental 

visibility factor. 

Response 6: We disagree with the 

comment that considering incremental 

visibility improvement is prohibited by 

the CAA or our regulations. The CAA 

and our regional haze regulations 

specify that the states or EPA must 

consider cost and visibility in the fivefactor analysis. With respect to the cost 

factor, in promulgating the BART 

Guidelines, EPA responded to a 

comment stating: ‘‘In addition, the 

guidelines continue to include both 

average and incremental costs. We 

continue to believe that both average 

and incremental costs provide 

information useful for making control 

determinations.’’ See 70 FR 39127 (July 

6, 2005). The commenter did not cite 

any regulatory language that would 

preclude incremental cost effectiveness 

in considering the cost of compliance. 

With respect to using incremental 

visibility improvement, EPA’s response 

to comments on promulgating the BART 

guidelines stated: 

For example, a State can use the CALPUFF 

model to predict visibility impacts from an 

EGU in examining the option to control NOX

and SO2 with SCR technology and a scrubber, 

respectively. A comparison of visibility 

impacts might then be made with a modeling 

scenario whereby NOX is controlled by 

combustion technology. If expected visibility 

improvements are significantly different 

under one control scenario than under 

another, then a State may use that 

information, along with information on the 

other BART factors, to inform its BART 

determination. See 70 FR 39129 (July 6, 

2005). 

EPA’s regulations allow states to 

compare incremental cost-effectiveness 

and visibility improvements between 

different technologies. The incremental 

visibility benefit is one way to compare 

the visibility improvements from 

various controls. For this BART 

determination, NDEP weighed the small 

incremental visibility improvement 

against the incremental cost 

effectiveness. Based on weighing these 

factors, NDEP provided a reasoned 

justification for choosing SNCR 

technology as NOX BART for RGGS. 

EPA’s independent analysis indicates 

that NDEP properly exercised its 

discretion in its process for weighing 

the small visibility improvement against 

the cost-effectiveness to reject SCR. 

C. BART Selection Criteria 

Comment 7: EPA did not provide the 

public with the criteria for making its 

BART determination, which appears 

inconsistent with the BART Guidelines 

and the intent of the Regional Haze 

Rule. 

Response 7: As noted previously, EPA 

was not conducting its own BART 

analysis. We were reviewing the 

adequacy of NDEP’s BART analysis. 

NDEP correctly noted that RGGS is not 

the size of a facility for which 

application of the BART Guidelines is 

mandatory. 

After receiving significant comments 

on our initial proposed rule (76 FR 

36450), EPA independently and 

thoroughly reviewed NDEP’s NOX

BART determination and concluded 

that NDEP provided the public with 

information regarding the criteria it was 

applying in making its BART 

determination. See ‘‘Revised NDEP 

BART Determination Review of NV 

Energy’s Reid Gardner Generating 

Station Units 1, 2 and 3’’ revised 

October 22, 2009. NDEP adequately 

informed the public about the basis for 

its NOX BART determination for RGGS, 

stating: ‘‘NDEP concluded, based on a 

review of the economic analysis, that 

the $/ton of NOX removed increased 

significantly for the LNB with OFA and 

SNCR, and ROFA with SCR 

technologies without correspondingly 

significant improvements in visibility.’’ 

Id. page 6. We are approving NDEP’s 

determination that NOX BART for RGGS 

is an emissions rate that is achievable by 

installing and operating LNB with OFA 

and SNCR because NDEP reasonably 

weighed the small incremental visibility 

improvement that would result from 

installation of SCR against its higher 

cost. NDEP adequately disclosed the 

factors it considered in its BART 

determination. 

Comment 8: EPA fails to explain what 

level of incremental cost or visibility 

improvement would justify SCR. EPA 

should disclose the dollar limit and 

rationale for what constitutes ‘‘cost 

effectiveness,’’ and how its method is 

consistently applied across other 

facilities and states. 

Response 8: EPA’s approval of NDEP’s 

BART determination is based on finding 

that the State adequately considered the 

appropriate factors for BART and 

provided a reasonable explanation for 

selecting a NOX emissions rate that can 

be achieved with SNCR. NDEP 

explained that requiring SCR technology 

would result in a small incremental 

visibility improvement over SNCR when 

weighed against the incremental costeffectiveness of SCR. As stated in our 

proposed approval, our modeling 

analysis was performed ‘‘in a manner 

that more closely adheres with current 

EPA regulatory guidance on CALPUFF 

modeling.’’ See 77 FR 21903 (April 12, 

2012). Our analysis found that the 

average and incremental visibility 

improvement would be significantly 

lower than the visibility improvement 

relied upon by NDEP. In addition, EPA’s 

revised cost analysis also indicated 

lower cost per ton of pollutant removed 

for SCR. In our analysis, we evaluated 

the cost-effectiveness of both 

technologies (SCR and SNCR with LNB 

and OFA) based on using the Control 

Cost Manual (CCM) for including 

appropriate costs. 

Our modeling shows that there would 

be a very small improvement in 

visibility at the GCNP from using SCR 

at RGGS. Based on this analysis we have 

determined that we can approve NDEP’s 

determination that RGGS is required to 

comply with a NOX emissions rate that 

can be achieved with SNCR as BART. 

Although the values that EPA 

considered for cost-effectiveness and 

visibility improvement differ from 

NDEP’s analysis, we conclude NDEP’s 

analysis reasonably weighed the small 

visibility improvement against the cost 

to eliminate SCR. 

One comment faults EPA, stating: 

‘‘EPA further fails to explain what level 

of incremental cost or visibility 

improvement would justify the 

incremental cost.’’ See Consortium 

Letter at page 6. EPA’s BART guidelines 

did not establish bright-line thresholds 

for cost-effectiveness or visibility 

improvement, choosing to allow the 

states to exercise discretion to choose 

such values when appropriate. EPA 

stated: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50941 

We agree with the suggestion that the use 

of a comparison threshold, as is done for 

determining if BART-eligible sources should 

be subject to a BART determination, is an 

appropriate way to evaluate visibility 

improvement. However, we believe the States 

have flexibility in setting absolute thresholds, 

target levels of improvement, or de minimis 

levels since the deciview improvement must 

be weighed among the five factors, and States 

are free to determine the weight and 

significance to be assigned to each factor. For 

example, a 0.3, 0.5 or even 1.0 deciview 

improvement may merit stronger weighting 

in one case versus another, so one ‘bright 

line’ may not be appropriate. See 70 FR 

39129 (July 6, 2005). 

The same rationale should apply to 

cost-effectiveness. A bright line for costeffectiveness may not be appropriate for 

every case and is dependent on case 

specific factors relating to economics 

and technology. In this case-by-case 

determination, the small amount of 

visibility improvement did not justify 

the cost of SCR. 

Comment 9: EPA should explain the 

amount of incremental visibility 

improvement from SNCR to SCR that 

would justify the incremental cost 

increase of SCR, since no threshold is 

established in rulemaking or guidance. 

Response 9: EPA is not setting 

generally applicable thresholds for 

incremental cost-effectiveness or 

visibility improvement for the reasons 

discussed above. EPA’s BART 

Guidelines established presumptive 

emissions limits for SO2 and NOX at 

electric generating units at facilities 

generating more than 750 MW. But EPA 

did not extend those presumptive 

emissions limits to electric generating 

units at smaller facilities, such as RGGS. 

EPA did not establish presumptive 

cost-effectiveness or visibility 

improvement values. EPA left weighing 

the factors to the state providing the 

state considered the five factors and 

exercised its discretion reasonably. 

Here, EPA proposed to find that NDEP 

reasonably eliminated SCR when it 

weighed the cost-effectiveness against 

the small incremental visibility 

improvement associated with requiring 

SCR rather than SNCR. 

BART is a case-by-case analysis that 

is initially evaluated by the states. 

Provided the state exercises its 

discretion reasonably and meets the 

requirements of the CAA and 

regulations, EPA may approve it. EPA’s 

approval is not a ministerial act. In this 

rulemaking, EPA has carefully reviewed 

the basis for NDEP’s determination. 

There is no reason, and none is 

provided in the comment, to support the 

assertion that EPA should establish 

thresholds for cost-effectiveness or 

visibility improvement, or challenge 

EPA’s authority to approve a BART 

determination without them. 

Comment 10: EPA’s use of 

incremental visibility improvement to 

find that the cost of SCR is unjustified 

contradicts its finding that SCR is costeffective (77 FR 21901). 

Response 10: The commenter 

mischaracterizes EPA’s proposed 

approval. The commenter is correct that 

we did not find the average and 

incremental cost-effectiveness of SCR to 

be cost prohibitive. Nevertheless, our 

evaluation supported NDEP’s 

determination that the small amount of 

visibility improvement at GCNP did not 

justify the cost of SCR. 

The comment states that EPA has 

invented a ‘‘sixth factor’’ by 

‘‘concatenating incremental visibility 

and incremental cost.’’ See Consortium 

Letter, page 7. EPA has not invented an 

additional factor in the BART analysis 

but has approved a reasonable 

conclusion reached by NDEP when it 

weighed these two factors. NDEP’s 

weighing two factors in the analysis 

does not create a sixth factor. The 

comment does not explain how 

weighing two factors in the five-factor 

analysis constitutes stringing together 

and joining those factors into a sixth 

factor. 

