N O R T H E R N R O C K I E S O F F I C E 3 1 3 E A S T M A I N S T R E E T B O Z E M A N , M T 5 9 7 1 5

T : 4 0 6 . 5 8 6 . 9 6 9 9 F : 4 0 6 . 5 8 6 . 9 6 9 5 N R O F F I C E @ E A R T H J U S T I C E . O R G W W W . E A R T H J U S T I C E . O R G July 8, 2015

Janet McCabe USEPA Headquarters Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Mail Code: 6101A Washington, DC 20460 McCabe.Janet@epa.gov

**By Electronic Mail**

RE: Regional Haze Implementation for Utah Sources

Dear Ms. McCabe:

We are writing to express our serious concerns wit h the State of Utah’s proposed regional haze plan that fails to require any emissions reduc tions from the state’s sizable sources of haze pollution. While the regional haze program in gene ral offers an extraordinary opportunity to clear the skies, implementation in Utah stands out for its unparalleled potential to reasonably achieve cost-effective emissions reductions that pr omise substantial visibility benefits over some of our nation’s most treasured landscapes. Utah’s plan squanders that opportunity; EPA is obligated under the Clean Air Act to seize it.

In promulgating implementation plans that require Best Available Retrofit Technology (“BART”) on some of the oldest and dirtiest sources of haze pollution, EPA already has invested substantial resources to improve air quality in nat ional parks, wilderness areas, and other magnificent public lands throughout the country. F or example, EPA’s plans for Arizona, Oklahoma, and certain Wyoming sources promise to del iver significant clean-air benefits as does EPA’s draft plan for Texas, which, if finalized, will be a keystone of visibility improvement across the region. Yet EPA’s job is not complete. To secure congressionally directed visibility improvement at eight national parks in Utah and nei ghboring states, EPA must adopt adequate BART controls for large sources of haze-causing nit rogen oxide (“NO
x ”) pollution in Utah.

In 2012, EPA rightly rejected Utah’s prior proposa l to forego any NO
x emissions reductions from the BART-subject units of PacifiCor p’s Hunter and Huntington coal-fired power plants. Utah’s most recent proposal that exempts t hese same sources from any additional pollution controls—this time cloaked as an “alterna tive program” under 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2)—also must be dismissed. As discussed below, there is no legitimate justification for2

not requiring Selective Catalytic Reduction (“SCR”) , the most effective NO
x -pollution control for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2, w here SCR on this units would offer greater visibility benefits at lower costs than every singl e EPA BART determination requiring this technology that we are aware of. Utah’s request th at EPA nonetheless endorse a BARTalternative that would yield no future emissions re ductions from any source in the state is prohibited by the Agency’s regulations and must be rejected.

I. EPA MUST REDUCE NO X EMISSIONS FROM THE HUNTER AND HUNTINGTON PLANTS
TO SATISFY ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND ENSURE
CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE REGIONAL HAZE PROGRAM.

Requiring SCR as BART to reduce NO
x emissions from Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 is necessary to improve vi sibility over some of the crown jewels of the national park system. The Hunter and Huntington pl ants are less than 100 miles from three Class I areas—Arches, Canyonlands, and Capitol Reef national parks—each of which were specifically established to preserve their superb s cenic vistas that are now too often marred by regional haze. NO
x emissions from the plants contribute significantly to visibility impairment at these national parks in Utah as well as Utah’s Bryc e Canyon and Zion National Parks; Colorado’s Mesa Verde and Black Canyon of the Gunni son National Parks and Flat Tops Wilderness Area; and the Grand Canyon. Unless EPA significantly reduces NO
x emissions from Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 i n acting on Utah’s SIP, BART and reasonable progress directives will be forsaken. U tah’s proposal advances a plan that fails to credibly improve visibility at impacted Class I are as and is therefore irreconcilable with EPA’s obligation to eliminate human-caused visibility imp airment over these lands.

Proper five-factor BART analyses demonstrate that SCR, installed together with low- NO
x burners and separated overfire air (“SOFA”), is the only technology justified as BART for these

units. 1 Indeed, SCR on Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 would yield the most significant visibility benefits at the lowest costs identified across the regional haze program. As demonstrated by the table below, any decision not t o require SCR on Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 would appear to depart fro m EPA’s past practice and would fail to make the required progress toward achieving natural visibility goals.

1 Although Utah omitted five-factor BART analyses fr om its latest SIP proposal, National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and HEAL Utah have provided EPA Region 8 with extensive analyses by independent technical consult ants Vicki Stamper and Andrew Gray.3

Visibility benefits and costs of SCR + low-NO
x burners and SOFA at BART-subject units in Arizona, Wyoming, and Utah 2

Unit Modeled dv improvement from
baseline Average cost effectiveness (cost per ton of NO
x removed) Cholla Unit 2,
Arizona

Petrified Forest - 1.34 dv

(all three units modeled together) $2,979/ton

Cholla Unit 3,
Arizona $2,838/ton

Cholla Unit 4,
Arizona $3,083/ton

Laramie River 1 Wyoming Badlands – 0.57 dv $4,461/ton

Laramie River 2 Wyoming Badlands – 0.53 dv $4,424/ton

Laramie River 3 Wyoming Badlands – 0.52 dv $4,375/ton

Wyodak 1 Wyoming Wind Cave – 0.61 dv $4,036/ton

Dave Johnston 3 Wyoming Wind Cave – 0.51 dv $2,635/ton

Naughton 3 Wyoming Bridger

– 0.49

- 0.60 dv (depending on ammonia background) $3,469/ton

Hunter 1
Utah Canyonlands- 1.86 dv $2,263/ton

Hunter 2
Utah Canyonlands- 1.5 dv $2,276/ton

Huntington 1
Utah Canyonlands-2.06 dv $2,273/ton

Huntington 2
Utah Canyonlands-1.83 dv $2,222/ton

As shown, the visibility benefits of installing SCR on **any one** of the Hunter and Huntington units are 3 to 4 times greater at the mo st-impacted Class I area (Canyonlands National Park) than the modeled benefits from EPA’s previous BART determinations requiring SCR at coal-fired power plants in Arizona and Wyomi ng. And the costs of SCR for Hunter and Huntington are well below costs EPA previously deem ed reasonable. In highlighting EPA’s actions in other western states, we hope to encourag e the Agency to adopt a consistent and principled approach as it considers appropriate BAR T determinations for Utah’s coal units.

2 EPA’s BART determinations requiring SCR on Arizona and Wyoming are identified here as examples, and are representative of SCR BART determi nations in other states.4

Furthermore, the significant benefits of operating SCR on Utah’s BART units for Canyonlands National Park are only part of the stor y. Even at less-impacted Class I areas, the visibility improvements due to SCR far exceed benef its EPA has found to justify BART based on only the most impacted area. For example, operating SCR on Hunter Unit 1 yields 1.66 dv benefit over baseline conditions at Arches; 1.62 dv benefit at Capitol Reef; and 0.67 dv benefit at Grand Canyon National Park. Most importantly, becau se of the concentration of national parks in close proximity to the facilities, the cumulative benefit to all affected Class I areas is extraordinary. Considering the visibility benefits from BART controls on both BART-subject units at Hunter or Huntington, as the BART Guidelin es require, demonstrates the unmistakable significance of these improvements.

While EPA’s source-specific BART determinations ne cessarily differ from one another depending on how the relevant statutory factors app ly at a given facility and within a given state, EPA must at a minimum provide a rational expl anation before departing from its wellconsidered BART determinations in other states. Fo r Hunter and Huntington, there appears to be no legitimate justification for the state’s alte rnative and rejecting SCR controls as BART.