National Parks Conservation 

Association and Sierra Club wrote to 

EPA on June 29, 2012, concerning 

several regional haze actions. We are 

treating this letter as a late comment on 

our proposed action and including it in 

our docket as such. This letter indicates 

that NPCA and Sierra Club understand 

that our approval is based on finding 

that NDEP reasonably weighed visibility 

improvement and cost-effectiveness 

rather than inventing an additional 

BART factor. The letter provides: 

In many cases, EPA has summarily 

concluded that the incremental costs of 

concededly superior controls are not 

warranted by the visibility benefits 

determinations, which are routinely at odds 

with the Agency’s own analysis 

demonstrating that installing the most 

effective controls will yield needed visibility 

improvements. See Letter dated June 29, 

2012, page 1. 

EPA’s analyses are also based on 

weighing the five BART factors. The 

relative weight of the cost-effectiveness 

and visibility improvement varies 

depending on the facility at issue. For 

the three 100 megawatt units at RGGS, 

EPA concludes that notwithstanding 

differing conclusions about both cost 

and visibility improvement, NDEP 

reasonably determined that a small 

visibility improvement at GCNP does 

not justify the cost of SCR. Our approval 

of NDEP’s NOX BART determination on 

this basis is consistent with our actions 

on other regional haze SIPs. See, e.g., 77 

FR 24385 (Apr. 24, 2012) (Final 

Approval of Maine SIP). 

D. Cost Analysis 

Comment 11: The incremental cost 

difference between SCR and SNCR is 

less than EPA estimated because the 

cost of SCR is overestimated and the 

cost of SNCR is underestimated, making 

SCR look relatively more expensive than 

is the case. 

Response 11: The comment does not 

provide any basis for EPA to revise its 

proposed approval of NDEP’s NOX

BART determination. Our proposal 

stated: 

Based on our revised cost estimates, we do 

not consider these [EPA’s] average and 

incremental cost effectiveness values for SCR 

and LNB and OFA as cost prohibitive. Our 

analysis of this factor indicates that costs of 

compliance (average and incremental) are not 

sufficiently large to warrant eliminating SCR 

from consideration. The incremental cost 

effectiveness values for Units 1 and 2 are 

around $4,500/ton. Although EPA does not 

consider this incremental cost prohibitive, 

we note that the State has certain discretion 

in weighing this cost. Because RGGS is not 

a facility over 750 MW and therefore not 

subject to EPA’s presumptive BART limits, 

the State may exercise its discretion more 

broadly in this particular determination. See 

77 FR 21901 (April 12, 2012). 

Even if the average and incremental 

cost-effectiveness between SCR and 

SNCR were somewhat different, NDEP’s 

BART determination would still be 

approvable based on its reasonable 

weighing of the cost and visibility 

improvement factors. 

Comment 12: EPA incorrectly 

estimated the cost-effectiveness of SCR 

(i.e., dollars per ton of emissions 

removed on an annual basis) by 

assuming that SCR can achieve an 

annual average emission no lower than 

0.083 to 0.098 lb/MMBtu, despite 

substantial evidence that SCR can 

achieve 0.05 lb/MMBtu or lower on an 

annual basis. 

Response 12: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. Regarding the accuracy of the 

cost effectiveness calculations of SCR, 

the commenter is correct that we 

estimated cost-effectiveness of SCR 

based on annual average emission rates 

ranging from 0.083 to 0.098 lb/MMBtu. 

However, we indicated in our proposal 

that we did not find SCR to be cost 

prohibitive at these emission rates. As a 

result, although we did consider more 

stringent SCR emission rates, such as 

0.06 lb/MMBtu, when evaluating 

visibility improvement, we did not also 

revise our cost estimates to reflect the 

more stringent SCR emission rates, since 

we had already indicated that did not 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

12Although NDEP’s BART analysis for RGGS 

need not conform to the BART guidelines because 

the capacity of RGGS is smaller than 750 MW, the 

BART guidelines do provide useful guidance in 

setting appropriate BART limits. 

find SCR to be cost prohibitive at the 

less stringent SCR emission rates. It 

would not have been in any way 

determinative to our decision to find 

that SCR was ‘‘even more’’ cost-effective 

or that the incremental costeffectiveness value between SCR and 

SNCR was ‘‘even more’’ incrementally 

cost-effective. 

Regarding the emission rate 

achievable by SCR, the BART 

Guidelines state that: ‘‘[i]n assessing the 

capability of the control alternative, 

latitude exists to consider special 

circumstances pertinent to the specific 

source under review, or regarding the 

prior application of the control 

alternative’’ (70 FR 39166, July 6, 

2005).12 In other words, the BART 

emission limits are not required to 

represent the maximum level of control 

ever achieved by a given technology. 

Limits set as BACT under the PSD 

program, or emission rates achieved 

from the operation of individual 

facilities under an emission trading 

program (e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule), 

may provide important information, but 

should not be construed to 

automatically represent the most 

appropriate BART limit for all facilities. 

The coal composition is also an 

important component of estimating the 

NOX emissions rate that a facility can 

achieve. RGGS is capable of purchasing 

coal on the spot market so there is likely 

to be variability in the NOX emissions 

rate that would be achievable with SCR 

or SNCR. As previously discussed in the 

response to Comment 2, RGGS receives 

its coal by rail line and has access to 

different ranked coals with varying 

nitrogen content, which influence the 

NOX concentration in the exhaust going 

to either SNCR or SCR controls. EPA’s 

policy is to set an emission limit that 

would reasonably accommodate the 

various coal sources under these 

circumstances. 

EPA disagrees with this comment, but 

even if we accepted the premise that 

RGGS is capable of continuously 

meeting an emission limit of 0.05 lb/ 

MMBtu, the comment does not provide 

any basis for EPA to change our 

approval of NDEP’s SIP or our FIP. 

Assuming the cost of achieving 0.05 lb/ 

MMBtu was equal to the cost of 

achieving 0.083 to 0.098 lb/MMBtu, 

using a NOX emissions rate of 0.05 lb/ 

MMBtu for SCR would likely result in 

lower average and incremental cost per 

ton values. Thus, we would calculate 

SCR to be more cost-effective (i.e., lower 

dollars per ton) on an average and 

incremental basis. As stated above, EPA 

did not determine the average or 

incremental cost of SCR to be 

prohibitive. Rather, EPA’s approval of 

NDEP’s determination that NOX BART 

for RGGS for Units 1 and 2 is an 

emissions limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu that 

can be achieved by installing and 

operating LNB with OFA and SNCR is 

based on our determination that NDEP 

reasonably weighed the visibility 

improvement against the other factors in 

rejecting SCR. EPA does not believe this 

analysis would be significantly altered 

by slightly lower incremental cost 

numbers. 

Comment 13: EPA did not correct all 

the errors in the State’s cost calculations 

for SCR (e.g., lack of multiple unit 

discounts, high reagent costs, incorrect 

capital recovery factor), which would 

have further reduced the cost and 

improved the cost effectiveness of SCR, 

thereby reducing the incremental cost 

difference with SNCR. 

Response 13: EPA partially agrees 

with this comment. EPA’s revised costeffectiveness values are consistent with 

EPA’s regulations and the parameters 

set forth in the CCM. EPA explained in 

promulgating the BART Guidelines that 

‘‘[s]tates have flexibility in how they 

calculate costs.’’ See 70 FR at 39127 

(July 6, 2005). A state may deviate from 

the Control Cost Manual provided its 

analysis is reasonable. EPA 

independently evaluated NDEP’s costeffectiveness calculation, stating in our 

proposal: 

We received several public comments that 

NDEP’s cost calculations were overestimated 

and based on methodology inconsistent with 

EPA’s Control Cost Manual (CCM). [footnote 

omitted]. We agree that NDEP included 

inappropriate costs and our analysis excludes 

those costs that are not allowed by the CCM. 

See 77 FR 21901 (April 12, 2012). 

Our proposal noted that we did not 

revise the cost-effectiveness calculation 

to adjust for all of the discrepancies 

with the CCM because based on our 

initial adjustments we found that SCR 

was not cost-prohibitive. It would not 

have been in any way determinative to 

our decision to find that SCR was ‘‘even 

more’’ cost-effective or that the 

incremental cost-effectiveness value 

between SCR and SNCR was ‘‘even 

more’’ incrementally cost-effective. 

As discussed above, EPA is approving 

NDEP’s determination that NOX BART 

is an emissions limit achievable with 

SNCR rather than SCR. The basis for our 

approval is that when NDEP weighed 

the small visibility improvement of 

moving from an emissions limit 

achievable with SNCR to one based on 

SCR against the incremental costeffectiveness of SCR, NDEP determined 

that NOX BART for RGGS for Units 1 

and 2 is an emissions limit of 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu that can be achieved by 

installing and operating LNB with OFA 

and SNCR. NDEP has discretion in 

determining how to weigh the factors in 

reaching a BART decision under the 

CAA and regional haze regulations. 

NDEP’s rationale for its decision, 

although based on different values than 

EPA calculated and modeled, was 

reasonable. Therefore, EPA is approving 

NDEP’s determination. 

The comment implies that correcting 

each of the costs listed as incorrect and 

substituting a SCR emissions limit of 

0.05 lb/MMBtu rather than 0.06 lb/ 

MMBtu for SCR would yield a very low 

incremental cost difference between 

SCR and SNCR. However, that 

implication is not supported by the 

comment. The comment does not 

calculate an alternative average or 

incremental cost-effectiveness 

differential between SCR and SNCR. 

Therefore, EPA is approving NDEP’s 

conclusion that the incremental costeffectiveness is not justified when 

weighed against the small visibility 

improvement. 

Comment 14: EPA did not consider 

the adverse non-air quality impacts of 

SNCR due to ammonia injection, which 

would increase the cost of SNCR and 

reduce the incremental cost difference 

with SCR. 

Response 14: As noted previously, 

EPA was reviewing the State’s BART 

determination to evaluate whether 

NDEP reasonably applied the 

requirements of the CAA and the 

regional haze regulations. EPA 

anticipates that ammonia emissions will 

be quite low because these units are 

equipped with baghouses and wet 

scrubbers that each can be expected to 

remove most ammonia slip associated 

with SNCR or SCR. To the extent the 

commenter is concerned that 

considering costs due to ammonia 

injection would lower the incremental 

cost-effectiveness value between SCR 

and SNCR, EPA reiterates that our 

proposed approval of NDEP’s RGGS 

NOX BART determination is not based 

on agreeing with NDEP that SCR is not 

cost-effective. EPA’s proposed approval 

states that SCR is cost-effective. 

Nonetheless, the BART determination is 

a multiple-factor analysis. NDEP has 

discretion to determine how to weigh 

the factors. Our independent analysis of 

the two critical factors demonstrated 

that the NDEP reasonably weighed the 

cost of SCR controls against the small 

visibility improvement to determine 

that SNCR is NOX BART for RGGS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50943 

13 70 FR 39167, July 6, 2005. 

Comment 15: In determining the 

average and incremental costeffectiveness, EPA should have used 

actual emissions for the baseline value 

of each unit rather than each unit’s 

annualized maximum permitted heat 

input multiplied by each unit’s 

maximum permitted NOX limit, which 

is closer to the potential to emit (PTE). 

Response 15: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. Again, we note that EPA was 

not performing its own BART analysis, 

but was reviewing the adequacy of 

NDEP’s BART analysis. The commenter 

is correct in noting that, in our review 

of NDEP’s evaluation of the cost of 

compliance, we did not modify the 

estimate of baseline annual emissions 

that NDEP used in its cost calculations. 

We agree that NDEP’s baseline more 

closely represents the sources’ PTE, and 

results in higher baseline annual 

emissions than the methodology 

proposed by the commenter, which 

would rely almost entirely on past 

actual annual emissions. Because the 

regional haze regulations and BART 

Guidelines are not prescriptive 

regarding the calculation of baseline 

emissions, stating that ‘‘the baseline 

emissions rate should represent a 

realistic depiction of anticipated annual 

emissions for the source’’ 13, the 

commenter’s proposed methodology is a 

potentially acceptable way to calculate 

baseline annual emissions. NDEP used a 

methodology that resulted in a higher 

estimate of baseline annual emissions, 

and we consider the methodology used 

by NDEP to be within the discretion 

afforded to states. 

E. Cost of Compliance 

Comment 16: Use of EPA’s Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual (‘‘CCM’’) 

is not required since RGGS is less than 

a 750 megawatt facility. 

Response 16: EPA agrees that the 

states are not required to use the CCM 

for electric generating units smaller than 

750 MW but that it is generally a good 

guide concerning costs to include and 

exclude. EPA performed an 

independent average and incremental 

cost-effectiveness calculation using the 

CCM to evaluate whether NDEP had 

reasonably weighed small visibility 

improvements against the incremental 

cost-effectiveness of requiring SCR 

rather than SNCR. EPA’s analysis 

resulted in different cost-effectiveness 

and visibility improvement values. 

Although the values for these factors 

differed from NDEP’s values, our 

analysis supported approving NDEP’s 

NOX BART determination to establish 

an emissions limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu 

achievable from installing and operating 

SNCR. 

Comment 17: EPA’s Air Pollution 

Control Cost Manual is out of date, and 

thus substantially underestimates 

current market costs of control 

technologies including SCR, which 

misrepresents the cost-effectiveness of 

chosen technologies. 

Response 17: EPA disagrees with the 

comment. The CCM is a valuable 

resource to guide the states in 

evaluating costs that should be included 

or excluded. The states have discretion 

to rely on specific capital and annual 

cost information that is updated or 

specific to the facility under 

consideration. 

F. Visibility Analysis 

Comment 18: EPA underestimated the 

visibility improvement that would 

result from SCR by assuming an 

emissions limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu (about 

84 percent efficiency) instead of 0.05 

lbs/MMBtu (about 90 percent efficiency) 

or lower, which was achieved at 21 

coal-fired EGUs in 2011, 11 of which are 

dry-bottom, wall-fired units like RGGS. 

Response 18: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. As noted previously, the 

purpose of EPA’s independent analyses 

assessing anticipated visibility 

improvements and cost-effectiveness of 

SCR were to evaluate the reasonableness 

of NDEP’s determination based on 

weighing small incremental visibility 

improvement against the incremental 

cost-effectiveness of SCR. The modeling 

that NDEP relied on assumed that SCR 

would reduce NOX between 78 percent 

and 82 percent. Although NDEP’s 

assumptions for SCR performance were 

within the range of emission rates 

achieved nationwide, EPA determined 

that for the purposes of visibility 

modeling and calculating costeffectiveness of SCR, assuming an 85 

percent reduction efficiency to meet an 

emissions limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu was 

reasonable for RGGS. As noted by the 

commenter, other coal-fired facilities do 

achieve emission rates of 0.05 lb/ 

MMBtu or lower, and some BART 

determinations have established a NOX

emission limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu for 

SCR. However, as noted in Response 12, 

emissions information reported to EPA’s 

Clean Air Markets program show that 

among coal-fired boilers operating with 

SCR nationwide, there is significant 

variability in actual NOX emission rates 

achieved, ranging from below 0.05 to 

greater than 0.10 lb/MMBtu. 

EPA’s assumption that RGGS could 

meet an emission limit of 0.06 lb/ 

MMBtu is reasonable and within the 

expected performance range of SCR. The 

commenter does not provide a basis, 

e.g., modeling that compares visibility 

benefits expected from a NOX limit of 

0.05 versus 0.06 lb/MMBtu, to change 

our approval of NDEP’s determination 

that NOX BART for RGGS is an 

emissions limit of 0.20 lb/MMBtu that 

can be achieved by installing and 

operating LNB with OFA and SNCR for 

the three units at RGGS. EPA anticipates 

that even if we modeled SCR to achieve 

0.05 lb/MMBtu instead of 0.06 lb/ 

MMBtu, the visibility benefits of SCR 

would still be smaller than the benefits 

modeled by NDEP. For example, if the 

post-SCR impact at GCNP is scaled by 

0.05/0.06, it decreases from 0.20 dv to 

0.17 dv. Relative to the 0.59 dv base 

case impact, the benefit of SCR would 

correspondingly increase from 0.38 dv 

to 0.42 dv, roughly 10 percent higher. 

However, as discussed in the Technical 

Support Document (‘‘TSD’’) for our 

proposed rule, EPA’s estimates of 

visibility impacts are more than 50 

percent lower than those relied on by 

NDEP due to differences in modeling 

procedures. The net effect of using 0.05 

lb/MMBtu as the NOX emissions factor 

would not change the fact that EPA’s 

estimate of SCR’s benefit would remain 

substantially smaller than that estimated 

by NDEP. As noted in previous 

responses, NDEP determined that the 

visibility benefits of SCR based on its 

modeling do not justify the cost. Thus, 

additional modeling of SCR at a lower 

emission rate is not likely to change 

NDEP’s consideration of the visibility 

factor, or our determination that NDEP’s 

process for weighing the factors is 

reasonable. 

Comment 19: The small visibility 

improvement from SCR is the result of 

underestimating the base case emissions 

and the amount of NOX that could be 

removed by SCR. The commenter 

provided an alternative, larger estimate 

of SCR benefits by scaling the EPA 

modeling results. 

Response 19: EPA disagrees with this 

comment. EPA performed an 

independent modeling analysis to 

ensure NDEP’s NOX BART 

determination was reasonable. Although 

estimates of the visibility improvement 

would be larger if EPA had used higher 

base case emissions, the scaling method 

used by the commenter does not 

accurately reflect the effect of a different 

base case, which would require new 

modeling. Even if the commenter’s 

scaling method results were accurate, 

the estimated visibility improvement 

remains small. The scaled benefits of 

SCR provided by the commenter are 0.7 

dv at GCNP, and 1.9 dv cumulatively 

over the five Class I areas; the 

comparable scaled figures for SNCR 

would be 0.4 dv and 1.1 dv 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

14 77 FR 21903. 

15See Table 13, National Park Service comment 

letter dated June 4, 2012, from Susan Johnson (NPS) 

to Thomas Webb (EPA). 

16As used in Model Scenario c16 that is based 

on the more stringent level of SCR+LNB+OFA 

performance of 0.06 lb/MMBtu. See Technical 

Support Document, Appendix C, Docket Item No. 

EPA–R09–2010–0130–0077–11 and –15. 

17Column 2 in Tables 11, 13, 15, National Park 

Service comment letter dated June 4, 2012, from 

Susan Johnson (NPS) to Thomas Webb (EPA). 

18Column 6, Table 11, ibid. 

19Based on Visibility Method 8, best 20 percent 

days background, as summarized in Appendix E of 

the TSD from our April 4, 2012 proposed action. 