II. EPA MUST REJECT UTAH’S PROPOSED BART ALTERNATIVE.

In proposing (many years late) a regional haze pla n for NOx applicable to Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2, Utah eschewed th e cost-effective benefits of SCR in favor of a BART “alternative” under 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2) that would require no new emissions reductions on any source in the state. Utah’s plan would allow Hunter and Huntington to
continue to emit NO
x at current high levels while taking credit for emi ssions reductions at nonBART facilities that already have occurred. Primar ily, the emissions reductions claimed under Utah’s alternative program come from avoided NO
x , sulfur dioxide (“SO 2 ”), and particulate matter emissions from the Carbon Plant, which was pe rmanently retired in April 2015 (prior to Utah’s adoption of its latest regional haze SIP) i n lieu of complying with new emissions limits under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (“MATS”) and currently is being dismantled.

While EPA has approved alternative programs it fou nd to satisfy the regulatory criteria, including the requirement to achieve “greater reaso nable progress” than BART, it has never used an alternative program to exempt all of the state’s BART units from controls in exchange for wholly past emissions reductions at non-BART units. If Utah’s program were approved, there would be nothing to stop states from attempting to satisfy Regional Haze Rule obligations through historical emissions reductions achieved fr om past implementation of motor vehicle standards or any other federal or state pollution-r eduction measure already affecting any source. EPA must reject this approach because it would gut the Regional Haze Program’s requirements of “eliminating or reducing” visibility impairment from BART sources and making reasonable progress towards the national goal of restoring vis ibility at each Class I area.5

Further, even if Utah’s proposed reliance on entire ly past emission reductions at nonBART units were allowed, the alternative program is not approvable because it fails to satisfy the “greater reasonable progress” requirement.

• First, in comparing the alternative program to BART , Utah wrongly assumed that if the Carbon Plant did not retire, it would continue polluting at historical levels without complying with mandatory MATS emissions limits. Independent model ing performed for National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and HEAL Utah and submitted to Region 8 confirmed
that when MATS-based emissions reductions from the Carbon plant are properly accounted for in the BART scenario, BART achieves substantially gr eater visibility improvement at all affected Class I areas than Utah’s proposed alternative.

• Second, Utah improperly seeks to double-count avoide d SO 2 emissions due to the Carbon plant retirement. Because Utah participates in the Weste rn Backstop Trading Program to satisfy its regional haze obligations for SO 2 , any reductions in SO 2 attributed to the Carbon plant closure would be proper to consider solely in the context o f Utah’s obligations under that program.

Thus, not only will there be greater overall emissio ns than Utah assumed in the BART scenario (assuming proper MATS compliance at the Carbon plan t), there will also be lesser emissions reductions that may arguably be attributed to the C arbon plant closure in the Alternative scenario (properly excluding consideration of SO 2 emissions). Correcting either of these errors demonstrates the unmistakable superiority of an SCR BART determination for Hunter Units 1 and 2 and Huntington Units 1 and 2 over Utah’s prop osed alternative.

III. CONCLUSION

We remain hopeful that EPA will disapprove Utah’s BART alternative and instead advance a Federal Implementation Plan that secures necessary visibility gains for impacted Class I areas by imposing SCR as BART at these sources. W e look forward to discussing this issue with you by telephone in the near future.

Sincerely,

Abigail Dillen Vice President of Litigation for Climate & Energy Earthjustice (212) 791-1881, Ext. 8221 adillen@earthjustice.org

Bruce Nilles6 Senior Director, Beyond Coal Campaign
Sierra Club (415) 977-5640 bruce.nilles@sierraclub.org

Mark Wenzler Senior Vice President of Conservation Programs
National Parks Conservation Association (202) 454-3335 mwenzler@npca.org

CC:
Shaun McGrath
Administrator
USEPA REGION 8 1595 Wynkoop St.
Mail Code: 8RA Denver, CO 80202-1129 r8eisc@epa.gov