[Appendix E—RGGS_TSD_CALPUFF_tables.xls] 

cumulatively. Thus, using the 

commenter’s method, the incremental 

visibility improvement of SCR over 

SNCR would be 0.3 and 0.8 

cumulatively. This is only slightly larger 

than the EPA-estimated benefit increase 

of 0.2 dv at GCNP, and is the same as 

the EPA-estimated benefit increase of 

0.8 dv cumulatively. EPA’s decision to 

approve NDEP’s BART determination 

would be unchanged. See also the 

response to comment 20. 

Comment 20: A commenter states that 

EPA used NDEP’s NOX baseline 

emission rates and control scenario 

emission rates to determine modeled 

visibility impacts. Because NDEP’s 

emission rates are based on an annual 

average instead of a maximum 24-hr 

average, the commenter alleges that EPA 

underestimated visibility impacts, and 

provides its own estimate of 24-hr 

average baseline and control scenario 

emission rates. 

Response 20: We acknowledge that 

we used NDEP’s baseline and control 

scenario emission rates, based on 

annual average emission factors, in the 

visibility modeling supporting our 

proposed approval. As noted in our 

proposal, NDEP modified the baseline 

emission rates and control scenario 

emission rates that Nevada Energy 

included in the BART analysis.14 NDEP 

did not, however, perform updated 

modeling to determine the visibility 

improvement associated with the 

revised baseline emission rates and 

revised control scenario emission rates. 

The absence of modeling results 

complicated our ability to evaluate the 

adequacy of NDEP’s analysis. To 

evaluate the adequacy of NDEP’s 

analysis, we performed our visibility 

modeling using NDEP’s revised baseline 

and revised control scenario emission 

rates. Again, the purpose of our 

modeling was to evaluate the adequacy 

of NDEP’s analysis which is not directly 

comparable to any modeling decisions 

we might make in our own BART 

determination as part of a FIP, such as 

at San Juan Generating Station. 

Regarding the use of control scenario 

emission rates based upon annual 

average emission factors (in lb/MMBtu) 

instead of 24-hour average emission 

factors (lb/MMBtu), we disagree with 

the commenter that these emission rates 

do not provide acceptable estimates of 

visibility benefits. The methodology for 

calculating control scenario model 

emission rates described by the 

commenter involves applying the 

estimated control efficiencies of a 

particular technology to the baseline 

(pre-control) model emission rate. While 

this methodology has been used by EPA, 

it does not preclude the use of other 

methodologies for calculating control 

scenario emissions. In the case of 

control technology performance, 

engineering estimates of a particular 

technology’s post-control level of 

performance will often be expressed in 

terms of lb/MMBtu, either on a 30-day 

or annual average basis. To the extent 

that the engineering estimate represents 

a more accurate depiction of future 

anticipated emissions at a particular 

facility, it may be appropriate to rely on 

the specified post-control level of 

performance rather than on a control 

efficiency applied to a pre-control 

emission rate. In fact, using model 

emission rates based on an annual 

average, instead of a 24-hour average, 

results in more stringent emission rates. 

As an example, the RGGS Unit 1 model 

emission rate calculated by the 

commenter for SCR and LNB with OFA 

is 99 lb/hr.15 By comparison, the RGGS 

Unit 1 model emission rate used by EPA 

for this same technology is 73 lb/hr.16

Regarding the use of baseline 

emission rates based upon the annual 

average maximum instead of the 24- 

hour average maximum, we agree with 

the commenter that the BART 

guidelines state: ‘‘Use the 24-hour 

average actual emission rate from the 

highest emitting day of the 

meteorological period modeled (for the 

pre-control scenario).’’ See 70 FR 39170 

(July 6, 2005). We note, however, that 

because the capacity of RGGS is less 

than 750 MW, NDEP is not required to 

adhere to the BART guidelines, and is 

therefore afforded some flexibility when 

evaluating the five statutory factors in 

its analysis of RGGS. We disagree that 

the maximum 24-hour average baseline 

emissions the commenter provided are 

representative of RGGS’ historical 

performance.17 The baseline emissions 

provided by the commenter include a 

period of malfunction extending from 

January 8, 2003 to March 27, 2003. The 

result is maximum 24-hour average 

values that overstate RGGS’ emission 

rate, and would therefore also overstate 

its visibility impact. If examining 

baseline emissions on a 24-hour average 

basis, we consider the WRAP NOX

emission rates indicated by the 

commenter to be more representative of 

maximum 24-hr average emissions,18

and note that these emission rates were 

included in our modeling analysis as 

Scenario c02. 

The commenter also provides scaled 

estimates of visibility benefit based 

upon its estimates of 24-hour average 

baseline and control scenario emission 

rates. Notwithstanding our 

disagreements with the commenter 

noted above, if we use the WRAP’s 

maximum 24-hour average emission rate 

as the baseline instead of the NDEP 

baseline, and scale our control scenario 

visibility benefits accordingly, we 

estimate the following visibility 

improvement at Grand Canyon National 

Park: 19

Scenario 

Original Scaled 

Visibility 

impact 

Visibility improvement 

Visability 

impact 

Visibility improvement 

Total (from 

baseline) 

Incremental 

(from prev) 

Total (from 

baseline) 

Incremental 

(from prev) 

dv dv dv dv 

Baseline NOX LNB+OFA ......................... 0.59 ........................ ........................ 0.74 ........................ ........................

Enh. LNB+OFA ........................................ 0.51 ¥0.08 ¥0.08 0.64 ¥0.10 ¥0.10 

SNCR+LNB+OFA .................................... 0.37 ¥0.21 ¥0.13 0.47 ¥0.27 ¥0.17 

ROFA+Rotamix ........................................ 0.31 ¥0.28 ¥0.06 0.39 ¥0.35 ¥0.08 

SCR+LNB+OFA ....................................... 0.22 ¥0.36 ¥0.09 0.28 ¥0.46 ¥0.11 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50945 

Scenario 

Original Scaled 

Visibility 

impact 

Visibility improvement 

Visability 

impact 

Visibility improvement 

Total (from 

baseline) 

Incremental 

(from prev) 

Total (from 

baseline) 

Incremental 

(from prev) 

SCR+LNB+OFA (0.06 lb/MMBtu) ............ 0.20 ¥0.38 ¥0.10 0.26 ¥0.48 ¥0.13 

As seen above, the scaled incremental 

visibility benefit of SCR (at 0.06 lb/ 

MMBtu) compared to the next most 

stringent technology, ROFA w/Rotamix, 

is 0.13 deciviews, whereas the original 

EPA-estimated incremental visibility 

benefit is 0.10. This magnitude of 

incremental visibility benefit is still 

sufficiently small to justify approval of 

NDEP’s analysis. 

G. Cumulative Visibility Benefit 

Analysis 

We are providing a consolidated 

response to the following comments. 

Comment 21: EPA based its BART 

determination on the visibility benefits 

of SCR at a single Class I area that has 

the maximum visibility impact, but 

should have considered cumulative 

impacts. 

Comment 22: EPA did not consider 

the cumulative visibility benefits of SCR 

at all five Class I areas within 300 

kilometers that are impacted by NOX

emissions from RGGS, in contrast to 

performing a cumulative visibility 

benefit analysis for Four Corners Power 

Plant and Navajo Generating Station. 

Comment 23: EPA modeled the 

cumulative benefits of various BART 

controls across all five Class I areas as 

indicated in Appendix E, but did not 

include its cumulative modeling results 

in its proposed rule or TSD. 

Comment 24: EPA’s modeling results 

for SCR at all five parks in Appendix E 

showed a cumulative visibility benefit 

of 1.07 dv to 1.15 dv, which is 

significantly greater than the 0.38 dv 

benefits at GCNP alone. 

Comment 25: NPS calculates that the 

cumulative visibility benefits at five 

class I areas is about 2.0 dv for SCR on 

all three units. 

Response 21–25: Although EPA did 

not provide the cumulative sum of 

visibility impacts over the five nearby 

Class I areas in the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, EPA did in fact take into 

account the impacts at all those areas, 

considering both the number of areas 

affected and the impacts and benefits 

occurring there. EPA provided the 

modeled visibility impacts and benefits 

at all five Class I areas in Appendix E 

of the Technical Support Document. We 

did not rely on the specific metric 

advocated by the commenters, i.e. the 

sum of benefits over the areas, but we 

did consider the estimated visibility 

impacts across all five Class I areas in 

evaluating the reasonableness of 

Nevada’s BART determination. Given 

the magnitude of the impacts at these 

areas, however, we focused largely on 

the benefits at GCNP in our proposed 

action and placed little weight on the 

benefits at the remaining four Class I 

areas. The commenters note that the 

sum of the visibility benefits across all 

five impacted Class I areas from 

requiring SCR is just over 1 dv of 

improvement. However, as that 

improvement is spread out over five 

Class I areas, we do not consider this 

sufficient reason to reject the State’s 

BART determination, especially in light 

of the incremental benefits of SCR. On 

a Class I by Class I basis, there would 

be little improvement in visibility from 

requiring SCR. 

The comment is correct that EPA 

provided information about the 

cumulative visibility improvement 

modeled for different BART scenarios in 

our Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking for the Four Corners Power 

Plant and the Navajo Generating Station. 

EPA also provided information about 

the cumulative visibility improvement 

in our proposed and supplemental 

BART actions for Four Corners Power 

Plant. As we stated in those notices, 

EPA primarily relied on the benefits at 

the area with the greatest visibility 

improvement from controls, but we also 

considered impacts and benefits at 

nearby areas, including cumulative 

visibility benefits. EPA agrees that 

cumulative visibility benefits summed 

over multiple Class I areas may be a 

useful metric that can further inform a 

BART determination. Such an approach 

can be useful, for example, in 

simplifying a complex array of visibility 

impacts, especially where a source has 

significant impacts on multiple Class I 

areas. This approach, however, is not 

the only means of assessing visibility 

benefits over multiple Class I areas. 

In this action we are evaluating 

whether NDEP’s BART determination 

for RGGS resulted in the appropriate 

level of control for that facility. EPA’s 

independent analysis of the modeled 

visibility improvements at GCNP and all 

other impacted areas corroborated the 

results of the NDEP analysis. 

Comment 26: Using the WRAP 

baseline (scenario 00) and EPA’s 

emissions limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu 

(scenario 16) for SCR produces a 

cumulative visibility benefit of 1.82 dv. 

Response 26: We disagree with the 

commenter’s use of the WRAP scenario 

00 as the baseline against which to 

measure visibility improvement. 

Although Scenario 00 models the WRAP 

NOX emission rate, it also models the 

WRAP PM10 and SO2 emission rates, 

which correspond to emission rates 

prior to installation of fabric filters 

(NDEP’s PM10 BART determination) and 

wet flue gas desulfurization upgrades 

(NDEP’s SO2 BART determination). 

Scenario 16 models PM10 and SO2

emission rates that account for the 

emission reductions associated with 

these control technologies. As a result, 

a comparison of Scenario 00 and 16 

overestimates the benefit from SCR, 

because it also includes the visibility 

improvement associated with PM10 and 

SO2 emission reductions. 

H. CALPUFF Model 

Comment 27: EPA’s accepted version 

of the CALPUFF model, introduced in 

2007, is out of date given that new 

versions were updated in 2008, 2010, 

and 2011. 

Response 27: EPA disagrees with the 

commenters that any new CALPUFF 

version should be used for the BART 

determination. EPA relied on version 

5.8 of CALPUFF because it is the EPAapproved version in accordance with 

the Guideline on Air Quality Models 

(‘‘GAQM’’, 40 CFR 51, Appendix W, 

section 6.2.1.e); EPA updated the 

specific version to be used for regulatory 

purposes on June 29, 2007, including 

minor revisions as of that date; the 

approved CALPUFF modeling system 

includes CALPUFF version 5.8, level 

070623, and CALMET version 5.8 level 

070623. CALPUFF version 5.8 has been 

thoroughly tested and evaluated, and 

has been shown to perform consistently 

with the initial 2003 version in the 

analytical situations for which 

CALPUFF has been approved. Any 

other version would be considered an 

‘‘alternative model’’, subject to the 

provisions of GAQM section 3.2.2(b), 

requiring full model documentation, 

peer-review, and performance 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

20 ‘‘CALPUFF Regulatory Update’’ Roger W. 

Brode, Presentation at Regional/State/ 

LocalModelers Workshop, June 10–12, 2008, 

available at http://www.cleanairinfo.com/ 

regionalstatelocalmodelingworkshop/archive/2008/ 

agenda.htm. 

21 ‘‘CALPUFF Status and Update’’ Tyler J. Fox, 

Presentation at Regional/State/LocalModelers 

Workshop, April 30–May 4, 2012, available at 

http://www.cleanairinfo.com/regionalstatelocal

modelingworkshop/archive/2012/agenda.htm. 

evaluation. No such information for the 

later CALPUFF versions that meet the 

requirements of section 3.2.2(b) has 

been submitted to or approved by EPA. 

Experience has shown that when the 

full evaluation procedure is not 

followed, errors that are not 

immediately apparent can be introduced 

along with new model features. For 

example, changes introduced to 

CALMET to improve simulation of overwater convective mixing heights caused 

their periodic collapse to zero, even 

over land, so that CALPUFF 

concentration estimates were no longer 

reliable.20

In addition, the latest version of 

CALPUFF, 6.4, incorporates a detailed 

treatment of chemistry. EPA’s 

promulgation of CALPUFF (68 FR 

18440, April 15, 2003) as a ‘‘preferred’’ 

model approved it for use in analyses of 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

increment consumption and for 

complex wind situations, neither of 

which involve chemical 

transformations. For visibility impact 

analyses, which do involve chemical 

transformations, CALPUFF is 

considered a ‘‘screening’’ model, rather 

than a ‘‘preferred’’ model; this 

‘‘screening’’ status is also described in 

the preamble to the BART Guidelines 

(70 FR 39123, July 6, 2005). The change 

to CALPUFF 6.4 is not a simple model 

update to address bug fixes, but a 

significant change in the model science 

that requires its own rulemaking with 

public notice and comment. 

Furthermore, it should be noted that 

the U.S. Forest Service and EPA 

review 21 of CALPUFF version 6.4 

results for a limited set of BART 

applications showed that differences in 

its results from those of version 5.8 are 

driven by two input assumptions and 

not associated with the chemistry 

changes in 6.4. Use of the so-called 

‘‘full’’ ammonia limiting method and 

finer horizontal grid resolution are the 

primary drivers in the predicted 

differences in modeled visibility 

impacts between the model versions. 

These input assumptions have been 

previously reviewed by EPA and the 

FLMs and have been rejected based on 

lack of documentation, inadequate peer 

review, and lack of technical 

justification and validation. 

EPA intends to conduct a 

comprehensive evaluation of the latest 

CALPUFF version along with other 

‘‘chemistry’’ air quality models in 

consultation with the Federal Land 

Managers, including a full statistical 

performance evaluation, verification of 

its scientific basis, determination of 

whether the underlying science has 

been incorporated into the modeling 

system correctly, and evaluation of the 

effect on the regulatory framework for 

its use, including in New Source Review 

permitting. CALPUFF version 5.8 has 

already gone through this 

comprehensive evaluation process and 

remains the EPA-approved version, and 

is thus the appropriate version for EPA’s 

corroboration of NDEP’s BART 

determination. 

I. Nitrate Contribution to GCNP 

We are providing a consolidated 

response to the following comments. 

Comment 28: The WRAP’s modeling 

supports the fact that NOX is only a 

small contributor to visibility 

impairment at GCNP. 

Comment 29: NOX is mostly from cars 

and is not a major contributor to haze 

compared to other pollutants. 

Comment 30: The contribution of 

nitrates from RGGS to haze at GCNP is 

so insignificant (0.01 percent) that any 

additional visibility benefit associated 

with SCR controls would yield an 

imperceptible improvement at GCNP for 

a significantly greater cost. 

Comment 31: EPA’s modeling did not 

take into account the fact that nearly 

25,000 tons per year of NOX has been 

eliminated from the emissions inventory 

due to closure or cancellation of three 

generating stations (Mohave, White 

Pine, and Toquop). 

Response 28–31: Section 169A of the 

Clean Air Act requires BART 

determinations on BART-eligible EGUs 

regardless of trends or ambient visibility 

conditions. Application of BART is one 

means by which we can ensure that 

downward emission and visibility 

impairment trends continue. EPA 

modeling of NOX from RGGS showed 

visibility impacts of up to 0.6 deciviews. 

This is not a negligible contribution to 

visibility impairment. EPA concluded in 

this case only that the incremental cost 

of SCR was not justified in relation to 

the visibility impact, not that the 

visibility impact was deminimis. Even if 

an individual pollutant or source 

category appears small to some 

commenters, the many segments of the 

emissions inventory together do cause 

visibility impairment, and each must be 

addressed in order to make progress 

towards the national goal of remedying 

visibility impairment from manmade 

pollution. EPA identifies stationary 

sources as an important category to 

evaluate in any BART analysis. In this 

case EPA approved the state’s 

conclusion that SNCR was the 

appropriate BART control. 

J. Emissions Limits 

Comment 32: The proposed BART 

NOX emissions limit (0.20 lb/MMBtu) 

appears to result in a very small 

reduction in actual emissions when 

compared to the performance of the 

three units over the past two years. 

Response 32: EPA evaluated the 

potential NOX emissions reduction 

based on RGGS’s permitted emission 

limits. Actual emissions in tons per year 

can vary substantially for external 

reasons such as a downturn in economic 

conditions generally or unusual weather 

conditions. Until the permitted 

emissions limits for RGGS are lowered, 

RGGS may emit pollutants in those 

amounts at any time. Therefore, for 

RGGS the permitted emissions limit is 

the only enforceable and certain amount 

to use in calculating potential emission 

reductions. RGGS is no longer subject to 

a long-term coal contract and may 

purchase coal on the spot market. 

Different coals may also lead to a change 

in NOX emissions. RGGS historically 

burned a very high BTU Utah 

bituminous coal that when combusted is 

expected to result in substantially 

higher NOX emissions than subbituminous coals or lower BTU 

bituminous coals from Colorado. RGGS 

has recently added these two coals to 

the fuel mix at RGGS and the NOX

levels have decreased. EPA determined 

that the BART emission limit should be 

achieved when burning any of these 

coals. Setting a more stringent limit for 

BART achievable with LNB with OFA 

and SNCR could prevent RGGS from 

using only their historical Utah 

bituminous coal. 

Comment 33: Given the sensitivity of 

boiler operation, size, and configuration, 

SNCR may not be able to achieve the 

prescribed level of performance (0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu) on a consistent basis. 

Response 33: NDEP will revise the 

enforceable permit limits to incorporate 

the NOX BART emissions limit of 0.20 

lb/MMBtu when SNCR is installed and 

operating at RGGS. EPA expects that 

Nevada Energy, as the operator of RGGS, 

will ensure the LNB with OFA and 

SNCR system is designed to achieve a 

lower emissions rate than 0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu to insure the BART limit is 

achieved in practice. RGGS will also be 

required to continue to operate its 

continuous emissions monitoring 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50947 

22 40 CFR 51.301 and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(v). 

system for NOX and report any excess 

emissions. If RGGS exceeds its 

emissions limit for NOX, NDEP, EPA or 

a citizen may bring an enforcement 

action that can result in penalties and 

injunctive relief. EPA has determined 

based on the record provided by the 

state that NDEP should be able to 

consistently operate at an emissions 

limit below 0.20 lb/MMBtu and the 

comment does not provide a basis for us 

to revise the final SIP approval or FIP. 

K. Compliance Period 

Comment 34: Allowing five years 

from promulgation to install SNCR is 

excessive since SNCR can be installed 

in less than one year. 

Response 34: We have reconsidered 

the compliance date in our proposal in 

response to this comment. The Nevada 

BART regulation requires that BART 

control measures at RGGS must be 

installed and operating ‘‘[o]n or before 

January 1, 2015; or (2) [n]ot later than 

5 years after approval of Nevada’s state 

implementation plan for regional haze 

by the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency Region 9, whichever 

occurs first.’’ NAC 445B.22096(2)(a) 

(emphasis added). We approved this 

requirement into the SIP on March 26, 

2012 (effective April 25, 2012). 77 FR 

17340. Therefore, the SIP-approved 

BART implementation deadline at 

RGGS for all pollutants, including NOX, 

is January 1, 2015. Consistent with this 

requirement, we are revising the 

compliance date in our FIP to January 

1, 2015. 

L. Compliance Method 

Comment 35: Commenters state that 

the proposed method of demonstrating 

compliance with the NOX emissions rate 

is more stringent than the rule requires; 

does not allow the facility to take credit 

for the times a unit is not in operation; 

does not provide a way for a unit that 

is out of compliance for a period of time 

to get back into compliance without a 

continued period of non-compliance; 

and is in contrast to the BART modeling 

protocol that directs the use of a pounds 

per hour limit as opposed to an 

emissions rate limit for all BART 

eligible units over a 24-hour basis. 

Commenters propose an alternate 

compliance demonstration methodology 

that consists of a unit-wide 30-calendar 

day rolling cap (in total lbs of NOX). The 

cap is calculated based upon each unit 

operating continuously (24 hours/day 

for 30 days) at its permitted maximum 

hourly heat rate (MMBtu/hr), and at its 

BART NOX emission limit (0.20 lb/ 

MMBtu, which was determined based 

upon the operation of an ammonia 

injection system in conjunction with 

LNB). Compliance would then be 

demonstrated by calculating the unitwide NOX emission rate (in total lbs of 

NOX) for the current calendar day, and 

adding it to the previous 29 calendar 

days’ unit-wide NOX emission rate (in 

total lbs of NOX), and comparing this 

30-calendar day total to the value of the 

unit-wide 30-calendar day rolling cap. 

Response 35: We disagree with the 

commenters, and further do not 

consider the commenters’ proposed 

compliance demonstration methodology 

to meet BART requirements. The 

Regional Haze Rule defines BART as 

‘‘the best system of continuous emission 

reduction for each pollutant’’, and 

requires that ‘‘each source subject to 

BART maintain the control equipment 

required by the subpart and establish 

procedures to ensure such equipment is 

properly operated [* * *].’’ 22 EPA’s 

BART determinations for coal fired 

EGUs have set concentration limits, 

expressed as lb/MMBtu for the various 

visibility impairing pollutants averaged 

over a 30-day period. The proposed and 

finalized limit is more flexible than 

typical EPA BART determinations in 

that it allows the 3 units subject to 

BART to be averaged together to 

determine compliance (as requested by 

NDEP). BART limits are designed to be 

met at all times, not to provide for a 

facility to easily come back into 

compliance from a violation. We 

disagree that the facility requires 

additional flexibility to come back into 

compliance following an exceedance 

event, and consider a 30-day rolling 

average to provide a sufficient length of 

time to allow a facility to address and 

correct for perturbations that are 

reasonably expected to occur over the 

course of normal operations, and that 

cause short-term extra emissions. 

Allowing a facility to take credit for 

times it is not operating, or for when it 

is not operating at maximum capacity, 

would allow RGGS to operate without 

the BART-required SNCR. SNCR can be 

expected to remove approximately 30 

percent of the potential NOX emissions. 

If the overall capacity (as evaluated 

against the maximum potential MW 

output) fell below 70 percent in any 30- 

day period, under the commenter’s 

proposal RGGS would not have to 

operate the SNCR ammonia injection at 

all to meet its limit. Therefore, this 

would not meet the BART definition 

application of the best system of 

continuous emission reduction. 

EPA recognizes that there are 

differences between BART emission 

limits and the emissions modeled to 

determine visibility improvements. This 

is the result of the models requiring 

short-term emission projections and the 

need for BART limits to have practical 

averaging times. Short averaging periods 

such as 1-hour averages would better 

correlate to the modeled emissions, but 

EPA has determined that such a short 

averaging period is not practical for 

facilities subject to BART. EPA has, 

therefore, directed that averaging times 

should be no longer than 30-day rolling 

averages and should include all periods 

of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

As discussed above, an emission limit 

that allows a facility to take credit for 

non-operation could lead to 

substantially higher 24-hour emissions 

of visibility impairing pollutants 

because the facility could turn off its 

SNCR. 

Specifically, the proposed emission 

cap, in the form as described by the 

commenters, does not by itself ensure 

that the control equipment determined 

as BART is continuously operated. We 

acknowledge that the regional haze 

regulations provide flexibility in 

establishing requirements and 

procedures to ensure that control 

equipment is properly and continuously 

maintained, and that a mass emission 

cap could be an acceptable BART 

emission limitation. In its current form, 

however, the emission cap proposed by 

the commenters allows a potential 

scenario in which, for a given unit-wide 

30-calendar day period, one unit could 

operate at a NOX emission level of 0.40 

lb/MMBtu in exchange for nonoperation of another unit (essentially, 

operating that unit at 0.00 lb/MMBtu). 

An emission level of 0.40 lb/MMBtu 

corresponds to operation of LNB only, 

and does not reflect the operation of 

SNCR. 

In order to allow for better 

management of the elevated levels of 

emissions associated with startup 

events, we have revised our proposed 

determination method to be based on a 

boiler operating day average, rather than 

on a calendar day average. If based on 

a calendar day basis, the unit-wide 30- 

day rolling average could include as 

little as one hour of operation if the 

units were all offline for an outage that 

lasted longer than thirty days, because 

the first hour of operation would be the 

only data recorded in the last thirty 

calendar days. If based on a boiler 

operating day basis, the startup 

emissions ‘‘spike’’ would be averaged 

with emission data from before outage, 

which would reflect nonzero emissions 

values, rather than with data from 

during the outage, which would reflect 

zero emissions. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

23Please see http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/ 

maps/maps_top.html for EPA Region IX air quality 

designations. 

24http://www.epa.gov/ozonedesignations/ 

2008standards/final/region9f.htm. 

25EPA Good Engineering Practice (GEP) http:// 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/gep.pdf. 

M. Environmental Compliance at RGGS 

Comment 36: Environmental controls, 

monitoring and practices have improved 

over recent years at the plant, which 

meets or exceeds all emissions limits, 

has reduced emissions, and has some of 

the lowest emissions of any plant in the 

country. 

Response 36: EPA agrees in part with 

the comment. Nevada Energy has 

installed controls that substantially 

reduced the PM emissions from RGGS 

and installed ROFA on unit 4 to reduce 

NOX emissions. Since monitoring began 

under the Acid Rain rules, RGGS has 

been among the coal fired electric 

generating units that emits the least SO2.

The same is not true for NOX emissions 

from units 1, 2, and 3. By finalizing this 

action, EPA will ensure that there are 

also significant reductions in NOX

emissions from RGGS, as required by 

the Regional Haze rule and Section 

169A of the CAA. Each of the 3 units at 

RGGS will reduce NOX emissions from 

0.46 lb/MMBtu to 0.20 lb/MMBtu. 

N. Health Effects 

Comment 37: Pollution from RGGS is 

causing a variety of health problems 

(e.g., allergies, respiratory illnesses, 

heart ailments, skin lesions, thyroid 

disorders, sinus infections) for the 

Moapa Band of Paiutes who reside 

directly adjacent to RGGS. 

Response 37: In addition to regional 

haze, EPA assesses air quality regularly 

under the CAA with respect to setting 

and ensuring that areas in the country 

attain the NAAQS. The NAAQS are the 

health based standards that are set by 

EPA for the entire country. RGGS is 

located in an area that is designated as 

attainment for most of the NAAQS.23

This means that the air quality in the 

area surrounding RGGS is meeting most 

of the national health-based standards 

set by EPA. 

Breathing air containing ozone can 

reduce lung function and increase 

respiratory symptoms, thereby 

aggravating asthma or other respiratory 

conditions. The area surrounding RGGS 

was designated nonattainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The Clark 

County APCD and NDEP together are 

responsible for adopting and 

implementing programs for both 

stationary and mobile sources to bring 

the area into attainment for the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. On March 29, 2011, EPA 

published a direct final rule 

determining that the Clark County 

nonattainment area has attained the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (76 FR 

17343). Although the area has not been 

redesignated to attainment, the Clark 

County area continues to meet the 1997 

8-hour ozone NAAQS. On April 30, 

2012, EPA issued final designations for 

the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Clark 

County was designated attainment for 

this more stringent ozone standard.24

The Moapa Band of Paiutes resides on 

land adjacent to RGGS. The stacks at 

RGGS release the exhaust at a high 

elevation for the purpose of preventing 

excessive concentration of pollutants in 

the immediate vicinity of the plant.25

Because the area surrounding RGGS is 

meeting the health-based 1997 and 2008 

ozone NAAQS, EPA expects that air 

quality in the area is protective of 

human health. Because today’s actions 

require additional reductions in NOX

emissions, air quality will continue to 

improve. However, regardless of the 

attainment status of the surrounding 

area, EPA has been and will remain 

involved in efforts to ensure that the 

operation of RGGS meets all 

environmental requirements. 

Consequently, EPA believes it has 

implemented the executive order with 

respect to the Moapa Tribe in these 

actions implementing BART at RGGS. 

O. Environmental Justice 

Comment 38: EPA should implement 

Executive Order 13175 since pollution 

from RGGS is having a substantial direct 

effect on the tribe. 

Response 38: Ground-level ozone has 

the ability to impact human health, and 

is a secondary pollutant formed from 

precursor gases, primarily volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX. 

However, monitored ozone 

concentrations throughout Clark 

County, including monitors nearest 

RGGS, meet the 2008 ozone standard. 

EPA considers the air quality in the 

vicinity of the plant to be protective of 

public health. However, regardless of 

the attainment status of the surrounding 

area, EPA has been and will remain 

involved in efforts to ensure that the 

operation of RGGS meets all 

environmental requirements. 

P. Economic Impacts 

Comment 39: The high cost of SCR 

could cause RGGS to close, which 

would harm the local economy through 

the loss of jobs, the loss of contracts, 

and the loss of customers for local 

businesses. 

Response 39: EPA has determined 

that it is cost effective for RGGS to 

install and operate SNCR at Units 1, 2 

and 3. Because EPA is not disapproving 

NDEP’s determination to require SNCR 

rather than SCR, EPA does not expect 

the facility to close and thus the 

comment does not require additional 

response. 

III. Summary of EPA Actions 

EPA is approving in part and 

disapproving in part the remaining 

portion of the Nevada Regional Haze SIP 

that implements the Regional Haze Rule 

that requires states to prevent any future 

and remedy any existing man-made 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas. EPA is approving Nevada’s 

selection of a NOX emissions limit of 

0.20 lb/MMBtu as BART for Units 1 and 

2 at RGGS. EPA is disapproving two 

provisions of Nevada’s BART 

determination for NOX at RGGS: the 

emissions limit for Unit 3 and the 

compliance method for all three units. 

EPA is promulgating a FIP to replace the 

disapproved provisions by establishing 

a BART emissions limit for NOX of 0.20 

lb/MMBtu at Unit 3, and a 30-day 

averaging period for compliance based 

on a heat input-weighted basis across all 

three units. 

EPA estimates the total, facility-wide 

capital costs of complying with this 

final BART determination for NOX to be 

$26.5 million, and total annual costs 

(annualized capital costs plus additional 

operating costs) to be $4.3 million per 

year. The FIP requirements on Unit 3, 

which will require that unit to operate 

at 0.20 lb/MMBtu instead of 0.28 lb/ 

MMBtu, will result in an additional 

operating cost of approximately $75,000 

per year and will achieve a NOX

reduction of 393 tons per year. This 

final BART determination is expected to 

reduce emissions of NOX by 58 percent, 

from 6,980 tons per year to 2,968 tons 

per year, resulting in a facility-wide 

average cost-effectiveness of about 

$1,078 per ton of NOX removed. EPA 

anticipates that this investment will 

reduce visibility impairment caused by 

RGGS by an average of 48 percent at 5 

Class I areas within 300 km of the 

facility. A detailed summary of the cost 

and visibility benefits were provided in 

the Technical Support Document for the 

proposed rulemaking. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action finalizes a SIP approval 

and a source-specific FIP for a single 

stationary source, the Reid Gardner 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50949 

Generating Station in Nevada. This type 

of action is exempt from review under 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under Executive 

Order 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 

2011). 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This 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 FIP portion of this 

rulemaking applies to a single facility, 

Reid Gardner Generating Station, the 

Paperwork 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 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 action on small entities, 

I certify that this final action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As the Reid Gardner Generating Station 

is not a small entity, the FIP for Reid 

Gardner Generating Station being 

finalized 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) 

This rule will impose an enforceable 

duty on the private sector owners of 

Reid Gardner Generating Station. 

However, this rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million (in 1996 

dollars) or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. EPA’s 

estimate for the total annual cost for 

Reid Gardner Generating Station to 

lower its NOX emissions limit at Unit 3 

to 0.20 lb/MMBtu and for Units 1–3 to 

meet that NOX emissions limit on a 30 

successive boiler operating day rolling 

average does not exceed $100 million 

(in 1996 dollars) in any one year. Thus, 

this rule is not subject to the 

requirements of sections 202 or 205 of 

UMRA. This action is also not subject to 

the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

rule will not impose direct compliance 

costs on Nevada, and will not preempt 

Nevada law. This final action will 

reduce the emissions of one pollutant 

from a single source, Reid Gardner 

Generating Station. 

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 in the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. This final action 

requires emission reductions of NOX at 

a specific private stationary source 

located in Nevada. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA 

may not issue a regulation that has tribal 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by tribal governments, or 

EPA consults with tribal officials early 

in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation and develops a 

tribal summary impact statement. 

EPA has concluded that this action 

may have tribal implications because 

the Reid Gardner Generating Station is 

located adjacent to the Moapa Band of 

Paiutes reservation and the Tribe has 

expressed its concerns directly to EPA 

on several occasions. However, this 

final action will neither impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

tribal governments, nor preempt Tribal 

law. This final rule requires Reid 

Gardner Generating Station, a major 

stationary source located in Nevada, to 

reduce emissions of NOX under the 

BART requirement of the Regional Haze 

Rule. This will benefit air quality and 

the Moapa Band of Paiutes. 

EPA consulted with tribal officials 

early in the process of developing this 

regulation to permit them to have 

meaningful and timely input into its 

development. EPA met with President 

Anderson on August 11, 2011, and again 

on April 17, 2012, to hear the Tribe’s 

concerns directly. In addition, EPA held 

one public hearing on the Moapa 

Reservation on May 3, 2011, to ensure 

that tribal members had the opportunity 

to provide oral testimony. 

The Moapa Band of Paiutes joined a 

consortium of environmental groups to 

submit comments on our proposed rule. 

The main concern expressed by the 

consortium was that EPA was not 

requiring Reid Gardner Generating 

Station to install and operate the top 

NOX control option, selective catalytic 

reduction, as BART. The comments also 

raised potential health impacts and 

environmental justice concerns relative 

to the Moapa Band of Paiutes from not 

requiring the most stringent NOX

control option. 

EPA summarized and responded to 

comments from the environmental 

consortium and Moapa Band of Paiutes. 

Our responsibilities under the Executive 

Order must be exercised in the context 

of our role under the CAA, which is to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

review NDEP’s plan and determine if it 

meets the CAA requirements. We have 

done a thorough review and have 

determined that NDEP has adopted an 

emission limit that meets BART for 

RGGS. That emission limit can be met 

with SNCR instead of SCR, but RGGS 

will still have to install additional 

pollution control equipment that will 

reduce NOX emissions. These emission 

reductions will not only improve 

visibility but will provide additional 

health benefits for the Moapa Band of 

Paiutes and other residents of Clark 

County. EPA has been and will remain 

involved in efforts to ensure that the 

operation of RGGS meets all 

environmental requirements. 

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 rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it requires 

emissions reductions of NOX from a 

single stationary source. Because this 

action only applies to a single source 

and is not a rule of general applicability, 

it is not economically significant as 

defined under Executive Order 12866, 

and the rule also does not have a 

disproportionate effect on children. 

However, to the extent that the rule will 

reduce emissions of NOX, which 

contributes to ozone formation, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution that causes or exacerbates 

childhood asthma and other respiratory 

issues. 

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 (10) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by the VCS 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through annual 

reports to OMB, with explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable VCS. 

Consistent with the NTTAA, the 

Agency conducted a search to identify 

potentially applicable VCS. For the 

measurements listed below, there are a 

number of VCS that appear to have 

possible use in lieu of the EPA test 

methods and performance specifications 

(40 CFR part 60, Appendices A and B) 

noted next to the measurement 

requirements. It would not be practical 

to specify these standards in the current 

rulemaking due to a lack of sufficient 

data on equivalency and validation and 

because some are still under 

development. However, EPA’s Office of 

Air Quality Planning and Standards is 

in the process of reviewing all available 

VCS for incorporation by reference into 

the test methods and performance 

specifications of 40 CFR Part 60, 

Appendices A and B. Any VCS so 

incorporated in a specified test method 

or performance specification would 

then be available for use in determining 

the emissions from this facility. This 

will be an ongoing process designed to 

incorporate suitable VCS as they 

become available. 

Particulate Matter Emissions—EPA 

Methods 1 through 5 

Opacity—EPA Method 9 and 

Performance Specification Test 1 for 

Opacity Monitoring 

NOX Emissions—Continuous Emissions 

Monitors 

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 final 

rule 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 rule 

requires emissions reductions of one 

pollutant from a single stationary 

source, Reid Gardner Generating 

Station. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules (1) rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability and only applies to one 

facility, the Reid Gardner Generating 

Station. 

L. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 22, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See CAA 

section 307(b)(2)). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 50951 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Visibility, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: August 13, 2012. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is 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. 

Subpart DD—Nevada 

■ 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (c), Table 1 revising 

the entry for ‘‘445B.22096.’’ 

■ b. In the table in paragraph (e), 

revising the entry for ‘‘Nevada Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan 

(October 2009)’’. 

The revised text reads as follows: 

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

TABLE 1—EPA-APPROVED NEVADA REGULATIONS AND STATUTES

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

445B.22096, excluding the NOX averaging time and control type for units 1, 

2 and 3 and the NOX emission limit for 

unit 3 in sub-paragraph (1)(c), all of 

which EPA has disapproved.

Control measures 

constituting 

BART; limitations 

on emissions.

1/28/10 .... [Insert page number 

where the document begins 8/23/ 

12].

Included in supplemental SIP revision 

submitted on September 20, 2011, 

and approved as part of approval of 

Nevada Regional Haze SIP. Excluding 

the NOX averaging time and control 

type for units 1, 2 and 3 and the NOX

emission limit for unit 3 of NV Energy’s 

Reid Gardner Generating Station, all 

of which EPA has disapproved. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * (e) * * * 

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable geographic or nonattainment area State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Nevada Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (October 2009), excluding the 

BART determination for NOX at Reid 

Gardner Generating Station in sections 

5.5.3, 5.6.3 and 7.2, which EPA has 

disapproved.

State-wide ............... 11/18/09 .. [Insert page number 

where the document begins 8/23/ 

12].

Excluding Appendix A (‘‘Nevada BART 

Regulation’’). The Nevada BART regulation, including NAC 445B.029, 

445B.22095, and 445B.22096, is listed 

above in 40 CFR 52.1470(c). 

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Section 52.1488 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (e). 

■ b. Adding paragraph (f). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1488 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(e) Approval. On November 18, 2009, 

the Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection submitted the ‘‘Nevada 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan.’’ With the exception of the BART 

determination for NOX at Reid Gardner 

Generating Station in sections 5.5.3, 

5.6.3 and 7.2; the NOX averaging time 

and control type for units 1, 2 and 3 in 

sub-paragraph (1)(c) of Nevada 

Administrative Code section 

445B.22096; and the NOX emission limit 

for unit 3 in sub-paragraph (1)(c) of 

Nevada Administrative Code section 

445B.22096; the Nevada Regional Haze 

State Implementation Plan, as 

supplemented and amended on 

February 18, 2010 and September 20, 

2011, meets the applicable requirements 

of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 

169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40 

CFR 51.308. 

(f) Source-specific federal 

implementation plan for regional haze 

at Reid Gardner Generating Station 

Units 1, 2 and 3. This paragraph (f) 

applies to each owner and operator of 

the coal-fired electricity generating units 

(EGUs) designated as Units 1, 2, and 3 

at the Reid Gardner Generating Station 

in Clark County, Nevada. 

(1) Definitions. Terms not defined 

below shall have the meaning given to 

them in the Clean Air Act or EPA’s 

regulations implementing the Clean Air 

Act. For purposes of this paragraph (f): 

Ammonia injection shall include any 

of the following: anhydrous ammonia, 

aqueous ammonia or urea injection. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

50952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 164 / Thursday, August 23, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Boiler operating day means any 24- 

hour period between 12:00 midnight 

and the following midnight during 

which any fuel is combusted at any of 

the units identified in paragraph (f) of 

this section. 

Combustion controls shall mean new 

low NOX burners, new overfire air, and/ 

or rotating overfire air. 

Continuous emission monitoring 

system or CEMS means the equipment 

required by 40 CFR Part 75 to determine 

compliance with this paragraph (f). 

NOX means nitrogen oxides expressed 

as nitrogen dioxide (NO2). 

Owner/operator means any person 

who owns or who operates, controls, or 

supervises an EGU identified in 

paragraph (f) of this section. 

Unit means any of the EGUs identified 

in paragraph (f) of this section. 

Unit-wide means all of the EGUs 

identified in paragraph (f) of this 

section. 

Valid data means data recorded when 

the CEMS is not out-of-control as 

defined by part 75 and which meets the 

relative accuracy requirements of this 

paragraph. 

(2) Emission limitations—the total 

discharge of NOx from Units 1, 2, and 

3, expressed as NO2, shall not exceed 

0.20 lb/MMBtu determined over a 30 

successive boiler operating day period. 

For each boiler operating day, hourly 

emissions of NO2, in pounds of NO2, for 

units 1, 2 and 3 for that day shall be 

summed together. For each boiler 

operating day, heat input, in millions of 

BTU, for units 1, 2 and 3 for that day 

shall be summed together. Each day the 

30 successive boiler operating day NO2

emission rate, in lb/MMBtu, shall be 

determined by adding together that day 

and the preceding 29 boiler operating 

days’ pounds of NO2 and dividing that 

total pounds of NO2 by the sum of the 

heat input during the same 30-day 

period. 

(3) Compliance date. The owners and 

operators subject to this section shall 

comply with the emissions limitations 

and other requirements of this section 

by January 1, 2015 and thereafter. 

(4) Testing and monitoring. (i) At all 

times after the compliance date 

specified in paragraph (f)(3) of this 

section, the owner/operator of each unit 

shall maintain, calibrate, and operate a 

CEMS, in full compliance with the 

requirements found at 40 CFR part 75, 

to accurately measure NOX, diluent, and 

stack gas volumetric flow rate from each 

unit. In addition to these requirements, 

relative accuracy test audits shall be 

performed for both the NO2 pounds per 

hour measurement and the hourly heat 

input measurement. Each such relative 

accuracy test audit shall have a relative 

accuracy, as defined in 40 CFR part 60, 

appendix F, section 2.6, of less than 20 

percent. This testing shall be evaluated 

each time the 40 CFR part 75 monitors 

undergo relative accuracy testing. 

Compliance with the emission limit for 

NO2 shall be determined by using valid 

data that is quality assured in 

accordance with the requirements of 

this paragraph. (ii) 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 unit-wide rolling 30 successive 

boiler operating day average. Each unit 

shall obtain at least 90 percent hours of 

data over each calendar quarter. 40 CFR 

part 60 Appendix A Reference Methods 

may be used to supplement the part 75 

monitoring. 

(iii) Upon the effective date of the 

unit-wide NOX limit, the owner or 

operator shall have installed CEMS 

software that meets with the 

requirements of this section for 

measuring NO2 pounds per hour and 

calculating the unit-wide 30 successive 

boiler operating day average as required 

in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. 

(iv) Upon the completion of 

installation of ammonia injection on any 

of the three units, the owner or operator 

shall install, and thereafter maintain 

and operate, instrumentation to 

continuously monitor and record levels 

of ammonia consumption for that unit. 

(5) Notifications. (i) The owner or 

operator shall notify EPA within two 

weeks after completion of installation of 

combustion controls or ammonia 

injection on any of the units subject to 

this section. 

(ii) The owner or operator shall also 

notify EPA of initial start-up of any 

equipment for which notification was 

given in paragraph (f)(5)(i) of this 

section. 

(6) Equipment Operations. After 

completion of installation of ammonia 

injection on any of the three units, the 

owner or operator shall inject sufficient 

ammonia to minimize the NOX

emissions from that unit while 

preventing excessive ammonia 

emissions. 

(7) Recordkeeping. The owner or 

operator shall maintain the following 

records for at least five years: (i) For 

each unit, CEMS data measuring NOX in 

lb/hr, heat input rate per hour, the daily 

calculation of the unit-wide 30 

successive boiler operating day rolling 

lb NO2/MMbtu emission rate as required 

in paragraph (f)(2) of this section. (ii) 

Records of the relative accuracy test for 

NOX lb/hr measurement and hourly heat 

input 

(iii) Records of ammonia consumption 

for each unit, as recorded by the 

instrumentation required in paragraph 

(f)(4)(iv) of this section. 

(8) Reporting. Reports and 

notifications shall be submitted to the 

Director of Enforcement Division, U.S. 

EPA Region IX, at 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. Within 30 

days of the end of each calendar quarter 

after the effective date of this section, 

the owner or operator shall submit a 

report that lists the unit-wide 30 

successive boiler operating day rolling 

lb NO2/MMBtu emission rate for each 

day. Included in this report shall be the 

results of any relative accuracy test 

audit performed during the calendar 

quarter. 

(9) Enforcement. Notwithstanding any 

other provision in this implementation 

plan, any credible evidence or 

information relevant as to whether the 

unit 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. 

[FR Doc. 2012–20503 Filed 8–22–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 120312182–2239–02] 

RIN 0648–XC166 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Closure 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed 

fishing for Pacific sardine off the coasts 

of Washington, Oregon and California. 

This action is necessary because the 

directed harvest allocation total for the 

second seasonal period (July 1– 

September 14) is projected to be reached 

by the effective date of this rule. From 

the effective date of this rule until 

September 15, 2012, Pacific sardine may 

be harvested only as part of the live bait 

fishery or incidental to other fisheries; 

the incidental harvest of Pacific sardine 

is limited to 30-percent by weight of all 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES