33022 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0026, FRL–9678–9] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on January 12, 2011, that 

addresses regional haze. This SIP 

revision was submitted to address the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or ‘‘the Act’’) and our rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is taking this action pursuant 

to section 110 of the CAA. 

EPA is proposing a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

the deficiencies identified in our 

proposed partial disapproval of 

Wyoming’s regional haze SIP. In lieu of 

this proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, 

we propose approval of a SIP revision 

if the State submits such a revision and 

the revision matches the terms of our 

proposed FIP. 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received at the address below 

on or before August 3, 2012. Public 

Hearings: A public hearing for this 

proposal is scheduled to be held on 

Tuesday, June 26, 2012, at the 

Hershchler Building, Room B–63, 122 

W. 25th St., Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002. 

Another public hearing is scheduled to 

be held on Thursday, June 28, 2012, at 

Western Wyoming Community College, 

Room 1005, 2500 College Drive, Rock 

Springs, Wyoming 82901. The public 

hearings will be held from 1 p.m. until 

5 p.m., and again from 6 p.m. until 

8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0026, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 

8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0026. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an email comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 

p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The initials AFRC mean or refer to airfuel ratio controls. 

iii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best 

Available Retrofit Technology. 

iv. The initials CAMx mean or refer to 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model. 

v. The initials CMAQ mean or refer to 

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality 

modeling system. 

vi. The initials CEMS mean or refer to 

continuous emission monitoring systems. 

vii. The initials EC mean or refer to 

elemental carbon. 

viii. The initials EGUs mean or refer to 

Electric Generating Units. 

ix. The initials EGR mean or refer to 

exhaust gas recirculation. 

x. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

xi. The initials ESP mean or refer to 

electrostatic precipitator. 

xii. The initials FGC mean or refer to flue 

gas conditioning. 

xiii. The initials FGD mean or refer to flue 

gas desulfurization. 

xiv. The initials FGR mean or refer to 

external flue gas recirculation. 

xv. The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

xvi. The initials FLMs mean or refer to 

Federal Land Managers. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33023 

xvii. The initials FS mean or refer to the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

xviii. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer 

to Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments monitoring network. 

xix. The initials IWAQM mean or refer to 

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality 

Modeling. 

xx. The initials LEC mean or refer to lowemission combustion. 

xxi. The initials LNB mean or refer to low 

NOX burner. 

xxii. The initials LTS mean or refer to the 

long-term strategy. 

xxiii. The initials MW mean or refer to 

megawatts. 

xxiv. The initials NH3 mean or refer to 

ammonia. 

xxv. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

xxvi. The initials NPS mean or refer to 

National Park Service. 

xxvii. The initials OC mean or refer to 

organic carbon. 

xxviii. The initials OFA mean or refer to 

overfire air. 

xxix. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. 

xxx. The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers. 

xxxi. The initials PSAT mean or refer to 

Particle Source Apportionment Technology. 

xxxii. The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Signification Deterioration. 

xxxiii. The initials RAVI mean or refer to 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. 

xxxiv. The initials RHR mean or refer to 

the Regional Haze Rule. 

xxxv. The initials RMC mean or refer to the 

Regional Modeling Center at the University 

of California Riverside. 

xxxvi. The initials RPGs mean or refer to 

Reasonable Progress Goals. 

xxxvii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to 

regional planning organizations. 

xxxviii. The initials SCR mean or refer to 

selective catalytic reduction. 

xxxix. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

xl. The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

selective non-catalytic reduction. 

xli. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 

dioxide. 

xlii. The initials SOFA mean or refer to 

separated overfire air. 

xliii. The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

xliv. The initials ULNB mean or refer to 

ultra-low NOX burners. 

xlv. The initials URP mean or refer to 

Uniform Rate of Progress. 

xlvi. The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

xlvii. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations. 

xlviii. The initials WEP mean or refer to 

Weighted Emissions Potential. 

xlix. The initials WRAP mean or refer to 

the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

l. The words Wyoming and State mean the 

State of Wyoming. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. Overview of Proposed Actions 

III. SIP and FIP Background 

IV. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

V. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of Wyoming’s Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, 

and Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. BART Determinations 

1. BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Sources Subject-to-BART 

a. Modeling Methodology 

b. Contribution Threshold 

c. Sources Identified by Wyoming as 

Subject-to-BART 

3. BART Determinations and Federally 

Enforceable Limits 

a. Visibility Improvement Modeling 

b. Summary of BART Determinations and 

Federally Enforceable Limits 

i. FMC Westvaco—Units NS–1A and NS– 

1B 

ii. General Chemical Green River—Boilers 

C and D 

iii. Basin Electric Laramie River Station— 

Units 1–3 

iv. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 3 and 

4 

v. PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1–4 

vi. PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1–3 

vii. PacifiCorp Wyodak—Unit 1 

D. Reasonable Progress Requirements 

1. Visibility Impairing Pollutants and 

Sources 

2. Four-Factor Analyses 

a. Stationary Sources 

b. Summary of Reasonable Progress 

Determinations and Limits 

i. Oil and Gas Area Sources 

ii. Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant—Kiln 

3. Reasonable Progress Goals 

E. Long Term Strategy 

1. Emission Inventories 

2. Consultation and Emissions Reductions 

for Other States’ Class I Areas 

3. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution 

Programs 

b. Measures to Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

c. Smoke Management 

d. Emission Limitations and Schedules for 

Compliance 

e. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

f. Enforceability of Wyoming’s Measures 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due 

to Projected Changes 

4. Our Conclusions on Wyoming’s LongTerm Strategy 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze 

Rule Requirements 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With FLMs 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year 

Progress Reports 

VII. Federal Implementation Plan 

A. Disapproval of the State’s NOX BART 

Determinations and Federal 

Implementation Plan for NOX BART 

Determinations and Limits 

1. Disapproval of the State’s Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1–3 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP to Address NOX

BART 

2. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 3 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP to Address NOX

BART 

3. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp Jim 

Bridger Unit 1 and 2 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP to Address NOX

BART 

4. Proposals in the Alternative for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, 3, and 

4 NOX BART 

5. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP to Address NOX

BART 

B. Disapproval of the State’s NOX

Reasonable Progress Determinations and 

Federal Implementation Plan for NOX

Reasonable Progress Determinations and 

Limits 

1. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 1 and 

2 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

D. Federal Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements 

E. Federal Implementation Plan for the 

Long-Term Strategy 

F. Federal Implementation Plan for 

Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze 

Long-Term Strategy 

VIII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI 

to EPA through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33024 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Overview of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove a regional haze 

SIP revision submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on January 12, 2011. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

disapprove the following: 

• The State’s nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART) determinations for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• The State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs). 

• The State’s monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP. 

• Portions of the State’s long-term 

strategy (LTS) that rely on or reflect 

other aspects of the regional haze SIP. 

• The State’s SIP because it does not 

contain the necessary provisions to meet 

the requirements for the coordination of 

the review of the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) and the 

regional haze LTS. 

We are proposing to approve the 

remaining aspects of the State’s January 

12, 2011, SIP submittal. We are also 

seeking comment on two alternative 

proposals related to the State’s NOX

BART determination for PacifiCorp Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2. 

We are proposing the promulgation of 

a FIP to address the deficiencies in the 

Wyoming regional haze SIP that we 

have identified in this proposal. The 

proposed FIP includes the following 

elements: 

• NOX BART determinations and 

limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 

3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• NOX reasonable progress 

determination and limits for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• RPGs consistent with the SIP limits 

proposed for approval and the proposed 

FIP limits. 

• Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements applicable to all 

BART and reasonable progress sources 

for which there is a SIP or FIP emissions 

limit. 

• LTS elements pertaining to 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for the proposed BART and 

reasonable progress FIP emission limits. 

• Provisions to ensure the 

coordination of the RAVI and regional 

haze LTS. 

In lieu of our proposed FIP, or a 

portion thereof, we would propose 

approval of a SIP revision if the State 

submits such a revision and the revision 

matches the terms of our proposed FIP. 

We encourage the State to submit a SIP 

revision to replace the FIP, either before 

or after our final action. 

III. SIP and FIP Background 

The CAA requires each state to 

develop plans to meet various air 

quality requirements, including 

protection of visibility. CAA sections 

110(a), 169A, and 169B. The plans 

developed by a state are referred to as 

SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and 

SIP revisions to us for approval. Once 

approved, a SIP is enforceable by EPA 

and citizens under the CAA, also known 

as being federally enforceable. If a state 

fails to make a required SIP submittal or 

if we find that a state’s required 

submittal is incomplete or 

unapprovable, then we must promulgate 

a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. CAA 

section 110(c)(1). As discussed 

elsewhere in this notice, we are 

proposing to disapprove aspects of 

Wyoming’s regional haze SIP. We are 

proposing FIPs to address the 

deficiencies in Wyoming’s regional haze 

SIP. 

IV. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental 

carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

NOX, and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 

Fine particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5, which 

impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 1 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas 2 which impairment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33025 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

3EPA’s regional haze regulations require 

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

4The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the dv. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 

1999). 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 

64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007.3

Few states submitted a regional haze 

SIP prior to the December 17, 2007 

deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA 

found that 37 states (including 

Colorado), the District of Columbia, and 

the Virgin Islands, had failed to submit 

SIPs addressing the regional haze 

requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once EPA 

has found that a state has failed to make 

a required submission, EPA is required 

to promulgate a FIP within two years 

unless the state submits a SIP and the 

Agency approves it within the two-year 

period. CAA § 110(c)(1). 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the western United 

States. WRAP member state 

governments include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming. Tribal members include 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand 

Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 

Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San 

Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of 

Fort Hall. 

V. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

The following is a summary of the 

requirements of the RHR. See 40 CFR 

51.308 for further detail regarding the 

requirements of the rule. 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 

39118. This visibility metric expresses 

uniform changes in the degree of haze 

in terms of common increments across 

the entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Visibility expressed in 

deciviews is determined by using air 

quality measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.4

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33026 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/

RegionalHaze_envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘our 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance’’); and Guidance for Tracking Progress 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 

EPA–454/B–03–004, available at http://www.epa.

gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, 

(hereinafter referred to as our ‘‘2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance’’). 

6The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject-to-BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

7BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. We have provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions.5

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d), (f). The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for states to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural visibility conditions. In setting 

RPGs, states must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. Id. 

In establishing RPGs, states are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 169A of 

the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. In setting the 

RPGs, states must also consider the rate 

of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) 

or the ‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress, which states are to 

use for analytical comparison to the 

amount of progress they expect to 

achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with 

one or more Class I areas (‘‘Class I 

state’’) must also consult with 

potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., 

other nearby states with emission 

sources that may be affecting visibility 

impairment at the state’s Class I areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining 

whether a state’s goals for visibility 

improvement provide for reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility 

conditions, EPA is required to evaluate 

the demonstrations developed by the 

state pursuant to paragraphs 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iii). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources in 

order to address visibility impacts from 

these sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 6 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant 

with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state 

must use the approach set forth in the 

BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, 

but not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. Regardless of source size or 

type, a state must meet the requirements 

of the CAA and our regulations for 

selection of BART, and the state’s BART 

analysis and determination must be 

reasonable in light of the overarching 

purpose of the regional haze program. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: First, 

states identify those sources which meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301; 7 second, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33027 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed 

source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 

states determine which of such sources 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART’’); and third, for each source 

subject-to-BART, states then identify the 

best available type and level of control 

for reducing emissions. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section III.A.1. 

In their SIPs, states must identify the 

sources that are subject-to-BART and 

document their BART control 

determination analyses for such sources. 

In making their BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that states consider the following factors 

when evaluating potential control 

technologies: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject-to-BART. Once a state 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 

to what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. See CAA 

section 110(a). As noted above, the RHR 

allows states to implement an 

alternative program in lieu of BART so 

long as the alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal than would BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included, in its SIP, all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). 

The RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their longterm strategy, including stationary, 

minor, mobile, and area sources. At a 

minimum, states must describe how 

each of the following seven factors 

listed below are taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33028 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

8The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and regional planning 

organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring program 

was established in 1985 to aid the creation of 

Federal and State implementation plans for the 

protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the 

objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical 

species and emission sources responsible for 

existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. The 

IMPROVE program has also been a key participant 

in visibility-related research, including the 

advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject-to-BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

VI. EPA’s Evaluation of Wyoming’s 

Regional Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d), the 

State identified seven mandatory Class 

I areas in Wyoming: Grand Teton 

National Park, Yellowstone National 

Park, Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness, North Absaroka Wilderness, 

Teton Wilderness, and Washakie 

Wilderness. 

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, 

and Uniform Rate of Progress 

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2), 

Wyoming provided baseline visibility, 

natural visibility, and the URP for each 

Class I area in the State. Natural 

background visibility, as defined in our 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, is 

estimated by calculating the expected 

light extinction using default estimates 

of natural concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states to 

use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative approaches 

to this guidance to estimate the values 

that characterize the natural visibility 

conditions of Class I areas. 

One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 2005.8

The purpose of this refinement to the 

‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide 

more accurate estimates of the various 

factors that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. 

Wyoming used the new IMPROVE 

equation to calculate natural conditions 

and baseline visibility. The natural 

condition for each Class I area 

represents the visibility goal expressed 

in deciviews for the 20% worst days 

and the 20% best days that would exist 

if there were only naturally occurring 

visibility impairment. In accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iii), the State 

calculated natural visibility conditions 

based on available monitoring 

information and appropriate data 

analysis techniques and in accordance 

with our 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance. The State also calculated the 

number of deciviews by which baseline 

conditions exceed natural conditions at 

each of its Class I areas to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). 

Wyoming established the baseline 

visibility for the best and worst 

visibility days for each Class I area 

based on data from the IMPROVE 

monitoring sites. Each IMPROVE 

monitor collects particulate 

concentration data which are converted 

into reconstructed light extinction 

through a complex calculation using the 

IMPROVE equation (see Chapter 13 of 

the SIP for more information on 

reconstructed light extinction and the 

IMPROVE equation). Per 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)(i), the State calculated 

baseline visibility using a five-year 

average (2000 to 2004) of IMPROVE data 

for both the 20% best and 20% worst 

days. The State’s baseline calculations 

were made in accordance with our 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), 

the State calculated the URP for each of 

its Class I areas. For the 20% worst 

days, the URP is the calculation of the 

deciview reduction needed to achieve 

natural conditions by 2064. For the 20% 

worst days, the State calculated the URP 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33029 

9Wyoming has elected to submit its RH SIP 

pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. For 

states electing to submit under section 309, States 

do not have to do a BART analysis for SO2. SO2

controls are included in the backstop trading 

program under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 

10Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer at http://www.src.com/

verio/download/download.htm. 

in deciviews per year using the 

following formula: URP = [Baseline 

Condition¥Natural Condition]/60 

years. In order to determine the uniform 

progress needed by 2018 to be on the 

path to achieving natural visibility 

conditions by 2064, the State multiplied 

the URP by the 14 years in the first 

planning period (2004–2018). 

Table 1 shows the baseline visibility, 

natural conditions, and URP for each of 

the Class I areas. As indicated by the 

table, some Class I areas share a single 

monitor because of the proximity of the 

areas to each other. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, NATURAL CONDITIONS, AND URP FOR WYOMING CLASS I AREAS

20% Worst days 20% Best days 

Wyoming class I areas Monitor 

name 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

2018 URP 

(deciview) 

Reduction 

needed to 

reach 

2018 URP 

(delta 

deciview) 

2064 Natural 

conditions 

(deciview) 

Delta 

baseline— 

2064 natural 

conditions 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

Yellowstone National Park 

Grand Teton National 

Park Teton Wilderness.

YELL2 ... 11.8 10.5 1.3 6.44 5.36 2 .58 

North Absaroka Wilderness 

Washakie Wilderness.

NOABI ... 11.5 10.4 1.1 6.83 4.67 2 .0 

Bridger Wilderness 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness.

BRID1 .... 11.1 10.0 1.1 6.45 4.65 2 .1 

We have reviewed Wyoming’s 

baseline visibility, natural conditions, 

and URP. We find they have been 

calculated correctly and are proposing 

to approve them. 

C. BART Determinations 

BART is an element of Wyoming’s 

LTS for the first implementation period. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

VI.D of this notice, the BART evaluation 

process consists of three components: 

(1) An identification of all the BARTeligible sources; (2) an assessment of 

whether those BART-eligible sources are 

in fact subject-to-BART; and (3) a 

determination of any BART controls. 

Wyoming addressed these steps as 

follows: 

1. BART Eligible Sources 

The first step of a BART evaluation is 

to identify all the BART-eligible sources 

within the state’s boundaries. Wyoming 

identified the BART-eligible sources in 

Wyoming by utilizing the approach set 

out in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 

39158). This approach provides three 

criteria for identifying BART-eligible 

sources: (1) One or more emission units 

at the facility fit within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART 

Guidelines; (2) the emission unit or 

units began operation on or after August 

6, 1962, and were in existence on 

August 6, 1977; and (3) combined 

potential emissions of any visibilityimpairing pollutant from the units that 

meet the criteria in (1) and (2) are 250 

tons or more per year. Wyoming 

reviewed source permits and emission 

data from 2001–2003 to identify 

facilities in the BART source categories 

with potential emissions of 250 tons per 

year or more for any visibility-impairing 

pollutant from any unit or units that 

were in existence on August 7, 1977 and 

began operation on or after August 7, 

1962. The BART Guidelines direct states 

to address SO2,9 NOX, and direct PM 

(including both coarse particulate 

matter (PM10) and PM2.5) emissions as 

visibility-impairing pollutants and to 

exercise their ‘‘best judgment to 

determine whether VOC or NH3

emissions from a source are likely to 

have an impact on visibility in an area.’’ 

(70 FR 39162). 

The State analyzed the emissions 

from VOC and NH3 from sources in the 

State and eliminated them from further 

consideration for BART controls. The 

State evaluated the BART-eligible 

sources and determined emissions of 

VOC and NH3 were negligible. Thus, the 

State has eliminated VOC and NH3 from 

further consideration for BART controls. 

We have reviewed this information 

and propose to accept this 

determination. 

The State determined the following 

were BART-eligible sources: PacifiCorp 

Jim Bridger, P4 Production, PacifiCorp 

Naughton, OCI Wyoming, FMC Granger, 

Dyno Nobel, FMC Westvaco, Sinclair 

Casper Refinery, Basin Electric Laramie 

River, Black Hills Neil Simpson 1, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak, Sinclair—Sinclair 

Refinery, PacifiCorp Dave Johnston, and 

General Chemical Green River. 

We have reviewed this information 

and propose to accept this 

determination. 

2. Sources Subject-to-BART 

The second step of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject-toBART. The BART Guidelines allow 

States to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Wyoming performed 

dispersion modeling on the BARTeligible sources to assess the extent of 

their contribution to visibility 

impairment at surrounding Class I areas. 

a. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may use the CALPUFF 10

modeling system or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area 

and to, therefore, determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33030 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

11The State of Wyoming performed a refined 

CALPUFF visibility modeling analysis for the two 

BART-eligible units at the FMC Wyoming Granger 

Facility and demonstrated that the predicted 98th 

percentile impacts at Bridger Wilderness Area and 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area would be below 0.5 dv 

for all meteorological periods modeled. This 

modeling used higher-resolution meteorological 

data as compared to the data used by the State for 

the initial screening modeling that identified the 

facility as subject-to-BART. 

12CALPUFF modeling results, which provide the 

maximum change in visibility are summarized in 

the WY BART Screening Analysis Results and the 

WY BART Screening Analysis Results DV 

Frequency, which can also be found in Chapter 6 

of the State’s TSD. 

13See our BART Guidelines, Section III.A.3. 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that 

CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment 

(70 FR 39162). 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that States develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions, and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. Wyoming used 

the CALPUFF model for Wyoming 

BART sources in accordance with a 

protocol it developed titled BART Air 

Modeling Protocol Individual Source 

Visibility Impairment Analysis, March 

2006, which was approved by EPA and 

is included in Chapter 6 of the State’s 

TSD. The Wyoming protocol follows 

recommendations for long-range 

transport described in appendix W to 

40 CFR part 51, Guideline on Air 

Quality Models, and in EPA’s 

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality 

Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary 

Report and Recommendations for 

Modeling Long-Range Transport 

Impacts as recommended by the BART 

Guidelines. (40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section III.A.3). To determine if each 

BART-eligible source has a significant 

impact on visibility, Wyoming used the 

CALPUFF model to estimate daily 

visibility impacts above estimated 

natural conditions at each Class I area 

within 300 km of any BART-eligible 

facility, based on maximum actual 

24-hour emissions over a three year 

period (2001–2003). 

b. Contribution Threshold 

For States using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ (70 FR 39104, 39161). The 

BART Guidelines also state that ‘‘the 

appropriate threshold for determining 

whether a source contributes to 

visibility impairment may reasonably 

differ across States,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘‘contributes’’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, States should 

‘‘consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts.’’ The 

Guidelines affirm that States are free to 

use a lower threshold if they conclude 

that the location of a large number of 

BART-eligible sources in proximity to a 

Class I area justifies this approach. 

Wyoming used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciviews for 

determining which sources are subjectto-BART. By using a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciviews, Wyoming 

exempted seven of the fourteen BARTeligible sources in the State from further 

review under the BART requirements. 

Based on the modeling results, the State 

determined that P4 Production, FMC 

Granger,11 and OCI Wyoming had an 

impact of .07 deciview, 0.39 deciview, 

and 0.07 deciview, respectively, at 

Bridger Wilderness. Black Hills Neil 

Simpson 1, Sinclair Casper Refinery, 

and Sinclair—Sinclair Refinery have an 

impact of 0.27 deciview, 0.06 deciview, 

and 0.12 deciview, respectively, at 

Wind Cave. Dyno-Nobel had an impact 

of 0.22 deciview at Rocky Mountain 

National Park. These sources’ modeled 

visibility impacts fell below the State’s 

threshold of 0.5 deciview and were 

determined not to be subject-to-BART.12

Given the relatively limited impact on 

visibility from these seven sources, we 

propose to agree with Wyoming that 0.5 

deciviews is a reasonable threshold for 

determining whether its BART-eligible 

sources are subject-to-BART. 

Because our recommended modeling 

approach already incorporates choices 

that tend to lower peak daily visibility 

impact values,13 our BART Guidelines 

state that a State should compare the 

98th percentile (as opposed to the 90th 

or lower percentile) of CALPUFF 

modeling results against the 

‘‘contribution’’ threshold established by 

the State for purposes of determining 

BART applicability. Wyoming used a 

98th percentile comparison that we find 

appropriate. Further explanation on use 

of the 98th versus 90th percentile value 

is provided at 70 FR 39121. 

c. Sources Identified by Wyoming as 

Subject-to-BART 

Table 2 shows the sources identified 

by the State as subject-to-BART and the 

results of the CALPUFF modeling. 

TABLE 2—WYOMING SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES AND CALPUFF MODELING RESULTS

Facility name Subject-to-BART units 

State modeling 

results—98th 

percentile 

delta-deciview 

PacifiCorp—Jim Bridger ..................................................................... Units 1–4 ...................................................................... 3 .1 

Basin Electric—Laramie River ............................................................ Units 1, 2 and 3 ............................................................ 3 .68 

PacifiCorp—Dave Johnston ............................................................... Units 3 and 4 ................................................................ 3 .30 

PacifiCorp—Naughton ........................................................................ Units 1–3 ...................................................................... 4 .36 

PacifiCorp—Wyodak ........................................................................... Unit 1 ............................................................................ 1 .66 

FMC—Westvaco ................................................................................. Units NS–1A and NS–1B ............................................. 1 .3 

General Chemical—Green River ........................................................ Boilers C and D ............................................................ 1 .36 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33031 

14Per the BART Guidelines, States must use 

CALPUFF, or other appropriate dispersion model to 

determine the visibility improvement expected at a 

Class I area from the potential BART control 

technology applied to the source. 70 FR 39170. 

15A summary of EPA’s modeling methodology 

and results can be found in the docket under EPA 

BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming Sources. 

16The cumulative visibility impact will be higher 

than the 98th percentile impact that is shown in the 

BART summary tables. 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s determination of the subject-toBART sources. 

3. BART Determinations and Federally 

Enforceable Limits 

The third step of a BART evaluation 

is to perform the BART analysis. The 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164) 

describe the BART analysis as 

consisting of the following five steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies; 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options; 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies; 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results; and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

In determining BART, the State must 

consider the five statutory factors in 

section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs 

of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. See also 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The five-factor 

analysis occurs during steps 4 and 5 of 

the BART analysis. 

We find that Wyoming considered all 

five steps above in its BART 

determinations, but we find that its 

consideration of visibility improvement 

was inadequate, as explained below. 

a. Visibility Improvement Modeling 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may use the CALPUFF modeling 

system or another appropriate model to 

determine the visibility improvement 

expected at a Class I area from potential 

BART control technologies applied to 

the source. The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for modeling 

visibility improvement, and suggest that 

states may want to consult with EPA 

and their RPO to address any issues 

prior to modeling. Wyoming developed 

a modeling protocol titled BART Air 

Modeling Protocol Individual Source 

Visibility Assessments for BART Control 

Analyses, September 2006, for sources 

to use when they performed their BART 

analysis (see Chapter 6 of the State’s 

TSD). The Wyoming protocol follows 

recommendations for long-range 

transport described in appendix W to 40 

CFR part 51, Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, and in EPA’s Interagency 

Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

(IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and 

Recommendations for Modeling Long 

Range Transport Impacts, as 

recommended by the BART Guidelines 

(40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section 

III.D.5). 

For the subject-to-BART PacifiCorp 

sources, the State’s analyses provide 

visibility improvement modeling results 

that combine the visibility improvement 

from NOX, PM, and SO2 control 

options.14 From the State’s modeling 

results, EPA could not ascertain what 

the visibility improvement would be 

from an individual NOX or PM control 

option. For Basin Electric’s Laramie 

River Station, the State did not provide 

the visibility improvement for the SNCR 

control option or for PM controls. While 

we are able to propose approval of the 

State’s PM BART determinations 

without having additional visibility 

improvement modeling for PM controls, 

as discussed below, additional visibility 

improvement modeling to address the 

NOX BART controls was needed and 

subsequently performed by EPA.15

b. Summary of BART Determinations 

and Federally Enforceable Limits 

For the subject-to-BART sources, the 

State provided BART analyses, as well 

as additional technical information and 

materials, in Attachment A to the SIP. 

Chapter 6 of the SIP provides a 

summary of the five-factor analyses. As 

noted above, EPA performed the NOX

visibility improvement modeling for the 

control technology options analyzed for 

the subject-to-BART PacifiCorp 

sources.16 EPA also performed modeling 

for the visibility improvement SNCR for 

Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, 

and 3. In addition, Wyoming did not 

provide control efficiencies in their 

BART analysis for PM and NOX BART 

controls for the PacifiCorp sources nor 

did the State provide analysis for NOX

BART controls for Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

Therefore, EPA calculated the control 

efficiencies shown for the PM and NOX

BART controls for the PacifiCorp 

sources and NOX BART controls for 

Basin Electric from the emission 

reductions reported by Wyoming in 

Chapter 6.5 and Appendix A of their 

SIP. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s BART determinations for the 

following: NOX and PM BART for FMC 

Westvaco Unit NS–1A and NS–1B; NOX

and PM BART for General Chemical 

Green River Boiler C and Boiler D; PM 

BART for Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3; PM BART for 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3; NOX

and PM BART for PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 4; PM BART for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 1 and Unit 

2; NOX and PM BART (including LTS 

controls) for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 

3 and Unit 4; NOX and PM BART for 

PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1, 2, and 3; 

PM BART for PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 

1. A summary of the BART 

determination for each source is 

provided below. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

State’s NOX BART determinations, and 

we are proposing to issue a BART FIP, 

for the following units: PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 3; PacifiCorp Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2; PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 

1; and Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3. EPA’s rationale for 

disapproving the State’s BART 

determinations for these units, as well 

as EPA’s BART FIP determinations and 

emission limits can be found in section 

VII.A of this notice. 

i. FMC Westvaco—Units NS–1A and 

NS–1B 

Background 

FMC’s Westvaco facility is a trona 

mine and sodium products plant located 

in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. FMC 

Westvaco has two existing coal-fired 

boilers, Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B, 

that are subject to BART. Unit NS–1A 

and Unit NS–1B each have a design heat 

input rate of 887 MMBtu/hr and were 

constructed in 1975. They are both wallfired, wet-bottom boilers burning 

subbituminous coal. The State’s BART 

determination can be found in Chapter 

6.5.2 and Attachment A of the SIP. 

NOX BART Determination 

Units NS–1A and NS–1B are currently 

controlled with combustion air control 

with a permit limit of 0.7 lb/MMBtu (3- 

hour rolling average). The State 

determined that low NOX burners 

(LNBs) and overfired air (OFA), LNBs 

and OFA with selective non-catalytic 

reduction (SNCR), and LNBs and OFA 

with selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 

were technically feasible for reducing 

NOX emissions at Unit NS–1A and NS– 

1B. The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible options. The State 

did not identify any energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts that 

would preclude the selection of any of 

the controls evaluated, and there are no 

remaining-useful-life issues for this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33032 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

17 Incremental cost effectiveness for each option 

is the difference in total annual costs between that 

option and the next most stringent option, divided by the difference in emissions, after controls have 

been applied, between those two control options. 

source. A summary of the State’s NOX

BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Table 3. Baseline 

NOX emissions are 2,719.5 tpy for each 

unit based on a heat input rate of 887 

MMBtu/hr and 8,760 hours of operation 

per year. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FMC WESTVACO UNIT NS–1A AND UNIT NS–1B NOX BART ANALYSIS* 

Control 

technology 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Bridger 

Wilderness 

Area) 

LNB + SOFA .................... 50 0.35 1,359.7 $413,145 $304 0.13 

LNB + SOFA + SNCR ..... 70 0.21 1,903.6 1,281,851 673 0.19 

LNB + SOFA + SCR ........ 85 0.10 2,331.0 1,281,851 3,493 0.24 

* This table reflects the costs and visibility improvements per boiler. 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated is as follows: LNB 

plus SOFA and SNCR: $1,597/ton, and 

LNB plus SOFA and SCR: $16,051/ 

ton.17

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that LNBs 

plus OFA are reasonable for BART. The 

State determined that the other control 

options were not reasonable based on 

the cost effectiveness and associated 

visibility improvement. The State has 

determined that NOX BART emission 

limits for FMC Westvaco Unit NS–1A 

and Unit MS–1B are 0.35 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average), 284 lb/hr (30-day 

rolling average), and 1,244 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its 

NOX BART determinations for FMC 

Westvaco Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B. 

PM BART Determination 

Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B are 

currently controlled for PM emissions 

by electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). The 

units currently have a PM emission 

limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu. The State 

determined that fabric filters on the wet 

scrubber, addition of an ESP 

downstream of the wet scrubber, and 

replacement of the ESPs with fabric 

filters were technically feasible control 

options. The State did not identify any 

energy or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s PM BART 

analysis is provided in Table 4 below. 

Baseline PM emissions are 197 tpy for 

each unit based on a heat input rate of 

887 MMBtu/hr and 8,760 hours of 

operation per year. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF FMC WESTVACO UNIT NS–1A AND UNIT NS–1B PM BART ANALYSIS * 

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter on Wet Scrubber ....................... 21.4 0 .04 41.7 $1,791,364 $42,948 

ESP after Wet Scrubber ................................ 63.3 0 .019 123.3 3,507,617 28,448 

Replace ESP with Fabric Filter ...................... 71.3 0 .015 138.8 4,116,036 29,654 

* This table reflects the costs and visibility improvements per boiler. 

Given the high cost of controls, which 

are higher than what EPA, or other 

states have considered reasonable for 

PM, FMC did not evaluate the visibility 

improvement that would result from the 

PM controls evaluated. Previous 

visibility modeling analyses from the 

source indicate that the contribution in 

visibility degradation from PM is minor 

when compared to the contributing 

effects of NOX and SO2. Results from 

FMC’s visibility modeling screening and 

analysis confirm this conclusion and are 

discussed in further detail within the 

comprehensive visibility analysis 

included as part of FMC’s BART 

application (see Attachment A to the 

SIP). The State agreed with FMC’s 

conclusions and did not require FMC to 

perform additional visibility analyses 

for the PM control options. 

The State determined that the current 

ESP control was reasonable for PM 

BART. The State rejected other controls 

as being reasonable for BART because of 

the high cost effectiveness. The State 

has determined that the PM BART 

emission limits for FMC Westvaco Unit 

NS–1A and NS–1B are 0.05 lb/MMBtu, 

45.0 lb/hr, and 197 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determinations for FMC 

Westvaco Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B. 

ii. General Chemical Green River— 

Boilers C and D 

General Chemical Green River is a 

trona mine and sodium products plant. 

General Chemical’s two existing coalfired boilers, C and D, are co-located at 

the facility power plant. Both boilers 

burn low sulfur bituminous coal, and 

they supply power and process steam to 

mining and ore processing operations. 

Both boilers are tangentially fired using 

in-line coal pulverizers. The firing rate 

for Boiler C is 534 MMBtu/hr and 880 

MMBtu/hr for Boiler D. The State’s 

BART determination can be found in 

Chapter 6.5.3 and Attachment A of the 

SIP. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33033 

NOX BART Determination 

Boiler C and Boiler D are currently 

controlled with LNBs plus OFA with a 

permit limit of 0.7 lb/MMBtu (3-hour 

rolling average). On August 7, 2009, the 

State issued a BART permit to General 

Chemical that required the source to 

meet a NOX emission limit of 0.32 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for 

Boiler C and Boiler D. The State 

assumed the source could meet this 

emission limit with the installation and 

operation of new LNBs with the existing 

OFA. Upon further investigation, the 

source determined it could not meet a 

limit of 0.32 lbs/MMBtu with new LNBs 

and the existing OFA. 

In response to the additional 

information from the source, the State 

reexamined its BART determination for 

Boiler C and D. The State determined 

that installing SOFA in addition to the 

existing LNBs and OFA could achieve 

an emission limit of 0.28 lb/MMBtu. 

Since SOFA in conjunction with the 

existing NOX controls could achieve 

better emission reductions than new 

LNBs plus OFA, the State eliminated 

the latter from further consideration in 

the BART analysis. The State 

determined SNCR and SCR were also 

technically feasible. The State did not 

identify any technically infeasible 

options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analysis and visibility impacts is 

provided in Tables 5 and 6 below. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 1,167 tpy 

for Boiler C and 1,816 tpy for Boiler D 

based on an average of 2001–2003 actual 

emissions. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF GENERAL CHEMICAL—GREEN RIVER BOILER C NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control 

technology 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

Existing LNBs with SOFA 44 0.28 512 $757,711 $1,480 0.05 

SNCR ............................... 50 0.35 584 1,433,720 2,455 0.08 

SCR .................................. 80 0.14 934 2,434,809 2,607 0.14 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

control technologies evaluated is as 

follows: SNCR: $4,782/ton, and SCR: 

$3,156/ton. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF GENERAL CHEMICAL—GREEN RIVER BOILER D NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control 

technology 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

Existing LNBs with SOFA 41 0.28 737 $943,549 $1,280 0.07 

SNCR ............................... 50 0.35 908 1,486,581 3,176 0.12 

SCR .................................. 80 0.14 1,453 3,399,266 3,510 0.17 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

control technologies evaluated is as 

follows: SNCR: $2,913/ton, and SCR: 

$4,342/ton. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that NOX

BART is the existing LNBs with new 

SOFA, or a comparable performing 

technology. The State determined that 

SNCR and SCR were not reasonable 

based on the high cost effectiveness and 

low visibility improvement. The State 

determined the NOX BART emission 

limits for General Chemical Green River 

Boiler C are 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average), 149.5 lb/hr (30-day 

rolling average) and 654.9 tpy, and that 

the NOX BART emission limits for 

Boiler D are 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average), 246.4 lb/hr (30-day 

rolling average) and 1,079.2 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its 

NOX BART determinations for General 

Chemical Green River—Boiler C and D. 

PM BART Determination 

Boiler C and D are currently 

controlled by ESPs with a permit limit 

of 50 lb/hr and 80 lb/hr, respectively. 

General Chemical addressed PM 

emissions through an abbreviated 

analysis by using PM BART information 

from FMC Westvaco, as discussed 

above. The facilities are similar in size 

and located about ten miles apart. 

Baseline PM emissions for Boiler C are 

98 tpy and 161 tpy for Boiler D based 

on the average of 2001–2003 actual 

emissions. As discussed above, 

visibility modeling screening and 

analyses for FMC Westvaco indicate that 

the contribution in visibility 

degradation from PM for a source 

comparable to Boiler C and Boiler D is 

minor. Additionally, costs for 

controlling PM from similar boilers are 

high as indicated by FMC analysis for 

Westvaco. 

The State accepted General 

Chemical’s abbreviated PM BART 

analysis. The State determined that the 

current ESP control was reasonable for 

PM BART. The State rejected other 

controls as being reasonable for BART 

because of the high cost effectiveness. 

The State determined that the PM BART 

emission limits for Boiler C are 0.09 lb/ 

MMBtu, 50 lb/hr, and 219 tpy, and that 

the PM BART emissions limits for 

Boiler D are 0.09 lb/MMBtu, 80 lb/hr, 

and 350.4 tpy. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33034 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for General 

Chemical Green River Boiler C and D. 

iii. Basin Electric Laramie River 

Station—Units 1–3 

Basin Electric Laramie River Station is 

located in Platte County, Wyoming. 

Laramie River Station is comprised of 

three 550-MW dry-bottom, wall-fired 

boilers (Units 1, 2, and 3) burning 

subbituminous coal for a total net 

generating capacity of 1,650 MW. All 

three units are subject-to-BART. The 

State’s BART determination can be 

found in Chapter 6.5.8 and Attachment 

A of the SIP (The NOx BART analysis 

is discussed in section VII.A of this 

notice). 

PM BART Determination 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 are 

currently controlled with ESPs with a 

permit limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu. The 

State determined that fabric filters were 

technically feasible for Unit 3 but not 

Units 1 and 2. Units 1 and 2 are 

controlled with wet flue gas 

desulfurization and fabric filters cannot 

be used downstream of such a system. 

The State determined that flue gas 

treatment and GE Max-9 hybrid were 

technically infeasible for all three units. 

Thus, the only technically feasible 

control option for PM is fabric filters on 

Unit 3. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s PM BART 

analysis for Unit 3 is provided in Table 

7 below. Baseline PM emissions are 716 

tpy for the unit based on 2001–2003 

actual emissions. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 3 PM BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter—Peak Rate for Lost Generating 

Costs ............................................................ 50 0.015 358 $194,809,000 $54,707 

Fabric Filter Non-Peak Rate for Lost Generating Costs ................................................... 50 0.015 358 134,934,000 40,156 

The State did not provide visibility 

improvement modeling for fabric filters, 

but EPA is proposing to conclude this 

is reasonable based on the high cost 

effectiveness of fabric filters at each of 

the units, which is higher than EPA or 

other state have considered reasonable 

for PM BART. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that the 

current ESPs are reasonable for PM 

BART, as fabric filters on Unit 3 are not 

cost-effective and there are no other 

technically feasible controls for Units 1 

and 2. The State determined the PM 

BART emission limits for Laramie River 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 are 0.03 lb/MMBtu, 

193 lb/hr, and 844 tpy, and the PM 

BART emission limits for Laramie River 

Unit 3 are 0.03 lb/MMBtu, 198 lb/hr, 

and 867 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

iv. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 3 

and 4 

Background 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston power plant 

is located in Converse County, 

Wyoming. Dave Johnston Power Plant is 

comprised of four units burning 

pulverized subbituminous Powder River 

Basin coal. Units 3 and 4 are the only 

units subject-to-BART. Dave Johnston 

Unit 3 is a nominal 230-MW pulverized 

coal-fired boiler that commenced 

service in 1964. It is equipped with 

burners in a cell configuration. Dave 

Johnston Unit 4 is a nominal 330-MW 

pulverized coal-fired boiler that 

commenced service in 1972. It is a 

tangential-fired boiler. The State’s BART 

analysis can be found in Chapter 6.5.5 

and Appendix A of the SIP (The NOX

BART determination for Dave Johnston 

Unit 3 is discussed in section VII.A of 

this notice). 

NOX BART Determination for Unit 4 

Unit 4 is currently controlled with 

LNBs that were placed in operation in 

1976. The State determined LNBs with 

advanced OFA, LNBs with advanced 

OFA and SNCR, and LNBs with 

advanced OFA and SCR were 

technically feasible for controlling NOX

emissions for Unit 4. The State did not 

identify any technically infeasible 

controls. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 8,566 tpy 

for Unit 4 based on unit heat input rate 

of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of 

operation. A summary of the State’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Table 8 below. 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility improvement (delta 

deciview for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Wind Cave 

National Park) 

LNB with advanced OFA 71.7 0.15 6,142 $841,527 $137 0.71 

New LNB with advanced 

OFA and SNCR ............ 77.4 0.12 6,626 $2,141,786 $323 0.80 

LNB with advanced OFA 

and SCR ....................... 86.8 0.07 7,435 $16,430,528 $2,210 0.97 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33035 

18Unit 4 has different modeling results as the 

stack parameters used in the modeling are different 

enough from Units 1-3 to yield different modeled 

results. 

Incremental costs for the controls 

evaluated are as follows: New LNB with 

advanced OFA and SNCR: $2,686/ton; 

and LNB with advanced OFA and SCR: 

$17,662/ton. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

advanced OFA was reasonable for NOX

BART for Dave Johnston Unit 4. The 

State determined the NOX BART 

emission limits for Unit 4 are 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average), 615 lb/ 

hr (30-day rolling average), and 2,694 

tpy. 

We find it is reasonable for the State 

to eliminate higher performing control 

options (i.e., LNBs with advanced OFA 

plus SNCR and LNBs with advanced 

OFA plus SCR). The incremental cost 

effectiveness of achieving 0.07 lb/ 

MMBTU with SCR over achieving 0.15 

lb/MMBTU with LNBs is $17,662, with 

a 0.26 delta deciview visibility 

improvement. The incremental cost 

effectiveness of SNCR over LNBs is 

$2,686 with an incremental visibility 

improvement of 0.09. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we agree with the State’s 

conclusions, and we are proposing to 

approve its NOX BART determination 

for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 4. 

PM BART Determination 

Units 3 and 4 are currently controlled 

with fabric filters installed in 2008 with 

an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. 

The State determined that fabric filters 

represent the most stringent PM control 

technology and that 0.015 lb/MMBtu 

represents the most stringent emission 

limit. Consistent with the BART 

Guidelines, the State did not provide a 

five-factor analysis because the State 

determined BART to be the most 

stringent control technology and limit 

(70 FR 39165). The State determined 

that the PM BART emission limits for 

Unit 3 are 0.015 lb/MMBtu, 42.1 lb/hr, 

and 184 tpy and the PM BART emission 

limits for Unit 4 are 0.015 lb/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average), 61.5 lb/hr, and 

269 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for Dave Johnston 

Units 3 and 4. 

v. PacifiCorp Jim Bridger—Units 1–4 

Background 

PacifiCorp’s Jim Bridger Power Plant 

is located in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming. Jim Bridger is comprised of 

four identically sized nominal 530 MW 

tangentially fired boilers burning 

pulverized coal for a total net generating 

capacity of 2,120 MW. Jim Bridger Unit 

1 was placed in service in 1974, Unit 2 

in 1975, Unit 3 in 1976, and Unit 4 in 

1979. The State’s BART determination 

can be found in Chapter 6.5.4 and 

Appendix A of the SIP (The NOX BART 

determination for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2 is discussed in section VII.A of 

this notice). 

NOX BART Determination for Jim 

Bridger Units 3 and 4 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 

are equipped with early generation 

LNBs with a permit limit of 0.70 lb/ 

MMBtu (3-hour fixed). The State 

determined that LNBs with SOFA, LNBs 

with SOFA plus SNCR, and LNBs with 

SOFA plus SCR were technically 

feasible for controlling NOX emissions. 

The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 10,643 tons 

for both units based on unit heat input 

rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours 

of operation. A summary of the State’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Table 9 below. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER UNITS 3 AND 4 NOX BART ANALYSIS—COSTS PER BOILER

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction (tpy) Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility improvement (delta 

deciview for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Mt. Zirkel 

Wilderness)-units 

3/4 18

LNB with SOFA ................ 42.2 0.26 4,493 $1,144,969 $255 0.41/0.47 

New LNB with SOFA and 

SNCR ........................... 55.6 0.20 5,913 2,710.801 459 0.53/0.62 

LNB with SOFA and SCR 84.4 0.07 8,987 20,296,400 2,258 0.80/0.82 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

control evaluated is as follows: New 

LNB with SOFA and SNCR: $1,103/ton, 

and LNB with SOFA and SCR: $5,721/ 

ton. 

The State determined the cost of 

compliance was high for SCR. The State 

determined that LNBs with SOFA were 

reasonable for NOX BART for Jim 

Bridger Units 3 and 4. The State 

determined the NOX BART emission 

limits for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 are 

0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), 

1,560 lb/hr (30-day average), and 6,833 

tpy. 

The State is requiring PacifiCorp to 

install additional controls under its 

LTS. The State determined that based 

on the cost of compliance and visibility 

improvement presented by PacifiCorp in 

the BART applications for Jim Bridger 

Units 3 and 4 and taking into 

consideration the logistical challenge of 

managing multiple pollution control 

installations within the regulatory time 

allotted for installation of BART by the 

RHR, additional controls would be 

required under the LTS but not BART 

(see Chapter 8.3.3 of the SIP). With 

respect to Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, the 

State has required PacifiCorp to install 

SCR, or other NOX control systems, to 

achieve an emission limit or otherwise 

reduce NOX emissions to achieve a 0.07 

lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling average NOX

emissions rate. PacifiCorp is required to 

meet the 0.07 lb/MMBtu emission rate 

on Unit 3 prior to December 31, 2015 

and on Unit 4 prior to December 31, 

2016. 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.26 lb/ 

MMBtu is reasonable for BART for Jim 

Bridger Units 3 and 4, which can be 

achieved with the installation and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33036 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

19Wyoming determined that LNBs with OFA and 

SCR was BART for Naughton Unit 3. The cost 

effectiveness of SCR for Naughton Unit 3 is $2,830 

with 1 deciview of visibility improvement. 

20The cumulative 3-year averaged visibility 

improvement from new LNB with separated OFA, 

upgraded wet FGD, and FGC for enhanced ESP with 

FGC (Post-Control Scenario 1) across the three Class 

I areas achieved with LNB and separated OFA, 

upgraded wet FGD, and adding a polishing fabric 

filter (Post-Control Scenario 2) was 0.095 delta dv 

from Unit 1, 0.090 delta dv from Unit 2, 0.089 delta 

dv from Unit 3 and 0.025 delta dv from Unit 4. 

operation on LNBs with SOFA. In 

particular, the cost effectiveness values 

for LNBs with SOFA plus SCR at each 

unit is $2,258 with approximately 0.80 

delta deciview visibility improvement. 

The cost effectiveness values are 

reasonable and the visibility 

improvement significant for LNBs with 

SOFA plus SCR. In addition, the costs 

are within the range that Wyoming, 

other states, and we have considered 

reasonable in the BART context.19 LNBs 

with SOFA plus SCR would result in an 

additional reduction of 4,474 tpy of 

NOX emissions at each unit. This 

difference is substantial. We find that it 

was unreasonable for the State not to 

determine that LNBs with SOFA plus 

SCR was NOX BART for Jim Bridger 

Units 3 and 4. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we propose to find it 

reasonable that NOx BART for Jim 

Bridger Units 3 and 4 is LNBs with 

SOFA plus SCR at an emission limit of 

0.07 lb/MMBtu. Though we do not agree 

with the State’s BART determination, 

the State is requiring PacifiCorp to 

install controls as part of the LTS that 

are equivalent to what EPA’s is 

proposing to determine is reasonable for 

BART. The State is requiring PacifiCorp 

to install the LTS controls within the 

timeline that BART controls would have 

to be installed pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). Thus, we are proposing to 

approve the State’s compliance 

schedule and emission limit of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 as 

meeting the BART requirements. 

PM BART Determination for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are currently 

controlled for PM with ESPs and flue 

gas conditioning (FGC). The current 

permit limit for all four units is 0.03 lb/ 

MMBtu. The State determined that 

fabric filters were technically feasible 

for controlling PM emissions. The State 

did not identify any technically 

infeasible controls. The State did not 

identify any energy or non-air quality 

environmental impacts that would 

preclude the selection of any of the 

controls evaluated, and there are no 

remaining-useful-life issues for this 

source. A summary of the State’s PM 

BART analyses for Units 1–4 is 

provided in Table 10 below. Baseline 

PM emissions are 1,064 tpy for Unit 1, 

1,750 tpy for Unit 2, 1,348 tpy for Unit 

3, and 710 tpy for Unit 4 based on unit 

heat input rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 

7,884 hours of operation per year. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF PACIFICORP JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4 P.M. BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter—Unit 1 ......................................... 66.6 0.015 709 $6,367,118 $8,980 

Fabric Filter—Unit 2 ......................................... 79.7 0.015 1,395 6,357,658 4,557 

Fabric Filter—Unit 3 ......................................... 73.7 0.015 993 6,337,434 6,382 

Fabric Filter—Unit 4 ......................................... 50 0.015 355 6,367,118 17,936 

The State did not provide visibility 

improvement modeling for fabric filters, 

but EPA is proposing to conclude this 

is reasonable based on the high cost 

effectiveness of fabric filters at each of 

the units. In addition, we anticipate that 

the visibility improvement that would 

result from lowering the limit from 0.03 

lb/MMBtu to 0.015 lb/MMBtu would be 

insignificant based on the State’s 

analysis.20

Based on its consideration of the fivefactors, the State determined the current 

ESPs with FGC were reasonable for 

BART. The State determined that fabric 

filters were not reasonable based on the 

high cost effectiveness. The State 

determined that the PM BART emission 

limits for Jim Bridger Units 1 through 4 

are 0.03 lb/MMBtu, 180 lb/hr, and 788 

tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing approve its PM 

BART determination for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4. 

vi. PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1–3 

PacifiCorp Naughton is located in 

Lincoln County, Wyoming. Naughton is 

comprised of three pulverized coal-fired 

units with a total net generating 

capacity of 700 MW. Naughton Unit 1 

generates a nominal 160 MW and 

commenced operation in 1963. 

Naughton Unit 2 generates a nominal 

210 MW and commenced operation in 

1968. Naughton Unit 3 generates a 

nominal 330 MW and commenced 

operation in 1971. All three boilers are 

tangentially fired boilers. The State’s 

BART determination can be found in 

Chapter 6.5.6 and Appendix A of the 

SIP. 

NOX BART Determination 

Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2 are 

currently controlled for NOX emissions 

with good combustion practices with 

NOX emission limits of 0.75 lb/MMBtu 

(3-hour block) and 0.58 lb/MMBtu 

(annual). Naughton Unit 3 is currently 

controlled with LNBs with OFA with 

permit limits of 0.75 lb/MMBtu (93-hour 

block) and 0.58 lb/MMBtu (annual). The 

State determined that LNBs with OFA, 

LNBs with OFA and SNCR, and LNBs 

with OFA and SCR were all technically 

feasible for controlling NOX emissions 

from Unit 1 and Unit 2. The State 

determined that tuning the existing 

LNBs, existing LNBs with OFA and 

SNCR, and existing LNBs with OFA and 

SCR were all technically feasible for 

controlling NOX emissions from Unit 3. 

The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analyses for Units 1–3 is provided in 

Tables 11, 12, and 13 below. Baseline 

NOx emissions are 4,230 tpy for Unit 1, 

5,109 tpy for Unit 2, and 6,563 tpy for 

Unit 3 based on the unit heat input rate 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33037 

of 3,700 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of 

operation per year. 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF NAUGHTON UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(Delta deciview) 

(Delta deciview 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

Impact at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

LNBs with OFA ................ 55.2 0.26 2,334 $993,248 $426 0.79 

LNBs with OFA and 

SNCR ........................... 63.8 0.21 2,699 1,972,363 731 0.80 

LNBs with OFA and SCR 87.9 0.07 3,720 10,231,210 2,750 1.07 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated are as follows: LNBs 

with OFA and SNCR: $2,683/ton, and 

LNBs with OFA and SCR: $8,089/ton. 

TABLE 12—SUMMARY OF NAUGHTON UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(Delta deciview) 

(Delta deciview 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

Impact at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

LNBs with OFA ................ 51.9 0.26 2,649 $945,683 $357 0.70 

LNBs with OFA and 

SNCR ........................... 61.1 0.21 3,122 2,260,957 724 0.74 

LNBs with OFA and SCR 87 0.07 4,447 12,664,919 2,848 1.10 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated are as follows: LNBs 

with OFA and SNCR: $2,781/ton, and 

LNBs with OFA and SCR: $7,852/ton. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF NAUGHTON UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(Delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

Tuning Existing LNBs ...... 17.8 0.37 1,167 $95,130 $82 0.25 

Existing LNBs with OFA 

and SNCR .................... 33.3 0.30 2,188 1,916,039 876 0.46 

Existing LNB with OFA 

and SCR ....................... 84.4 0.07 5,542 15,682,702 2,830 1.00 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated are as follows: LNBs 

with OFA and SNCR: $1,783; and LNBs 

with OFA and SCR: $4,105. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

OFA was reasonable for NOX BART for 

Unit 1 and Unit 2. The State determined 

SNCR and SCR were not reasonable 

based on the high cost effectiveness and 

associated visibility improvement. The 

State determined the NOX BART 

emission limits for Naughton Unit 1 are 

0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), 

481 lb/hr (30-day rolling average), and 

2,107 tpy, and the NOX BART emission 

limits for Naughton Unit 2 are 0.26 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average), 624 lb/ 

hr (30-day rolling average), and 2,733 

tpy. Based on its consideration of the 

five factors, the State determined that 

the existing LNBs with OFA plus SCR 

was NOX BART for Unit 3. The State 

determined the NOX BART emission 

limits for Naughton Unit 3 are 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average), 259 lb/ 

hr (30-day rolling average), and 1,134 

tpy. 

We find it is reasonable for the State 

to eliminate higher performing control 

options for Units 1 and 2 (i.e., LNBs 

with advanced OFA plus SNCR and 

LNBs with advanced OFA plus SCR. 

The incremental cost effectiveness of 

LNBs with OFA plus SCR over LNBs 

with OFA is approximately $8,000 for 

each unit. The incremental cost 

effectiveness of LNBs with OFA plus 

SNCR over LNBs with OFA is 

approximately $2,700 for each unit, 

with incremental visibility 

improvement of 0.01 delta deciviews at 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33038 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Unit 1 and 0.04 delta deciviews at 

Unit 2. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we agree with the State’s 

conclusions, and we are proposing to 

approve the State’s NOX BART 

determinations for PacifiCorp Naughton 

Units 1, 2, and 3. 

PM BART Determination 

Units 1 and 2 are currently controlled 

for PM with ESPs and FGC. The current 

permit limit for Units 1 and 2 is 0.04 lb/ 

MMBtu. Unit 3 is required by permit to 

install fabric filters for both Units by 

2014 with a permit limit of 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu. The State determined that 

fabric filters were technically feasible 

for controlling PM emissions for Units 

1 and 2. The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible controls. The 

State determined that a fabric filter on 

Unit 3 represents the most stringent PM 

control technology and that 0.015 lb/ 

MMBtu represents the most stringent 

emission limit. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, the State did not 

provide a full five-factor analysis 

because the State determined BART to 

be the most stringent control technology 

and limit. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s PM BART 

analyses for Units 1 and 2 is provided 

in Table 14 below. Baseline emissions 

for Unit 1 are 409 tpy and 605 tpy for 

Unit 2 based on unit heat input rate of 

1,850 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of 

operation per year. 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF PACIFICORP NAUGHTON UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 PM BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter—Unit 1 ......................................... 73.2 0.015 299 $3,436,594 $11,494 

Fabric Filter—Unit 2 ......................................... 76.6 0.015 464 4,101,705 8,848 

The State did not provide visibility 

improvement modeling for fabric filters, 

but EPA is proposing to conclude this 

is reasonable based on the high cost 

effectiveness of fabric filters at each of 

the units, which is higher than EPA or 

other State have considered reasonable 

for PM BART. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that the 

existing ESPs with FGC were reasonable 

for PM BART for Units 1 and 2. The 

State determined that fabric filters were 

not reasonable based on the high cost 

effectiveness. The State determined that 

the PM BART emission limits for 

Naughton Unit 1 are 0.04 lb/MMBtu, 74 

lb/hr, and 324 tpy and the PM BART 

emission limits for Naughton Unit 2 are 

0.04 lb/MMBtu, 96 lb/hr, and 421 tpy. 

The State determined the PM BART 

emission limits for Naughton Unit 3 are 

0.015 lb/MMBtu, 56 lb/hr, and 243 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its 

BART determination for Naughton Units 

1, 2, and 3. 

vii. PacifiCorp Wyodak—Unit 1 

Background 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant is 

located in Campbell County, Wyoming. 

Wyodak Power Plant is comprised of 

one coal-fired boiler, Unit 1, burning 

pulverized sub-bituminous Powder 

River Basin coal for a total net 

generating capacity of a nominal 

335MW. Wyodak’s boiler commenced 

service in 1978. The State’s BART 

determination can be found in Chapter 

6.5.7 and Appendix A of the SIP (The 

NOX BART analysis for Wyodak Unit 1 

is discussed in Section VII.A of this 

notice). 

PM BART Determination 

Wyodak Unit 1 is currently controlled 

with fabric filters with an emission limit 

of 0.015 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). The State determined that 

fabric filters on Wyodak Unit 1 

represent the most stringent PM control 

technology and that 0.015 lb/MMBtu 

represents the most stringent emission 

limit. Consistent with the BART 

Guidelines, the State did not provide a 

full five-factor analysis because the 

State determined BART to be the most 

stringent control technology and limit. 

The State determined the PM BART 

emission limits for Wyodak Unit 1 are 

0.015 lb/MMBtu, 71.0 lb/hr, and 308.8 

tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for Wyodak Unit 1. 

D. Reasonable Progress Requirements 

In order to establish RPGs for its Class 

I areas, and to determine the controls 

needed for the LTS, Wyoming followed 

the process established in the RHR. 

Wyoming identified sources (other than 

BART sources) and source categories in 

Wyoming that are major contributors to 

visibility impairment and considered 

whether these sources should be 

controlled based on a consideration of 

the factors identified in the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations (see CAA 169A(g)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). 

Wyoming then identified the 

anticipated visibility improvement in 

2018 in all its Class I areas using the 

WRAP Community Multi-Scale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling results. 

1. Visibility Impairing Pollutants and 

Sources 

In order to determine the significant 

sources contributing to haze in 

Wyoming’s Class I areas, Wyoming 

relied upon two source apportionment 

analysis techniques developed by the 

WRAP. The first technique was regional 

modeling using the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model (CAMx) and the PM 

Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT) tool, used for the attribution for 

sulfate and nitrate sources only. The 

second technique was the Weighted 

Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, used for 

attribution of sources of OC, EC, PM2.5, 

and PM10. The WEP tool is based on 

emissions and residence time, not 

modeling and looks at all sources 

throughout the modeling domain. 

PSAT uses the CAMx air quality 

model to simulate nitrate-sulfateammonia chemistry and apply this 

chemistry to a system of tracers or 

‘‘tags’’ to track the chemical 

transformations, transport, and removal 

of NOX and SO2. These two pollutants 

are important because they tend to 

originate from anthropogenic sources. 

Therefore, the results from this analysis 

can be useful in determining 

contributing sources that may be 

controllable, both in-state and in 

neighboring states. 

WEP is a screening tool that helps to 

identify source regions that have the 

potential to contribute to haze formation 

at specific Class I areas. Unlike PSAT, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33039 

21Extinction and species contribution to total 

particulate extinction taken from IMPROVE data 

(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/dev/web/Annual

SummaryDev/Composition.aspx). IMPROVE data 

for NOABI based on available data for 2002–2004. 

Contribution of sulfate and nitrate based on PSAT; 

OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10 contribution based on 

WEP as taken from the WRAP TSS (http://vista.cira.

colostate.edu/tss/). 

22OD denotes Outside Domain; ID denotes Idaho, 

MT denotes Montana, CAN denotes Canada, UT 

denotes Utah, WA denotes Washington, WY 

denotes Wyoming, CA denotes California, and OR 

denotes Oregon. 

this method does not account for 

chemistry or deposition. The WEP 

combines emissions inventories, wind 

patterns, and residence times of air 

masses over each area where emissions 

occur, to estimate the percent 

contribution of different pollutants. Like 

PSAT, the WEP tool compares baseline 

values (2000–2004) to 2018 values, to 

show the improvement expected by 

2018 for OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10. More 

information on the WRAP modeling 

methodologies is available in the 

document Technical Support Document 

for Technical Products Prepared by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) in Support of Western Regional 

Haze Plans in the Supporting and 

Related Materials section of the docket. 

Table 15 shows Wyoming’s contribution 

to extinction at its own Class I areas. 

TABLE 15—WYOMING SOURCES EXTINCTION CONTRIBUTION 2000–2004 FOR 20% WORST DAYS 21

Class I Area Pollutant Species Extinction 

(Mm¥1) 

Species Contribution to Total Particulate Extinction 

(%) 

Wyoming 

Sources Contribution to Species Extinction 

(%) 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, 

Teton Wilderness.

Sulfate .................... 4 .3 16 .7 5.9 

Nitrate .................... 1 .8 7 .0 4.7 

OC ......................... 13 .5 52 .4 72.6 

EC .......................... 2 .5 9 .7 66.8 

Fine PM ................. 1 .0 3 .9 24.0 

Coarse PM ............. 2 .6 10 .1 20.0 

Sea Salt ................. 0 .02 0 .08 ............................

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness ................ Sulfate .................... 4 .9 20 .7 5.6 

Nitrate .................... 1 .6 6 .8 8.2 

OC ......................... 11 .6 48 .9 44.6 

EC .......................... 1 .9 8 .0 39.5 

Fine PM ................. 0 .8 3 .4 14.0 

Coarse PM ............. 2 .9 12 .2 12.1 

Sea Salt ................. .............................. 0 .04 ............................

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ............................. Sulfate .................... 5 .0 22 .2 15.4 

Nitrate .................... 1 .4 6 .2 19.4 

OC ......................... 10 .5 46 .6 58.5 

EC .......................... 2 .0 8 .9 51.0 

Fine PM ................. 1 .1 4 .9 30.3 

Coarse PM ............. 2 .5 11 .1 27.4 

Sea Salt ................. 0 .04 0 .2 ............................

Table 16 shows influences from 

sources both inside and outside of 

Wyoming per the PSAT modeling for 

2018. As indicated, the outside domain 

(OD) region is the highest contributor to 

sulfate and nitrate at all Wyoming Class 

I areas. The outside domain region 

represents the concentration of 

pollutants at the boundaries of the 

modeling domain. Depending on 

meteorology and the type of pollutant 

(particularly sulfate), these emissions 

can be transported great distances from 

regions such as Canada, Mexico, and the 

Pacific Ocean. Wyoming is the second 

highest contributor of particulate sulfate 

and nitrate at Bridger and Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness areas, but is a lesser 

contributor at the other Class I areas. 

TABLE 16—PSAT SOURCE REGION APPORTIONMENT FOR 20% WORST DAYS 22

Class I Area 2018 Sulfate PSAT 2018 Nitrate PSAT 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness.

Region .............

% Contribution 

OD 

46.5 

ID 

8.1 

WY 

5.8 

CAN 

5.4 

OR 

4.6 

OD 

31.3 

ID 

28.2 

WA 

9.4 

UT 

7.4 

OR 

7.0 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness ... Region .............

% Contribution 

OD 

50.1 

CAN 

12.5 

MT 

6.5 

ID 

5.7 

WY 

5.5 

OD 

30.7 

ID 

16.7 

MT 

14.8 

CAN 

11.5 

WY 

8.2 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................ Region .............

% Contribution 

OD 

31.1 

WY 

15.3 

ID 

7.6 

UT 

5.9 

CAN 

5.1 

OD 

21.8 

WY 

19.3 

UT 

15.6 

ID 

10.6 

CA 

6.8 

Tables 17 shows the WEP 

contribution for EC, OC, PM2.5, and 

PM10. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33040 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

23The State submitted a January 12, 2011 SIP 

submittal to address the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309, with the exception of the 40 CFR 51.309(g) 

requirements addressed in this SIP submittal. 

TABLE 17—WEP SOURCE CATEGORY CONTRIBUTION FOR 20% WORST DAYS

Class I Area Point Area Mobile Anthropogenic 

Fires 

Natural Fires 

and Biogenic 

OC 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 0 .408 3.892 1 .636 8 .303 85 .764 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 0 .661 9.449 2 .844 11 .881 75 .159 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 0 .984 7.552 3 .28 7 .644 80 .543 

EC 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 0 .243 2.628 13 .659 5 .51 77 .958 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 0 .386 5.755 23 .253 7 .054 63 .55 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 0 .54 4.509 25 .65 4 .105 65 .195 

PM2.5

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 5 .565 70.463 0 .086 5 .469 18 .411 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 3 .491 86.311 0 .171 3 .334 6 .691 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 16 .311 69.195 0 .081 3 .618 10 .785 

PM10

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 2 .655 83.939 0 .363 0 .717 12 .316 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 2 .066 93.197 0 .213 0 .313 4 .206 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 6 .775 84.157 0 .477 0 .353 8 .23 

Table 17 shows that EC, OC, PM2.5

and PM10 emissions come mainly from 

sources such as natural fire, windblown 

dust, and road dust. To select the 

sources that would undergo the required 

four factor analysis, Wyoming looked at 

State emission inventory data in 

conjunction with the source 

apportionment information discussed 

above (a summary of the State’s 

emission inventory can be found in 

section VI.E.1 of this notice). After 

evaluating this information, the State 

determined that stationary source 

emissions of NOX and SO2 were 

reasonable to evaluate for purposes of 

reasonable progress controls. The State 

also determined that emissions of NOX

from oil and gas development should be 

analyzed for purposes of reasonable 

progress. Since emissions of OC, EC, 

PM2.5, and PM10 come from mainly 

uncontrollable sources, the State 

determined it was reasonable to not 

evaluate these pollutants for reasonable 

progress controls. The State submitted a 

January 12, 2011, SIP that addresses 

sources of SO2.23 Thus, the State 

evaluated emissions of the remaining 

pollutant, NOX, for reasonable progress 

in this SIP. 

2. Four Factor Analysis 

In determining the measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress, 

States must take into account the 

following four factors and demonstrate 

how they were taken into consideration 

in selecting reasonable progress goals 

for a Class I area: 

• Costs of Compliance; 

• Time Necessary for Compliance; 

• Energy and Non-air Quality 

Environmental Impacts of Compliance; 

and 

• Remaining Useful Life of any 

Potentially Affected Sources. 

CAA § 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

The State performed a four factor 

analysis for each of the reasonable 

progress sources pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

a. Stationary Sources 

The State used a reasonable progress 

screening methodology termed ‘‘Q/d’’ to 

determine which stationary sources 

would be candidates for controls under 

reasonable progress. Q/d is a calculated 

ratio where Q represents (in this case) 

the NOX emission rate in tpy of the 

source divided by the distance in 

kilometers of the point source from the 

nearest Class I area, denoted by ‘‘d.’’ 

The State used the maximum permitted 

emission rate for each source to 

determine the tpy of NOX it used in the 

Q/d calculation. The State determined 

that a Q/d value of 10 is reasonable for 

determining which sources the State 

should consider for reasonable progress 

controls, since this value yielded 

sources of concern similar in magnitude 

to sources subject-to-BART. 

The State determined there were three 

units with a Q/d of greater than 10 that 

are not already being controlled under 

BART and the State completed a 

reasonable progress analysis for each of 

the sources. The sources are PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnson Unit 1 and Unit 2 and 

Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant kiln. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 

is addressed as part of our FIP in section 

VII.B of this notice. In addition, as 

previously mentioned, the State 

considered reasonable controls on oil 

and gas development sources. 

b. Summary of Reasonable Progress 

Determinations and Limits 

For the subject-to-reasonable progress 

sources, the State provided analyses that 

took into consideration the four factors 

as required by section 169A(g)(1) of the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). For 

the stationary sources, the State relied 

on the analysis found in Supplementary 

Information for Four-Factor Analyses 

for Selected Individual Facilities in 

Wyoming, May 6, 2009, Revised Draft 

Report Prepared by EC/R Incorporated. 

For oil and gas sources, the State relied 

on the analysis found in Supplementary 

Information for Four Factor Analyses by 

WRAP States, May 4, 2009 (Corrected 4/ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33041 

20/10) Revised Draft Report Prepared by 

EC/R Incorporated (for a complete copy 

of the reports see Chapter 7 of the 

State’s TSD). The analyses considered 

EPA’s BART Guidelines as relevant to 

their reasonable progress evaluations, as 

well as EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 

Regional Haze Program. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the reasonable progress NOX

determinations submitted by the State 

for oil and gas sources and for Mountain 

Cement Company Laramie Plant kiln. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

State’s reasonable progress 

determinations and proposing to issue a 

reasonable progress determination NOX

FIP for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 1 

and Unit 2. EPA’s rationale for 

disapproving the State’s reasonable 

progress determination for these units, 

as well as EPA’s reasonable progress FIP 

determination, can be found in section 

VII.B of this notice. 

A summary of the reasonable progress 

analysis and determination for each 

source/source category that we are 

proposing to approve is provided below. 

i. Oil and Gas Area Sources 

Background 

Oil and gas exploration and 

production is occurring in numerous 

areas in Wyoming. The sources 

associated with oil and gas production 

mainly emit NOX and VOCs; in this 

context, the State considered NOX. Oil 

and gas production and exploration 

includes operation, maintenance, and 

servicing of production properties, 

including transportation to and from 

sites. EC/R evaluated reasonable 

progress control technologies for 

common sources in the oil and gas 

industry including compressor engines, 

turbines, process heaters, and drilling 

rig engines. The State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for oil and gas 

sources can be found in Chapter 7.3.5 of 

the SIP. 

NOX Reasonable Progress Determination 

For compressor engines, potential 

control options identified by the State 

include air-fuel ratio controls (AFRC), 

ignition timing retard, low-emission 

combustion (LEC) retrofit, SCR, SNCR, 

and replacement with electric motors. 

The State evaluated several control 

technologies for drilling rig engines 

including ignition timing retard, 

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), SCR, 

replacement of Tier 2 engines with Tier 

4 engines, and diesel oxidation catalyst. 

Potential controls for turbines identified 

by the State include water or steam 

injection, LNBs, SCR, and water or 

steam injection with SCR. NOX emission 

control technologies identified by the 

State for process heaters include LNBs, 

ultra-low NOX burners (ULNBs), LNBs 

with flue gas recirculation (FGR), SNCR, 

SCR, and LNBs installed in conjunction 

with SCR. 

NOX emissions vary based on the 

equipment and fuel source. Emissions 

from individual natural gas-fired 

turbines at production operations can be 

as high as 877 tpy of NOX, while 

emissions from individual natural gas 

turbines at exploration operations can 

reach 131 tpy of NOX. Individual gas 

reciprocating engines have comparable 

NOX emissions with up to 700 tpy at 

production operations and 210 tpy at 

exploration operations. Diesel engine 

emissions can approach 46 tpy for 

production operations and 10 tpy for 

exploration operations. 

Table 18 provides a summary of the 

reasonable progress NOX analysis for oil 

and gas sources. Both the capital and 

annual costs for each technology is 

dependent on the engine size or on the 

process throughput; therefore, for most 

of the control technologies listed in 

Table 18, the State has provided cost 

estimate ranges. The lower end of the 

cost/ton estimates represent the cost per 

unit for larger or higher production 

units, while the higher end of the cost/ 

ton estimates represent the cost per unit 

for the smaller or lower production 

units. 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF REASONABLE PROGRESS NOX ANALYSIS FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

EQUIPMENT

Source Type Control Technology 

Estimated 

Control Efficiency (%) 

Pollutant 

Controlled 

Estimated 

Capital Cost 

($/unit) 

Annual Cost 

($/year/unit) Units 

Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Compressor Engines ........ AFRC ................................

Ignition timing retard .........

10–40 

15–30 

NOX .........

NOX .........

5.3–42 

N/A 

0.9–6.8 

1–3 

hp .............

hp ............

68–2,500 

42–1,200 

LEC retrofit ....................... 80–90 NOX ......... 120–820 30–210 hp ............ 320–2,500 

SCR .................................. 90 NOX ......... 100–450 40–270 hp ............ 870–31,000 

SNCR ............................... 90–99 NOX ......... 17–35 3–6 hp ............ 16–36 

Replacement with electric 

motors.

100 NOX ......... 120–140 38–44 hp ............ 100–4,700 

Drilling Rig Engines and 

Other Engines.

Ignition timing retard .........

EGR ..................................

SCR ..................................

15–30 

40 

80–95 

NOX .........

NOX .........

NOX .........

16–120 

100 

100–2,000 

14–66 

26–67 

40–1,200 

hp ............

hp ............

hp ............

1,000–2,200 

780–2,000 

3,000–7,700 

Replacement of Tier 2 engines with Tier 4.87 NOX ......... 125 20 hp ............ 900–2,400 

Turbines ............................ Water or steam injection .. 68–80 NOX ......... 4.4–16 2–5 1000 BTU 560–3,100 

LNB ................................... 68–84 NOX ......... 8–22 2.7–8.5 1000 BTU 2,000–10,000 

SCR .................................. 90 NOX ......... 13–34 5.1–13 1000 BTU 1,000–6,700 

Water or steam injection 

with SCR.

93–96 NOX ......... 13–34 5.1–13 1000 BTU 1,000–6,700 

Process Heaters ............... LNB ...................................

ULNB ................................

40 

75–85 

NOX .........

NOX .........

3.8–7.6 

4.0–13 

0.41–0.81 

0.43–1.3 

1000 BTU 

1000 BTU 

2,100–2,800 

1,500–2,000 

LNB and FGR ................... 48 NOX ......... 16 1.7 1000 BTU 2,600 

SNCR ............................... 60 NOX ......... 10–22 1.1–2.4 1000 BTU 4,700–5,200 

SCR .................................. 70–90 NOX ......... 33–48 3.7–5.6 1000 BTU 2,900–6,700 

LNB and SCR ................... 70–90 NOX ......... 37–55 4–6.3 1000 BTU 2,900–6,300 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33042 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

24For all reasonable progress sources, the time 

necessary to develop regulations is not a 

consideration under the time necessary for 

compliance factor. If regulations are needed to 

implement reasonable progress controls, the State 

must develop them as part of the regional haze SIP. 

25Oil and gas sources are regulated by the State 

as part of its minor source BACT requirements in 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

Chapter 6, Section 2. 

26A negative annual cost is given because cement 

kilns receive a credit for the biosolids tipping fee 

paid by facilities providing the biosolids to the 

cement plant. For the purposes of this analysis, the 

tipping fee is $5.00/ton. 

27Cost effectiveness figures for the CemStarSM

process were not available for dry kilns. 

28Cost effectiveness figures for LoTOx TM were 

not available for dry kilns. 

29Capital and annual costs for SNCR have only 

been costed for preheater and precalcnier kilns. 

Only cost effectiveness figures were available for 

dry kilns. 

Wyoming states that it would need up 

to two years to develop the necessary 

regulations to control oil and gas 

sources.24 The State estimated that 

companies would require a year to 

procure the necessary capital to 

purchase the control equipment. The 

time required to design, fabricate, and 

install control technologies will vary 

based on the control technology selected 

and other factors. 

The State determined that no 

additional controls for oil and gas 

sources were reasonable at this time. 

The State concluded that emissions 

from large stationary sources processing 

oil and gas in the WRAP region have 

been well quantified over the years, 

while smaller exploration and 

production sources that the State is 

evaluating for reasonable progress have 

not had the same degree of emission 

inventory development. The State 

points out that understanding the 

sources and volume of emissions at oil 

and gas production sites is necessary to 

recognizing the impact that these 

emissions have on visibility. 

To better understand the emissions 

from stationary and mobile equipment 

operated as part of oil and gas field 

operations, the WRAP has been working 

on developing an emission inventory to 

more fully characterize the oil and gas 

field operations emissions. The WRAP’s 

development of a more comprehensive 

emission inventory is still in process (as 

of the date of the State’s SIP submittal). 

The State determined it cannot 

complete the evaluation of oil and gas 

on visibility until the WRAP emission 

inventory study has been completed. 

The State points out that in the case 

of compressor engines, many facilities 

have already installed control 

equipment.25 For lean burn engines, 

oxidation catalysts are commonly 

installed, while SNCR with AFRC are 

commonly installed for rich burn 

engines. The State also points out that 

regulating drill rig engines can be 

problematic since drill rig engines are, 

for the most part, considered mobile 

sources and emission limits for mobile 

sources are set by the Federal 

government under section 202 of the 

CAA. 

We disagree with the State’s reasoning 

for not adopting reasonable progress 

controls for oil and gas sources. If the 

State determined that additional 

information was needed to potentially 

control oil and gas sources, the State 

should have developed the information. 

While we disagree with the State’s 

reasoning for not requiring any controls 

under reasonable progress, we are 

proposing to approve the State’s 

conclusion that no additional NOX

controls are warranted for this planning 

period. As shown by the four factor 

analyses, the most reasonable controls 

are for compressor engines, which the 

State already controls through its minor 

source BACT requirements (see above). 

In addition, while the costs of some 

controls are within the range of cost 

effectiveness values Wyoming, other 

states, and we have considered as 

reasonable in the BART context, they 

are not so low that we are prepared to 

disapprove the State’s conclusion in the 

reasonable progress context. 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s reasonable progress 

determination for oil and gas sources. 

ii. Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant—Kiln 

Background 

The Mountain Cement Company 

Laramie Plant cement kiln is a long dry 

kiln with a capacity of 1,500 tons of 

clinker per day. Assuming the plant 

runs 365 days of the year, the result is 

547,500 tpy of clinker. 

NOX Reasonable Progress Determination 

The kiln is currently uncontrolled for 

NOX emissions. The State determined 

that indirect and direct firing of LNBs, 

biosolid injection, NOxOUTSM, 

CemSTAR SM, LoTOx TM, SCR, SNCR 

(using urea), and SNCR (using 

ammonia) were technically feasible for 

controlling NOX emissions from the 

kiln. The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible controls. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX reasonable 

progress analyses for the kiln is 

provided in Table 19 below. Baseline 

NOX emissions for the kiln are 524 tpy 

based on 2002 actual emissions. 

TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF MOUNTAIN CEMENT COMPANY KILN NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control Technology Control Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission 

Reduction (tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Cost Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

LNB (indirect) ........................................................................... 30–40 157–210 $205,000 $6,568–4,910 

LNB (direct) .............................................................................. 40 210 449,000 13,853 

Biosolid Injection 26 .................................................................. 50 262 ¥127,000 1,324 

NOxOUT SM ............................................................................. 35 183 507,000 8,023 

CemSTAR SM 27 ....................................................................... 20–60 105–314 Unknown Unknown 

LoTOxTM 28 .............................................................................. 80–90 419–472 Unknown Unknown 

SCR ......................................................................................... 80 419 7,553,000 82,535 

SNCR (urea) 29 ........................................................................ 35 183 Unknown 1,223 

SNCR (ammonia) .................................................................... 35 183 Unknown 1,223 

The State estimated that it could 

potentially take seven years to install 

control equipment on the kiln. This 

estimate includes the two years that will 

be necessary for the State to implement 

new regulations and the one-year 

Mountain Cement will likely need to 

obtain the necessary capital for the 

purchase of new emission control 

technology. The State estimates the total 

time necessary for compliance will vary 

based on the control technology 

selected. For example, the State predicts 

that one and a half years will be 

required to design, fabricate, and install 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33043 

30States must consider the four factors as listed 

above but can also take into account other relevant 

factors for the reasonable progress sources 

identified (see EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), 

p. 2–3, July 1, 2007). 

SCR or SNCR technology, while over 

two and a half years will be required to 

design, fabricate, and install LoTOx TM

technology. 

The State determined no controls 

were reasonable for reasonable progress 

for Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant kiln. The State cited that the fourfactor analysis was limited, in that no 

guidance was provided by EPA for 

identifying significant sources and EPA 

did not establish contribution to 

visibility impairment thresholds (a 

potential fifth factor for reasonable 

progress determinations).30 The State 

further claims that the State cannot, per 

Wyoming Statute 35–11–202, establish 

emission control requirements except 

through State rule or regulation. 

Furthermore, the Wyoming statute 

requires the State to consider the 

character and degree of injury of the 

emissions involved. In this case, the 

State claims it would need to have 

visibility modeling that assessed the 

degree of injury caused by the 

emissions, which the State does not 

have. The State believes it has taken a 

strong and reasonable first step in 

identifying potential contributors to 

visibility impairment, and that the next 

step of creating an appropriate rule or 

regulation will be accomplished in the 

next SIP revision. 

We disagree with the State’s reasoning 

for not adopting reasonable progress 

controls for Mountain Cement Company 

Laramie Plant kiln. If the State 

determined that it needed to adopt a 

rule or perform modeling to adequately 

assess and, if warranted, require 

reasonable progress controls, the State 

should have completed these steps 

before it submitted its regional haze SIP. 

The RHR does not allow for 

commitments to potentially implement 

strategies at some later date that are 

identified under reasonable progress or 

for the State to take credit for such 

commitments. Nor does it allow the 

State to consider the time to promulgate 

regulations as part of the time for 

compliance. 

While we disagree with the State’s 

reasoning for not requiring any controls 

under reasonable progress, we are 

proposing to approve the State’s 

conclusion that no additional NOX

controls are warranted for this planning 

period. While the costs of some controls 

(i.e., biosolid injection and SNCR) are 

within the range of cost effectiveness 

values Wyoming, other states, and we 

have considered as reasonable in the 

BART context, they are not so low that 

we are prepared to disapprove the 

State’s conclusion in the reasonable 

progress context. In addition, these 

controls afford relatively modest 

emission reductions. 

3. Reasonable Progress Goals 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to 

‘‘establish goals’’ (in deciviews) that 

provide for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

for each Class I area of the State. These 

RPGs are interim goals that must 

provide for incremental visibility 

improvement for the most impaired 

visibility days, and ensure no 

degradation for the least impaired 

visibility days. The RPGs for the first 

planning period are goals for the year 

2018. 

Wyoming relied on WRAP modeling 

to establish its RPGs for 2018. The 

primary tool WRAP relied upon for 

modeling regional haze improvements 

by 2018, and for estimating Wyoming’s 

RPGs, was the CMAQ model. The 

CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 

visibility conditions in Wyoming and all 

western Class I areas, based on 

application of anticipated regional haze 

strategies in the various states’ regional 

haze plans, including assumed controls 

on BART sources. 

The Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 

at the University of California Riverside 

conducted the CMAQ modeling under 

the oversight of the WRAP Modeling 

Forum. The RMC developed air quality 

modeling inputs including annual 

meteorology and emissions inventories 

for: (1) A 2002 actual emissions base 

case; (2) a planning case to represent the 

2000–2004 regional haze baseline 

period using averages for key emissions 

categories; and (3) a 2018 base case of 

projected emissions determined using 

factors known at the end of 2005. All 

emission inventories were spatially and 

temporally allocated using the Sparse 

Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions 

(SMOKE) modeling system. Each of 

these inventories underwent a number 

of revisions throughout the 

development process to arrive at the 

final versions used in CMAQ modeling. 

The photochemical modeling of 

regional haze for the WRAP states for 

2002 and 2018 was conducted on the 

36-km resolution national regional 

planning organization domain that 

covered the continental United States, 

portions of Canada and Mexico, and 

portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

The RMC examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

2002 modeling efforts were used to 

evaluate air quality/visibility modeling 

for a historical episode, in this case, for 

calendar year 2002, to demonstrate the 

suitability of the modeling systems for 

subsequent planning, sensitivity, and 

emissions control strategy modeling. 

Model performance evaluation 

compares output from model 

simulations with ambient air quality 

data for the same time period to 

determine whether model performance 

is sufficiently accurate to justify using 

the model to simulate future conditions. 

Once the RMC determined that model 

performance was acceptable, it used the 

model to determine the 2018 RPGs 

using the current and future year air 

quality modeling predictions, and 

compared the RPGs to the uniform rate 

of progress. A more detailed description 

of the CMAQ modeling performed for 

the WRAP can be found in the Chapter 

5 of the State’s TSD. 

The State determined that the WRAP 

2018 projections represent significant 

visibility improvement and reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility based 

upon the State’s consideration of the 

factors required for BART and 

reasonable progress. The State adopted 

the WRAPs 2018 projections as their 

RPG for each Class I area. Table 20 

shows the URP and the 2018 RPGs 

adopted by the State. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33044 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

31The methods WRAP used to develop these 

emission inventories are described in more detail in 

Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western Regional 

Haze Plans in the Supporting and Related Materials 

section of the docket. 

TABLE 20—WYOMING’S URP AND RPGS FOR 2018 

Wyoming Class I Areas 

20% Worst Days 20% Best Days 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

2018 URP 

(deciview) 

Reduction 

Needed to 

Reach URP 

Goal (Delta 

deciview) 

2018 CMAQ 

Modeling 

Projection— 

State’s RPG 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

2018 CMAQ 

Modeling 

Projection 

(deciview) 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton 

National, Park Teton Wilderness ......... 11.8 10.5 0.7 11.2 2.6 2.4 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie 

Wilderness ............................................ 11.5 10.4 0.6 11.0 2.0 2.0 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ...................................................... 11.1 10.0 0.6 10.6 2.1 2.0 

Table 20 shows that the State’s 

regional haze SIP is providing for 

improvement in visibility for the mostimpaired days for the period ending in 

2018 and allows for no degradation in 

visibility for the least-impaired days. 

Table 20 also shows that Wyoming is 

not meeting the URP to meet natural 

visibility conditions by 2064. In this 

case, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii) requires 

the State to demonstrate, based on the 

four factors in 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), that 

the RPGs established in this SIP are 

reasonable for this planning period and 

that achieving the URP in this planning 

period is not reasonable. In its 

demonstration, the State cited many 

reasons why meeting the URP was not 

reasonable, including the following. 

First, emissions from natural sources 

greatly affect the State’s ability to meet 

the 2018 URP. As discussed earlier, 

WEP data shows that emissions of OC, 

EC, PM2.5, and PM10 come mainly from 

natural or non-anthropogenic sources, 

such as natural wildfire and windblown 

dust. The State has little or no control 

over OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10 emissions 

associated with natural fire and 

windblown dust. Second, emissions 

from sources outside the WRAP 

modeling domain also affect the State’s 

ability to meet the 2018 URP. Sources 

outside of the modeling domain are the 

single largest source region contributor 

to sulfate and nitrate at the State’s Class 

I areas. These sources are not under the 

control of Wyoming or the surrounding 

states. 

Since the State is not meeting the 

URP, the State is required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(ii) to assess the number of 

years it would take to reach natural 

conditions if visibility improvement 

continues at the current rate of progress. 

The State has calculated the year and 

the length of time to reach natural 

visibility as follows: Yellowstone 

National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, and Teton Wilderness: 2130 (126 

years); North Absaroka Wilderness and 

Washakie Wilderness: 2136 (132 years); 

and Bridger Wilderness and Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness: 2165 (161 years). 

EPA disagrees with the State’s 

assessment that, based on the factors in 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(a), all reasonable 

controls were implemented by the State 

for this first planning period of the 

regional haze program. In particular, as 

discussed in section VII.B.i below, we 

find unreasonable the State’s 

determination to not impose controls at 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

As a result, EPA is proposing to 

disapprove the State’s RPGs, and 

because we are proposing to disapprove 

Wyoming’s RPGs, we are also proposing 

a FIP to replace them. See discussion in 

section VII.C below. 

E. Long Term Strategy 

1. Emission Inventories 

Section 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that 

Wyoming document the technical basis, 

including modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions information, on which it 

relied to determine its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations 

necessary for achieving reasonable 

progress in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area it affects. Wyoming must 

identify the baseline emissions 

inventory on which its strategies are 

based. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires 

that Wyoming identify all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment it considered in developing 

its LTS strategy. This includes major 

and minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources. 

In order to meet these requirements, 

Wyoming relied on the emission 

inventory developed by the WRAP. The 

State has provided an emission 

inventory for SO2, NOX, VOC, OC, EC, 

PM2.5, PM10, and NH3. The inventory 

provides the baseline year 2002 

emissions and provides projections of 

future emissions in 2018 based on 

expected controls, growth, and other 

factors. The following are the inventory 

source categories identified by the State: 

Point, area, on-road mobile, off-road 

mobile, anthropogenic fire, natural fire, 

road dust, fugitive dust, area source oil 

and gas, and biogenic emissions. The 

emission inventories developed by the 

WRAP were calculated using best 

available data and approved EPA 

methods.31 Following is a summary of 

the emission inventory for each 

pollutant by source. 

SO2

Sulfur dioxide emissions come 

primarily from coal combustion at 

EGUs, but smaller amounts come from 

natural gas combustion, mobile sources 

and wood combustion. 

TABLE 21—WYOMING SO2 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 119,717 96,809 ¥19 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 16,689 23,093 38 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33045 

TABLE 21—WYOMING SO2 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018—Continued 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 959 81 ¥92 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 5,866 65 ¥99 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 150 3 ¥98 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 173 109 ¥37 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 2,286 2,286 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 145,840 122,446 ¥16 

The State expects a 16% reduction in 

SO2 emissions by 2018 due to planned 

controls on existing sources, even with 

expected growth in generating capacity 

for the State. 

NOX

NOX emissions in Wyoming come 

mostly from point sources and from onroad and off-road mobile sources. 

TABLE 22—WYOMING NOX EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 117,806 110,109 ¥7 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 15,192 19,663 29 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 38,535 9,728 ¥75 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 76,637 49,677 ¥35 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 14,725 34,142 132 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 782 484 ¥38 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 8,372 8,372 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 15,925 15,925 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 287,974 248,100 ¥14 

The State expects NOX emissions to 

decrease by 14% by 2018, primarily due 

to significant reductions in mobile 

source emissions. The State projects that 

off-road and on-road vehicles emissions 

will decline by more than 55,760 tpy 

from the baseline 2002 emissions of 

115,172 tpy. 

OC 

A wide variety of sources contribute 

emissions to this pollutant, including 

diesel emissions and combustion 

byproducts from wood and agricultural 

burning. 

TABLE 23—WYOMING OC EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 646 990 53 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 1,975 ¥1 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 304 249 ¥18 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 625 411 ¥34 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 20 26 30 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 96 133 39 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 1,709 886 ¥48 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 23,793 23,793 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 29,193 28,463 ¥3 

OC emissions from all sources are 

expected to show a 3% decline. Natural 

fire is the largest source contributing to 

OC emissions. The State does not have 

the ability to predict future emissions 

from natural fires and thus, the State 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33046 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

held this category constant in the 

inventory. 

EC 

EC is a byproduct of incomplete 

combustion. EC emissions mainly come 

from mobile sources and natural fires. 

TABLE 24—WYOMING EC EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 104 180 73 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 304 335 10 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 443 86 ¥81 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 1,986 1,161 ¥42 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 7 9 29 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 298 153 ¥49 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 4,922 4,922 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 8,066 6,848 ¥15 

The State predicts EC emissions to 

decrease approximately 15% by 2018. 

Reductions in manmade emissions of 

EC are largely due to mobile sources 

emission reductions resulting from new 

federal emission standards for mobile 

sources, especially for diesel engines. 

PM2.5

PM2.5 emissions come mainly from 

agricultural and mining activities, 

windblown dust from construction 

areas, and emissions from unpaved and 

paved roads. 

TABLE 25—WYOMING PM2.5 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 11,375 15,709 38 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,601 1,756 10 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 160 206 29 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 2,082 2,882 38 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 5,838 5,838 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 242 129 ¥47 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 1,535 1,535 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 22,833 28,055 23 

The State predicts emissions of PM2.5

to increase 23% by 2018. Emission 

increases are related to population 

growth and an increase in vehicle miles 

traveled. 

PM10

PM10 emissions come from many of 

the same sources as PM2.5 emissions but 

other activities like rock crushing and 

processing, material transfer, open pit 

mining and unpaved road emissions can 

be prominent sources. 

TABLE 26—WYOMING PM10 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 24,751 30,619 24 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 409 653 60 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 171 165 ¥4 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 1,125 1,449 29 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 18,030 25,144 39 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 52,546 52,546 0 

Anthro Fire ............................................................................................................................................... 259 109 ¥58 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 5,369 5,369 0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33047 

TABLE 26—WYOMING PM10 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018—Continued 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 102,660 116,054 13 

Overall, PM10 emissions are expected 

to increase by 13%. Increases in coarse 

PM emissions are linked to population 

growth and vehicle miles traveled. 

NH3

NH3 emissions come from a variety of 

sources including wastewater treatment 

facilities, livestock operations, fertilizer 

application, mobile sources, and point 

sources. 

TABLE 27—WYOMING NH3 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source Category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent Change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 685 1,398 104 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 29,776 29,901 0 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 538 724 35 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 41 57 39 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 218 119 ¥45 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 1,775 1,775 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 33,033 33,974 3 

NH3 emissions are expected to 

increase by 3% by 2018. Increases in 

NH3 emissions are linked to population 

growth and increased vehicular traffic. 

2. Consultation and Emissions 

Reductions for Other States’ Class I 

Areas 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that 

Wyoming consult with another state if 

its emissions are reasonably anticipated 

to contribute to visibility impairment at 

that state’s Class I area(s), and that 

Wyoming consult with other states if 

those other states’ emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment at its Class I areas. 

The State participated in regional 

planning, coordination, and 

consultation with other states in 

developing emission management 

strategies through the WRAP. Through 

the WRAP consultation process, 

Wyoming has reviewed and analyzed 

contributions from other states that 

reasonably may cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Wyoming’s 

Class I areas and analyzed Wyoming’s 

impact on other states’ Class I areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if 

Wyoming emissions cause or contribute 

to impairment in another state’s Class I 

area, Wyoming must demonstrate that it 

has included in its regional haze SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPG for that Class I area. Section 

51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires that, since 

Wyoming participated in a regional 

planning process, it must ensure it has 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process. As we state in the RHR, 

Wyoming’s commitments to participate 

in WRAP bind it to secure emission 

reductions agreed to as a result of that 

process. 

The State determined it did 

potentially impact Class I areas in South 

Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, 

Montana, and North Dakota (see Table 

8.1.2.1–1 in the SIP). Wyoming accepted 

and incorporated the WRAP-developed 

visibility modeling into its regional haze 

SIP and the SIP includes the controls 

assumed in the modeling. Wyoming has 

satisfied the RHR requirements for 

consultation and included controls in 

the SIP sufficient to address the relevant 

requirements related to impacts on Class 

I areas in other states. 

We are proposing to find that the 

State has met the requirements for 

consultation under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i) and 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

3. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that 

Wyoming, at a minimum, consider 

certain factors in developing its LTS. 

These are: (a) Emission reductions due 

to ongoing air pollution control 

programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (b) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(c) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals; (d) source 

retirement and replacement schedules; 

(e) smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans that currently 

exist within the state for these purposes; 

(f) enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

(g) the anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, 

and mobile source emissions over the 

period addressed by the LTS. 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air 

Pollution Programs 

In addition to its BART and 

reasonable progress determinations, the 

State’s LTS contains other reductions 

due to ongoing air pollution programs. 

The State’s LTS contains numerous 

ongoing air pollution programs, 

including: (1) New Source Review 

Program, which is a permit program for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33048 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

the construction of new sources and the 

modification of existing sources; (2) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program, which protects visibility 

impairment from proposed major 

stationary sources or major 

modifications to existing facilities; and 

(3) New Source Performance Standards, 

which the State incorporates by 

reference on an annual basis. For a 

complete listing of ongoing air pollution 

programs in Wyoming, see Chapter 8.2.1 

of the SIP. 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

Chapter 3 of the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) 

establishes limits on the quantity or 

concentration of emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources, 

including construction activities. 

Specifically, WAQSR Chapter 3, Section 

2(f), prescribes measures to ensure the 

control of fugitive dust emissions during 

construction or demolition activities. 

WAQSR Chapter 3, Section 2(f) requires 

any person engaged in clearing or 

leveling of land, earthmoving, 

excavation, or movement of trucks or 

construction equipment over access 

haul roads or cleared land to take steps 

to minimize fugitive dust from such 

activities. Such control measures may 

include frequent watering and/or 

chemical stabilization. EPA approved 

WAQSR Chapter 3 into the SIP on July 

28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). 

c. Smoke Management 

WAQSR Chapter 10 establishes 

restrictions and requirements on 

different types of burning in Wyoming. 

WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 2 regulates 

open burning, including refuse burning, 

open burning of trade wastes, open 

burning at salvage operations, open 

burning for firefighting training, and 

small vegetative material open burning 

(not exceeding 0.25 tons per day of PM). 

WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 3 regulates 

emissions from wood waste burners. 

EPA approved WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 2 and 3 into the SIP on July 28, 

2004 (69 FR 44965). WAQSR Chapter 

10, Section 4 was adopted by the State 

and submitted to EPA to meet the 

requirements for programs related to fire 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). Chapter 10, 

Section 4 seeks to minimize the impacts 

from private and prescribed burning on 

visibility in Class I areas and potentially 

affected populations. EPA is proposing 

approval of Chapter 10, Section 4 in a 

separate action. 

d. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance 

Chapter 6.5 of the State’s SIP contains 

the emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance for BART sources. 

Chapter 6.5 of the SIP requires the 

BART sources to install and 

demonstrate compliance with the State’s 

BART determination as expeditiously as 

practicable but no later than five years 

after EPA approval of the SIP. For some 

sources where controls have already 

been installed, the State specifies an 

earlier compliance deadline in Chapter 

6.5 of the SIP. In addition, Chapter 8.3.3 

of the SIP contains the emission limits 

and compliance schedule for LTS 

controls on Jim Bridger Units 1–4. 

e. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

The State is not currently aware of 

any specific scheduled shutdowns, 

retirements in upcoming years, or 

replacement schedules, such as planned 

installation of new control equipment to 

meet other regulations. If such actions 

occur, the State will factor them into 

upcoming reviews. 

f. Enforceability of Wyoming’s Measures 

As discussed in section VII.D of this 

notice, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the State’s SIP because it contains 

inadequate monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements, and we are 

proposing a FIP to address the 

enforceability of BART and reasonable 

progress controls. 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility 

Due to Projected Changes 

The anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, 

and mobile source emissions during this 

planning period is addressed in section 

VI.D.3 of this notice. 

4. Our Conclusions on Wyoming’s LongTerm Strategy 

We propose to partially approve and 

partially disapprove Wyoming’s LTS. 

Because we are proposing to disapprove 

the NOX BART determinations for 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, 

we are also proposing to disapprove the 

corresponding emission limits and 

compliance schedules that Wyoming 

relied on as part of its LTS. Because we 

are proposing to disapprove the 

reasonable progress determination for 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, 

we are also proposing to disapprove the 

LTS because it does not include 

appropriate NOX reasonable progress 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 

2. We are also proposing to disapprove 

the State’s LTS because it does not 

contain the necessary monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to make the BART and 

reasonable progress limits practically 

enforceable. Except for these elements, 

the State’s LTS satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), 

and we are proposing to approve it. 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Rule Requirements 

Per 40 CFR 51.306(c), the State must 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI 

and regional haze, and the State must 

submit the first such coordinated LTS 

with its first regional haze SIP. The 

State failed to provide for the 

coordination of their RAVI and regional 

haze LTS. We are proposing to 

disapprove the State’s SIP as not 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.306(c). We are proposing a FIP as 

explained in section VII.F of this notice 

to meet the coordination requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.306(c). 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the 

SIP contain a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

regional haze visibility impairment that 

is representative of all mandatory Class 

I Federal areas within the state. This 

monitoring strategy must be coordinated 

with the monitoring strategy required in 

40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires 

the establishment of any additional 

monitoring sites or equipment needed to 

assess whether the RPGs for all 

mandatory Class I Federal areas within 

the state are being achieved. 

Consistent with EPA’s monitoring 

regulations for RAVI and regional haze, 

Wyoming states in Chapter 9 of the 

regional haze SIP that it will rely on the 

IMPROVE network for compliance 

purposes, in addition to any additional 

visibility impairment monitoring that 

may be needed in the future. 

Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that 

states establish procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information 

are used in determining the contribution 

of emissions from within Wyoming to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside the state. The 

IMPROVE monitoring program is 

national in scope, and other states have 

similar monitoring and data reporting 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33049 

procedures, ensuring a consistent and 

robust monitoring data collection 

system. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) 

indicates, Wyoming’s participation in 

the IMPROVE program constitutes 

compliance with this requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that 

the SIP provide for the reporting of all 

visibility monitoring data to the 

Administrator, at least annually, for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area in 

the state. To the extent possible, 

Wyoming should report visibility 

monitoring data electronically. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the 

SIP provide for other elements, 

including reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other measures, necessary to assess and 

report on visibility. We propose that 

Wyoming’s participation in the 

IMPROVE network ensures that the 

monitoring data is reported at least 

annually and is easily accessible; 

therefore, such participation complies 

with this requirement. IMPROVE data 

are centrally compiled and made 

available to EPA, states and the public 

via various electronic formats and Web 

sites including IMPROVE (http://vista.

cira.colostate.edu/improve/) and VIEWS 

(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/views/). 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that 

Wyoming maintain a statewide 

inventory of emissions of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal area. The 

inventory must include emissions for a 

baseline year, emissions for the most 

recent year for which data are available, 

and estimates of future projected 

emissions. The State must also include 

a commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. The State’s emission 

inventory is discussed in section VI.F.1 

of this notice. Wyoming states in 

Chapter 9 of the SIP that it intends to 

update the Wyoming statewide 

emissions inventories periodically and 

review periodic emissions information 

from other states and future emissions 

projections. We propose that this 

satisfies the requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) requires that 

states provide for any additional 

reporting, recordkeeping, and measures 

necessary to evaluate and report on 

visibility. The State of Wyoming, in 

accordance with provisions of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi), will track data related 

to regional haze for sources for which 

the State has regulatory authority, and 

will depend on the IMPROVE program 

and RPO sponsored collection and 

analysis efforts for monitoring and 

emissions inventory data, respectively. 

To ensure the availability of data and 

analyses to report on visibility 

conditions and progress toward Class I 

area visibility goals, the State of 

Wyoming will collaborate with 

members of a RPO to ensure the 

continued operation of the IMPROVE 

program and RPO sponsored technical 

support analysis tools and systems. 

We propose to find that the State’s SIP 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4). 

H. Consultation With FLMs 

Although the FLMs are very active in 

participating in the RPOs, the RHR 

grants the FLMs a special role in the 

review of the regional haze SIPs, 

summarized in section V.H, above. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), states are 

obligated to provide the FLMs with an 

opportunity for consultation, in person, 

and at least 60 days prior to holding a 

public hearing on the regional haze SIP. 

The State provided an opportunity for 

FLM consultation, in person and at least 

60 days prior to holding any public 

hearing on the SIP. As required by 40 

CFR Section 51.308(i)(3), the State has 

included FLM comments and State 

responses in Chapter 11 of the Wyoming 

TSD. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that 

States provide in its regional haze SIP 

a description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. The 

FLMs formally commented on the 

Wyoming proposed SIP in November 

and December of 2010. The FLM 

comments provided support for the 

modeling approach used by the State in 

the BART determinations and 

complimented the State on thorough 

BART, reasonable progress, and area 

source analysis. The FLMs also 

recommended the State reevaluate costs 

and emission limits for some of the 

BART and reasonable progress sources. 

Chapter 11 of the State’s TSD provides 

detailed information on the State’s 

response to FLM comments. 

Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies 

the regional haze SIP must provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between a State and FLMs on the 

implementation of the visibility 

protection program required by 40 CFR 

51.308. This includes development and 

review of implementation plan revisions 

and five-year progress reports and the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. Pursuant to 

Chapter 11.2 of the SIP, the State will 

provide the FLMs an opportunity to 

review and comment on SIP revisions, 

the five-year progress reports, and other 

developing programs that may 

contribute to Class I visibility 

impairment. 

We are proposing that the State’s SIP 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(i). 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year 

Progress Reports 

40 CFR 51.308(f) requires a State to 

revise and submit its regional haze SIP 

to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every ten 

years thereafter. Pursuant to Chapter 10 

of the SIP, the State will provide this 

revision. In accordance with the 

requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g), 

the State will submit a report on 

reasonable progress to EPA every five 

years following the initial submittal of 

the SIP. That report will be in the form 

of an implementation plan revision. The 

State’s report will evaluate the progress 

made toward the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I area located within 

the State and in each mandatory Class 

I area located outside the State, which 

have been identified as being affected by 

emissions from the State. The State will 

also evaluate the monitoring strategy 

adequacy in assessing RPGs. 

Based on the findings of the five-year 

progress report, 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

requires a State to make a determination 

of adequacy of the current 

implementation plan. The State must 

take one or more of the actions listed in 

40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) through (4) that are 

applicable at the same time as the State 

submits a five-year progress report. 

Chapter 12 of the SIP requires the State 

to make an adequacy determination of 

the current SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1) through (4) at the same 

time a five-year progress report is due. 

We propose to find the State’s SIP 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)–(h). 

VII. Federal Implementation Plan 

EPA is proposing a FIP to address the 

deficiencies indentified in our proposed 

partial disapproval of Wyoming’s 

regional haze SIP. In lieu of this 

proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we 

would propose approval of a SIP 

revision if the State submits such a 

revision and the revision matches the 

terms of our proposed FIP. We 

encourage the State to submit a SIP 

revision to replace the FIP, either before 

or after our final action. 

A. Disapproval of the State’s NOX BART 

Determinations and Federal 

Implementation Plan for NOX BART 

Determinations and Limits 

As noted above, the State provided 

five-factor analyses that considered all 

factors, except analyzing the degree of 

visibility improvement modeling for 

each individual pollutant. Thus, in 

disapproving specific State BART 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33050 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

determinations, we are basing our 

analysis on information provided by the 

State in their BART analysis, with the 

exception of visibility improvement 

modeling. We have accepted the cost 

information provided by the State. As 

discussed above, visibility improvement 

modeling was performed by the EPA. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

State’s NOX BART determinations, and 

we are proposing to issue a BART FIP, 

for the following units: PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 

1, and Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3. EPA’s rationale for 

disapproving the State’s BART 

determinations for these units, as well 

as EPA’s BART FIP determinations and 

emission limits, is discussed below. 

1. Disapproval of the State’s Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1–3 NOX

BART Determination and FIP To 

Address NOX BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

All three units are currently 

controlled with LNBs with a permit 

limit of 0.5 lbs/MMBtu (3-hour rolling 

average). The State determined that new 

LNBs, OFA, LNBs and OFA, SNCR/SCR 

hybrid, LNBs and OFA with SNCR, and 

SCR were technically feasible for 

reducing NOX emissions at Units 1–3. 

The State determined that natural gas 

reburn was technically infeasible. The 

State did not identify any energy or nonair quality environmental impacts that 

would preclude the selection of any of 

the controls evaluated, and there are no 

remaining-useful-life issues for this 

source. A summary of the State’s NOX

BART analysis is provided in Tables 

28–30 below. As discussed above, the 

visibility improvement modeling results 

in these tables were developed by EPA. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 6,320 tpy 

for Unit 1, 6,285 tpy for Unit 2, and 

6,448 tpy for Unit 3 based on an average 

on 2001–2003 actual emissions. 

TABLE 28—SUMMARY OF BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

OFA .......................................................... 14.8 0.23 936 $625,000 $668 0.08 

LNBs ........................................................ 14.8 0.23 936 1,360,000 1,453 0.08 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 14.8 0.23 936 1,944,000 2,077 0.08 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid ................................... 25.9 0.20 1,639 7,429,000 4,534 ........................

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 55.6 0.12 3,511 7,365,000 2,098 0.32 

SCR .......................................................... 74.1 0.07 4,681 15,787,000 3,372 0.44 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated is as follows: LNBs 

with OFA and SNCR: $2,105/ton, and 

SCR: $7,198/ton. 

TABLE 29—SUMMARY OF BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

OFA .......................................................... 14.3 0.23 931 $625,000 $671 0.08 

LNBs ........................................................ 14.3 0.23 931 1,360,000 1,461 0.08 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 14.3 0.23 931 1,944,000 2,088 0.08 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid ................................... 25.5 0.20 1,630 7,429,000 4,559 ........................

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 55.3 0.12 3,492 7,365,000 2,109 0.32 

SCR .......................................................... 73.9 0.07 4,656 15,787,000 3,391 0.44 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated is as follows: LNBs 

with OFA and SNCR: $2,117/ton; and 

SCR: $7,242/ton. 

TABLE 30—SUMMARY OF BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

OFA .......................................................... 16.5 0.23 955 $625,000 $654 0.08 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33051 

32Since the State did not provide costs for the 

source to achieve a 0.21 lb/MMBtu emission limit 

and EPA did not model a 0.21 lb/MMBtu control 

option, we are basing our analysis on the 

information for LNBs with OFA at a limit of 0.23 

lb/MMBtu. 

TABLE 30—SUMMARY OF BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS—Continued 

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

LNBs ........................................................ 16.5 0.23 955 1,360,000 1,424 0.08 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 16.5 0.23 955 1,944,000 2,036 0.08 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid ................................... 27.4 0.20 1,672 7,429,000 4,444 ........................

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 56.4 0.12 3,582 7,365,000 2,056 0.33 

SCR .......................................................... 74.6 0.07 4,777 15,787,000 3,305 0.44 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated is as follows: LNBs 

with OFA and SNCR: $2,064/ton, and 

SCR: $7,054/ton. 

The State eliminated the SNCR/SCR 

hybrid from further consideration 

because it has higher cost effectiveness 

and lower control efficiency compared 

to new LNBs plus OFA with SNCR. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

OFA was reasonable for NOX BART. 

The State determined that the NOX

BART emission limits for Laramie River 

Unit 1 are 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average), 1,348 lb/hr (30-day 

rolling average), and 5,343 tpy. The 

State determined the NOX BART 

emission limits for Laramie River Unit 

2 are 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average), 1,348 lb/hr (30-day rolling 

average), and 5,343 tpy. The State 

determined the NOX BART emission 

limits for Laramie River Unit 3 are 0.23 

lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), 

1,386 lb/hr (30-day rolling average), and 

5,493 tpy. 

The State’s proposed SIP required 

additional NOX emission reductions for 

Laramie River under its LTS. Based on 

the costs and visibility improvement for 

Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3, 

the State proposed installation of two 

SCRs, or equivalent performing 

emission control systems, at any of the 

three units. The State proposed that the 

add-on NOX control achieve an 

emission rate, on an individual unit 

basis, at or below 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 

30-day rolling average. The State 

proposed that the add-on controls be 

installed and operational on one of the 

Laramie River Station units by 

December 31, 2018 and on a second 

Laramie River Station unit by December 

31, 2023. 

On March 8, 2010, Basin Electric 

Power Cooperative appealed the 

additional controls proposed by the 

State under its LTS before the Wyoming 

Environmental Quality Council. The 

State entered into a settlement 

agreement on November 16, 2010 with 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (a 

copy of the settlement agreement is 

included in the State’s revised NOX

BART Analysis for Laramie River dated 

January 3, 2011). As part of the 

settlement agreement, the State agreed 

to remove the requirement for Basin 

Electric to install additional controls 

under the LTS. In return, Basin Electric 

agreed to additional NOX emissions 

reductions under BART. Under the 

settlement agreement, Basin Electric 

agreed to a NOX emission limit of 0.21 

lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) on 

all three units. Basin Electric also agreed 

to a NOX emission limit for Unit 1 and 

Unit 2 of 4,780 tpy and a NOX emission 

limit for Unit 3 of 4,914 tpy, effectively 

capping emissions from all three units 

at 12,773 tpy. In the SIP adopted by the 

State, the State determined the emission 

limits in the settlement agreement were 

BART for Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3. 

EPA’s Conclusions on Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1–3 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP for NOX BART 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.21 lb/ 

MMBtu is reasonable for BART for 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, which 

can be achieved with the installation 

and operation of LNBs with OFA. In 

particular, the cost effectiveness values 

for LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at this 

unit is only slightly higher than LNBs 

with OFA (i.e., about $20/ton), with 

incremental costs of approximately 

$2,100.32 The increase in cost 

effectiveness for LNBs with OFA plus 

SNCR affords a visibility improvement 

of 0.23 delta deciview per unit over 

LNBs plus OFA. LNBs with OFA plus 

SNCR would result in total NOX

emissions of 8,468 tpy—4,305 tpy less 

than the State’s BART determination. 

We find that it was unreasonable for the 

State not to determine that LNBs with 

OFA plus SNCR was NOX BART for 

Laramie River Units 1–3. Thus, we are 

proposing to disapprove the State’s NOX

BART determination for Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 and 

proposing a FIP for NOX BART as 

explained below. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we propose to find that 

LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at an 

emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) is reasonable for 

NOX BART for Basin Electric Laramie 

River Units 1, 2, and 3. We are 

proposing that the FIP NOX BART 

emission limit for Basin Electric 

Laramie River Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 

3 is 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). 

We have eliminated the single highest 

performing option from consideration— 

LNBs with OFA plus SCR—because the 

cost effectiveness value is significantly 

higher than LNBs with OFA and there 

is a comparatively small incremental 

visibility improvement over LNBs with 

OFA. 

We propose that Basin Electric meet 

our proposed emission limit at Laramie 

River Units 1, 2, and 3 no later than five 

years after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP. This is consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). 

2. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 3 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP To Address NOX

BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

Dave Johnston Unit 3 is currently 

uncontrolled for NOX. The State 

determined LNBs with advanced OFA, 

LNBs with advanced OFA and SNCR, 

and LNBs with advanced OFA and SCR 

were technically feasible for controlling 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33052 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

33We are assuming the same costs for Unit 2 as 

the other Jim Bridger Units. The State analyzed Unit 

2 using post installation of LNBs/OFA costs so the cost information provided in their analysis is not 

consistent with an uncontrolled baseline. 

NOX emissions from Unit 3. The State 

did not identify any technically 

infeasible controls. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 5,814 tpy 

for Unit 3 based on unit heat input rate 

of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of 

operation. A summary of the State’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Table 31 below. 

TABLE 31—SUMMARY OF DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta 

deciview for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

LNB with advanced OFA ......................... 46.8 0.28 2,723 $1,764,775 $648 0.77 

New LNB with advanced OFA and 

SNCR ................................................... 63.9 0.19 3,717 2,679,192 721 0.94 

LNB with advanced OFA and SCR ......... 86.7 0.07 5,041 16,347,519 3,243 1.16 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated is as follows: New 

LNB with advanced OFA and SNCR: 

$920/ton, and LNB with advanced OFA 

and SCR: $10,234/ton. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

OFA was reasonable for NOX BART. 

The State determined the cost of 

compliance (capital costs and annual 

operating and maintenance costs) were 

significantly higher for the addition of 

SCR. The State determined the NOX

BART emission limits for Unit 3 are 

0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average), 

784 lb/hr (30-day rolling average), and 

3,434 tpy. 

EPA’s Conclusions on Dave Johnston 

Unit 3 NOX BART Determination and 

FIP for NOX BART 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.28 lb/ 

MMBtu is reasonable for NOX BART for 

Dave Johnston Unit 3, which can be 

achieved with the installation and 

operation on LNBs with OFA. In 

particular, the cost effectiveness values 

for LNB with OFA and SNCR at this 

unit is only $73/ton higher than LNBs 

with OFA, with incremental costs of 

$920. The increase in cost effectiveness 

for LNBs with OFA plus SNCR affords 

visibility improvement over LNBs plus 

OFA of 0.17 delta deciview. LNBs with 

OFA plus SNCR would result in an 

additional reduction of 994 tons of NOX. 

We find that it was unreasonable for the 

State not to determine that LNBs with 

OFA plus SNCR was NOX BART for 

Dave Johnston Unit 3. Thus, we are 

proposing to disapprove the State’s NOX

BART determination for Dave Johnston 

Unit 3 and proposing a FIP for NOX

BART as explained below. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we propose to find that 

LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at an 

emission limit of 0.19 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) is reasonable for 

NOX BART for Dave Johnston Unit 3. 

We are proposing that the FIP NOX

BART emission limit for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 3 is 0.19 lb/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average). 

We have eliminated the single highest 

performing option from consideration— 

LNBs with OFA plus SCR—because the 

cost effectiveness value is significantly 

higher than LNBs with OFA and there 

is a comparatively small incremental 

visibility improvement over LNBs with 

OFA. 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Dave 

Johnston Unit 3 no later than five years 

after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP. This is consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). 

3. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP To Address NOX

BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 

are equipped with early generation 

LNBs with a permit limit of 0.70 lb/ 

MMBtu (3-hour fixed). The State 

determined that LNBs with SOFA, 

ROFA, LNBs with SOFA plus SNCR, 

and LNBs with SOFA plus SCR were 

technically feasible for controlling NOX

emissions. The State did not identify 

any technically infeasible options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, nor are there any remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 10,643 tpy 

for all both units based on unit heat 

input rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 

hours of operation. A summary of the 

State’s NOX BART analysis and the 

visibility impacts is provided in Table 

32 below.33

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33053 

34Unit 4 has different modeling results than the 

other three units as the stack parameters used in the 

modeling are different enough from Units 1–3 to 

yield different modeled results. 

35Wyoming determined that LNBs with OFA and 

SCR was BART for Naughton Unit 3. The cost 

effectiveness of SCR for Naughton Unit 3 is $2,830 

with 1.0 deciview of visibility improvement. 

36The proposed regulatory language for this 

rulemaking only covers our first proposed 

approach. 

TABLE 32—SUMMARY OF JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS—COSTS PER BOILER

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta deciview for 

the Maximum 98th 

Percentile 

Impact at 

Mt. Zirkel 

Wilderness)— 

Units 1—3/4–34

LNB with SOFA .......................................... 42.2 0.26 4,493 $1,144,969 $255 .41/.47 

New LNB with SOFA and SNCR ............... 55.6 0.20 5,913 2,710,801 459 .52/.62 

LNB with SOFA and SCR .......................... 84.4 0.07 8,987 20,296,400 2,258 .76/.82 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

control evaluated is as follows: New 

LNB with SOFA and SNCR: $1,103/ton, 

and LNB with SOFA and SCR: $5,721/ 

ton. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

SOFA was reasonable for NOX BART. 

The State determined the cost of 

compliance (capital costs and annual 

operating and maintenance costs) were 

significantly higher for the addition of 

SCR. The State determined the NOX

BART emission limits for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2 are 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average), 1,560 lb/hr (30-day 

average), and 6,833 tpy. 

PacifiCorp is required to install 

additional controls under the State’s 

LTS. The State determined that based 

on the cost of compliance and visibility 

improvement presented by PacifiCorp in 

the BART applications for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2 and taking into 

consideration the logistical challenge of 

managing multiple pollution control 

installations within the regulatory time 

allotted for installation of BART by the 

RHR, additional controls would be 

required under the LTS but not BART. 

With respect to Jim Bridger Units 1 and 

2, the State has required PacifiCorp to 

install SCR, or other NOX control 

systems, to achieve an emission limit or 

otherwise reduce NOX emissions to 

achieve a 0.07 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling 

average NOX emissions rate. PacifiCorp 

is required to meet the 0.07 lb/MMBtu 

emission rate on Unit 1 prior to 

December 31, 2021 and on Unit 2 prior 

to December 31, 2022. 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.26 lb/ 

MMBtu is reasonable for BART for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2, which can be 

achieved with the installation and 

operation on LNBs with SOFA. In 

particular, the cost effectiveness values 

for LNBs with SOFA and SCR at each 

unit is $2,258 with approximately 0.80 

delta deciview visibility improvement. 

The cost effectiveness values are 

reasonable and the visibility 

improvement significant for LNBs with 

SOFA plus SCR. In addition, the costs 

are within the range that Wyoming has 

considered reasonable in the BART 

context.35 LNBs with OFA plus SCR 

would result in an additional reduction 

of 4,494 tpy of NOX emissions at each 

unit. This difference is substantial. We 

find that it was unreasonable for the 

State not to determine that LNBs with 

OFA plus SCR was NOX BART for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2. Though the State 

is requiring the installation of SCR on 

Units 1 and 2 under its LTS, the 

compliance date for both installations is 

beyond the five-years allowed for BART 

sources by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv). Thus, 

we are proposing to disapprove the 

State’s NOX BART determination for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 and proposing a 

FIP for NOX BART as explained below. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we propose to find that 

LNBs with SOFA plus SCR at an 

emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) is reasonable for 

NOX BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 

2. Because our examination of the 

factors leads us to propose SCR is 

reasonable for BART, we have 

eliminated SNCR from further 

consideration. We are proposing that the 

FIP NOX BART emission limit for 

PacifiCorp Units 1 and 2 is 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Jim Bridger 

Unit 1 and 2 no later than five years 

after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP. This is consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). 

4. Proposals in the Alternative for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1, 2, 3, and 

4 NOX BART 

As noted above, EPA is seeking 

comment on a proposal (‘‘first proposed 

approach’’) to approve in part and 

disapprove in part the regional haze 

plan submitted by the State. Among 

other things, EPA’s proposal would 

determine that BART for Units 1 and 2 

of the BART-eligible Jim Bridger power 

plant is SCR, and would establish 

corresponding NOx emission limits for 

these units that would have to be 

achieved within 5 years of our final 

action.36 This would have the effect of 

accelerating the installation of the SCR 

controls at these units that the State and 

source owner (PacifiCorp) had proposed 

to install later (in the 2021–2022 timeperiod). The State determined that 

BART for these units is LNB plus OFA, 

and selected the 2021–2022 time-period 

for SCR-based emission limits as a 

reasonable progress measure. The delay 

was based on the large number of 

actions PacifiCorp is undertaking (or 

helping to finance) at a large number of 

EGUs in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and 

Arizona that it owns and operates or coowns. 

EPA is also seeking comment on an 

alternative approach (‘‘second proposed 

approach’’) that differs from our first 

proposed approach only with regard to 

Units 3 and 4 at Jim Bridger. The second 

proposed approach would only differ 

from the first proposed approach by 

allowing PacifiCorp to install SCR at Jim 

Bridger Units 3 and 4 within five years 

from the date of our final action. This 

would differ from the first proposed 

approach that requires PacifiCorp to 

install SCR at Unit 3 by 2015 and Unit 

4 by 2016, while we would still propose 

SCR on Units 1 and 2 within the five 

year BART installation timeframe. This 

second proposed approach would allow 

PacifiCorp flexibility on timing for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33054 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

37For a listing of PacifiCorp’s retrofit actions, see 

Table 1 of Exhibit A—PacifiCorp’s Emissions 

Reductions Plan in Chapter 6 of the State’s TSD. 

38See Exhibit A—PacifiCorp’s Emissions 

Reductions Plan in Chapter 6 of the State’s TSD. 

39See Exhibit A—PacifiCorp’s Emissions 

Reductions Plan in Chapter 6 of the State’s TSD. 

installation of SCR on all four Jim 

Bridger Units within the BART 

installation timeline allowed by the 

RHR. Installing SCR on all four units 

within the statutory five year period 

would provide PacifiCorp maximum 

flexibility to manage the 

implementation of controls on all the 

units. 

EPA also is seeking comment on 

another alternative approach (‘‘third 

proposed approach’’) that differs from 

the first proposed approach only with 

regard to Units 1 and 2 at Jim Bridger. 

This third proposed approach would 

include a different determination 

regarding BART for these units and 

would have the effect of approving the 

state’s timeline for the installation of 

SCR technologies at Units 1 and 2. 

PacifiCorp asserted to the State during 

formulation of the SIP proposal, and has 

since asserted directly to EPA, that a 

number of factors, when considered 

together, suggest that requiring 

installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 

1 and 2 earlier than 2021–2022 is not 

reasonable. First, PacifiCorp points to 

the large number of retrofit actions it is 

taking at 20 coal-fired electric 

generating units in Wyoming, Utah, and 

Arizona in order to reduce their 

emissions.37 These retrofits are intended 

to comply with the requirements in the 

regional haze SIPs that these states have 

submitted to EPA and with other 

regulatory requirements, including 

required controls for mercury and acid 

gases under the recent Mercury and Air 

Toxics Standards rule. The company 

claims that there are high capital costs 

for the measures required for these air 

quality-improving retrofits. Moreover, 

PacifiCorp states that accelerating the 

required installation of SCR at Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 to late 2017, 

rather than the 2021 and 2022 dates 

established by the State, would 

significantly increase the costs to the 

utility and to its customers.38

In addition, the company asserts that 

it has designed the installation schedule 

in order to minimize the number of 

units that are out of service system wide 

for installation of emissions controls at 

any one time. Its goal, it asserts, is to be 

able to maintain service to its customers 

with an adequate capacity margin. The 

company asserts that accelerating the 

timeline for installation of SCR would 

upset the orderly shut-down schedule 

they have devised and would threaten 

both service interruptions and an 

increased risk of spot-purchases of more 

expensive electrical energy, if it is 

available, to serve customers, but that 

either eventuality would significantly 

increase costs to its customers.39

Taken together, PacifiCorp claims that 

the schedule for installation of 

emissions control devices envisioned in 

our first proposed approach would be 

excessively costly and would pose 

service interruption risks for electrical 

energy customers over a large part of the 

region. EPA notes that PacifiCorp has 

offered these claims taking into account 

only the requirements in the SIPs that 

have been submitted to EPA by 

Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and Arizona. 

Today’s proposal includes requirements 

that would likely require the additional 

installation of SNCRs at two units 

owned by PacifiCorp in Wyoming. In 

addition, we have proposed to partially 

disapprove the SIP for Utah, and the 

eventual resolution of this disapproval 

may involve requirements for retrofits of 

more units owned by PacifiCorp in that 

state. We have not yet proposed action 

on the SIP for Arizona, and the 

possibility that the Cholla power plant 

that is partially owned by PacifiCorp 

may require retrofits not already in 

PacifiCorp’s plans, cannot be ruled out 

at this time. 

Based on the claims made both by the 

State and PacifiCorp and noting the 

additional requirements in the proposed 

FIP for Wyoming and the possibility of 

additional requirements in future FIPs 

or SIPs in Utah and Arizona, EPA is 

seeking comment on these assertions of 

cost infeasibility and risk to electrical 

power reliability, as well as the 

desirability of the third proposed 

approach including the possible 

rationale for this third approach as 

described below. 

Our third proposed approach has two 

parts, one addressing BART and one 

addressing reasonable progress with 

respect to Jim Bridger. First, EPA would 

determine that the facts indicate that 

BART for the all the units at Jim Bridger 

is SCR when the units are considered 

individually based on the five factors 

without regard the status of those factors 

for other units in the PacifiCorp system. 

However, when the five factors are 

considered across all the units in that 

system, including the fact that EPA’s 

actions on the SIPs for Wyoming, Utah, 

and Arizona may create additional 

retrofit obligations for other PacifiCorpowned EGUs, BART for Jim Bridger as 

a whole is SCR on Units 3 and 4 and 

LNB plus OFA on Units 1 and 2. Costs, 

considered broadly, would be 

unreasonable to require any further 

retrofits at this source within 5 years of 

our final action. We note that the CAA 

establishes 5 years at the longest period 

that can be allowed for compliance with 

BART emission limits. 

The second part of our third proposed 

approach is that EPA would approve the 

SIP with regard to the State’s 

determination that the appropriate level 

of NOX control for Units 1 and 2 at Jim 

Bridger for purposes of reasonable 

progress is the SCR-based emission limit 

in the SIP, with compliance dates of 

December 31, 2021 for Unit 2 and 

December 31, 2022 for Unit 1. We 

believe it may be reasonable and 

feasible for these retrofits to be 

completed somewhat earlier than these 

dates even if, as would be necessary to 

conclude this third approach to have 

merit, they cannot be completed within 

5 years of our final action. However, in 

the context of reasonable progress in the 

second planning period of the regional 

haze program, we believe it may be 

appropriate to give considerable 

deference to the State’s conclusions 

about what controls are reasonable and 

when they should be implemented. 

Thus, assuming that we were to finalize 

this third approach, we do not believe 

at this time that it would be appropriate 

to disapprove the State’s preferred 

compliance deadlines for Units 1 and 2. 

Under the third proposed approach, 

we would approve the SIP’s provisions 

for Units 1 and 2 and not adopt a FIP, 

because while we would disagree with 

the State’s reasoning, we would be 

agreeing with the outcome in terms of 

the sequence of emission limits that 

apply to these units and their 

compliance deadlines. We would be 

agreeing with the outcome within the 

context of the phased regional haze 

statutory and regulatory framework. 

As stated above, we are asking for 

comments and information pertaining to 

our second and third proposed 

approaches. We need more information 

to be able to support either alternative 

approach. If we receive such 

information, we will provide notice to 

the public on the availability of such 

information. We request that any 

information be submitted as soon as 

possible, but preferably no later than 30 

days after the publication date of this 

notice. We are requesting that 

information be submitted within this 

timeframe to give the public an 

opportunity to review and comment on 

the information before the end of the 

comment period. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33055 

40A summary of EPA’s modeling methodology 

and results can be found in the docket under EPA 

BART and RP Modeling for Wyoming Sources. 

5. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP To Address NOX

BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

Wyodak Unit 1 is currently controlled 

for NOX emissions with early generation 

LNBs with a permit limit of 0.70 lb/ 

MMBtu (3-hour block). The State 

determined new LNBs with OFA, 

existing LNBs with ROFA, new LNBs 

with OFA plus SNCR, and LNBs with 

OFA plus SCR were technically feasible 

for controlling NOX emissions. The 

State did not identify any technically 

infeasible control options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analyses for Unit 1 is provided in Table 

33 below. Baseline NOX emissions are 

5,744 tpy based on the unit heat input 

rate of 4,700 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours 

of operation per year. 

TABLE 33—SUMMARY OF WYODAK UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 25.8 0.23 1,483 $1,306,203 $881 0.25 

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 41.9 0.18 2,409 2,306,728 958 0.40 

LNBs with OFA and SCR ........................ 77.4 0.07 4,447 18,910,781 4,252 0.72 

Incremental cost effectiveness for the 

controls evaluated is as follows: LNBs 

with OFA and SNCR: $1,080/ton, and 

LNBs with OFA and SCR: $8,147/ton. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

OFA was reasonable for NOX BART for 

Unit 1. The State determined other 

control technologies were not 

reasonable based on the high cost 

effectiveness and low visibility 

improvement. The State determined the 

NOX BART emission limits for Wyodak 

Unit 1 are 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average), 1,081 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average), and 4,735 tpy. 

EPA’s Conclusions on Wyodak Unit 1 

NOX BART Determination and FIP for 

NOX BART 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.23 lb/ 

MMBtu is reasonable for NOX BART for 

Wyodak Unit 1, which can be achieved 

with the installation and operation of 

LNBs with OFA. In particular, the cost 

effectiveness value for LNB with OFA 

plus SNCR at this unit is only $77/ton 

higher than LNBs with OFA, with an 

incremental cost of $1,080. The increase 

in cost effectiveness for LNBs with OFA 

plus SNCR affords a visibility 

improvement of 0.15 deciviews over 

LNBs plus OFA. LNBs with OFA plus 

SNCR would result in an additional 

reduction of around 900 tons of NOX. 

We find that it was unreasonable for the 

State not to determine that LNBs with 

OFA plus SNCR was NOX BART for 

Wyodak Unit 1. Thus, we are proposing 

to disapprove the State’s NOX BART 

determination for Wyodak Unit 1 and 

proposing a FIP for NOX BART as 

explained below. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we propose to find that 

LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at an 

emission limit of 0.18 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) is reasonable for 

NOX BART for Wyodak Unit 1. We are 

proposing that the FIP NOX BART 

emission limit for PacifiCorp Wyodak 

Unit 1 is 0.18 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). 

We have eliminated the single highest 

performing option from consideration— 

LNBs with OFA plus SCR—because the 

cost effectiveness value is significantly 

higher than LNBs with OFA and there 

is a comparatively small incremental 

visibility improvement over LNBs with 

OFA. 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Wyodak Unit 

1 no later than five years after EPA 

finalizes action on our proposed FIP. 

This is consistent with the requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv). 

B. Disapproval of the State’s NOX

Reasonable Progress Determinations 

and Federal Implementation Plan for 

NOX Reasonable Progress 

Determinations and Limits 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

State’s reasonable progress 

determination for PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2, and we are 

proposing a reasonable progress NOX

FIP for these units, as explained below. 

As noted above, the State provided fourfactor analyses that adequately 

evaluated the required factors. Thus, in 

disapproving the State’s reasonable 

progress determination, we are basing 

our analysis on information provided by 

the State in its reasonable progress 

analysis, with the exception of visibility 

improvement modeling. 

We concluded that it is also 

appropriate for this facility to consider 

a fifth factor for evaluating potential 

reasonable progress control options— 

the degree of visibility improvement 

that may reasonably be anticipated from 

the use of the reasonable progress 

controls. Our reasonable progress 

guidance contemplates that states (or 

EPA in lieu of a state) may be able to 

consider other relevant factors for 

reasonable progress sources (see EPA’s 

Guidance for Setting Reasonable 

Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’), pp. 2–3, July 1, 2007). We 

find it appropriate, in certain 

circumstances, to consider visibility 

improvement when evaluating potential 

reasonable progress controls. Thus, EPA 

conducted visibility improvement 

modeling for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 

2.40

1. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 1 

and 2 

Background 

PacifiCorp’s Dave Johnston Power 

Plant is comprised of four units burning 

pulverized subbituminous Powder River 

Basin coal. Both are nominal 106 MW 

pulverized coal-fired units. Unit 1 began 

operation in 1958 and Unit 2 in 1960. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33056 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

41States must consider the four factors as listed 

above but can also take into account other relevant 

factors for the reasonable progress sources 

identified (see EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), 

p. 2–3, July 1, 2007). 

Wyoming’s NOX Reasonable Progress 

Determination 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 are currently 

uncontrolled for NOX emissions. The 

State determined that LNBs, LNBs with 

OFA, SNCR, and SCR were technically 

feasible for controlling NOX emissions. 

The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible control options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX reasonable 

progress analyses for Unit 1 and Unit 2, 

along with our visibility modeling 

results, is provided in Tables 34 and 35 

below. Baseline NOX emissions are 

2,256 tpy for Unit 1 and 2,174 tpy for 

Unit 2 based on 2002 actual emissions. 

Wyoming did not provide controlled 

emission rates in their reasonable 

progress analysis. EPA calculated the 

controlled emission rates shown here. 

TABLE 34—SUMMARY OF DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 1 NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

LNBs ........................................................ 51 0.28 1,150 $631,000 $528 0.37 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 65 0.20 1,466 962,000 632 0.49 

SNCR ....................................................... 40 0.35 902 2,490,000 2,659 0.26 

SCR .......................................................... 80 0.12 1,804 3,390,000 1,810 0.58 

TABLE 35—SUMMARY OF DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 2 NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control Technology 

Control 

Efficiency 

(%) 

Emission Rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day Rolling Average) 

Emission 

Reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

Costs 

Average Cost 

Effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

Improvement 

(Delta dv for 

the Maximum 

98th Percentile 

Impact at 

Wind Cave 

National Park) 

LNBs ........................................................ 51 0.28 1,108 $631,000 $538 0.38 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 65 0.20 1,413 962,000 644 0.49 

SNCR ....................................................... 40 0.35 869 2,490,000 2,709 0.28 

SCR .......................................................... 80 0.12 1,739 3,390,000 1,844 0.58 

The State estimated that it would take 

nearly five and a half years for NOX

reduction strategies to become effective. 

The State determined that roughly two 

years would be necessary for the State 

to develop the necessary regulations to 

implement the selected control 

measures. The State estimated that it 

would take up to a year for the source 

to secure the capital necessary to 

purchase emission control devices and 

approximately 18 months would be 

required for the company to design, 

fabricate, and install SCR or SNCR 

technology. Since there are two boilers 

being evaluated at Dave Johnston, the 

State determined an additional year may 

be required for staging the installation 

process. 

The State determined that no controls 

were reasonable for this planning 

period. The State cited that the fourfactor analysis was limited, in that no 

guidance was provided by EPA for 

identifying significant sources and EPA 

did not establish contribution to 

visibility impairment thresholds (a 

potential fifth factor for reasonable 

progress determinations).41 The State 

further claims that the State cannot, per 

Wyoming Statute 35–11–202, establish 

emission control requirements except 

through State rule or regulation. 

Furthermore, the Wyoming statute 

requires the State to consider the 

character and degree of injury of the 

emissions involved. In this case, the 

State claims it would need to have 

visibility modeling that assessed the 

degree of injury caused by the 

emissions, which the State does not 

have. The State believes it has taken a 

strong and reasonable first step in 

identifying potential contributors to 

visibility impairment, and that the next 

step of creating an appropriate rule or 

regulation will be accomplished in the 

next SIP revision. 

EPA’s Conclusions on Dave Johnston 

Units 1 and 2 NOX Reasonable Progress 

Determination and FIP for NOX

Reasonable Progress Controls 

We disagree with the State’s reasoning 

for not adopting reasonable progress 

controls for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and 

Unit 2. If the State determined that it 

needed to adopt a rule or perform 

modeling to adequately assess and, if 

warranted, require reasonable progress 

controls, the State should have 

completed these steps before it 

submitted its regional haze SIP. The 

RHR does not allow for commitments to 

potentially implement strategies at some 

later date that are identified under 

reasonable progress or for the State to 

take credit for such commitments. 

In addition, the cost effectiveness 

values for LNBs with OFA at each unit 

are $632 and $644 per ton. These values 

are very reasonable and far less than 

some of the cost effectiveness values the 

State found reasonable in making its 

BART determinations. Given predicted 

NOX reductions of approximately 1,400 

tpy per unit, visibility improvement of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33057 

42CAA Section 110(a)(2) states that SIPs ‘‘shall 

(A) include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to 

meet the applicable requirements of this chapter; 

(C) include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of the measures described in 

subparagraph (A), and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a permit program 

as required in parts C and D of this subchapter; (F) 

require, as may be prescribed by the 

Administrator—(i) the installation, maintenance, 

and replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps, by owners 

or operators of stationary sources to monitor 

emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) 

correlation of such reports by the State agency with 

any emission limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall be 

available at reasonable times for public inspection’’ 

43Appendix V part 51 states in section 2.2 that 

complete SIPs contain: ‘‘(g) Evidence that the plan 

contains emission limitations, work practice 

standards and recordkeeping/reporting 

requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission 

levels’’; and ‘‘(h) Compliance/enforcement 

strategies, including how compliance will be 

determined in practice.’’ 

44On July 6, 2011, EPA sent an email to the State 

with detailed comments (that are summarized 

above) on the State’s monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4, Section 

V of the SIP. The July 6, 2011 email from Laurel 

Dygowski, EPA Region 8, to Tina Anderson, State 

of Wyoming, is included in the Supporting and 

Related Materials section of the docket. 

approximately 0.5 deciviews per unit, 

and the fact that Wyoming’s reasonable 

progress goals will not meet the URP, 

we find that it was unreasonable for the 

State to reject these very inexpensive 

controls. Thus, we are proposing to 

disapprove the State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for Dave 

Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2 and 

proposing a FIP for NOX reasonable 

progress controls as explained below. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we propose to find that 

LNBs with OFA at an emission limit of 

0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) 

is reasonable for NOX reasonable 

progress controls for Dave Johnston 

Units 1 and 2. We are proposing that the 

FIP NOX reasonable progress emission 

limit for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 

1 and Unit 2 is 0.20 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). 

We have eliminated higher 

performing options from 

consideration—LNBs with OFA plus 

SCR—because the cost effectiveness 

values are significantly higher than 

LNBs with OFA and there is a 

comparatively small incremental 

visibility improvement over LNBs with 

OFA. 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Dave 

Johnston Units 1 and 2 as expeditiously 

as possible, but no later than July 31, 

2018. This is consistent with the 

requirement that the SIP cover an initial 

planning period that ends July 31, 2018. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

We are proposing to impose 

reasonable progress controls on Dave 

Johnston Units 1 and 2, as well as more 

stringent NOX BART controls on 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3, 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, 

than WRAP assumed in modeling 

Wyoming’s RPGs. 

We could not re-run the WRAP 

modeling due to time and resource 

constraints, but anticipate that the 

additional controls would result in an 

increase in visibility improvement 

during the 20% worst days. As noted in 

our analyses, many of our proposed 

controls would result in significant 

incremental visibility benefits when 

modeled against natural background. 

We anticipate that this would translate 

into some measurable improvement if 

modeled on the 20% best days as well. 

While we expect our proposed controls 

will result in additional visibility 

improvement, we do not expect that 

these improvements will result in the 

State achieving the URP. For the reasons 

discussed in section VI.D.3, we find it 

reasonable for the State to not achieve 

the URP during this planning period. 

We expect the State to quantify the 

visibility improvement in its next 

regional haze SIP revision. 

For purposes of this action, we are 

proposing RPGs that are consistent with 

the additional controls we are 

proposing. While we would prefer to 

quantify the RPGs, we note that the 

RPGs themselves are not enforceable 

values. The more critical elements for 

our FIP are the emissions limits we are 

proposing to impose, which will be 

enforceable. 

D. Federal Monitoring, Recordkeeping, 

and Reporting Requirements 

The CAA requires that SIPs, including 

the regional haze SIP, contain elements 

sufficient to ensure emission limits are 

practically enforceable.42 Other 

applicable regulatory provisions are 

contained in Appendix V to Part 51— 

Criteria for Determining the 

Completeness of Plan Submissions.43

We are proposing to find that the State’s 

regional haze SIP does not contain 

adequate monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. Chapter 6.4, 

Section V of the SIP contains 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

that we find inadequate for numerous 

reasons, summarized as follows: (1) The 

State’s language includes references to 

WAQSR Chapters that EPA has not 

approved as part of the SIP and are thus 

not federally enforceable. These 

references should be to the appropriate 

sections in the CFR; (2) Definitions have 

not been included; (3) The State’s 

language allows for data substitution 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 75. The data 

substitution procedures of 40 CFR part 

75 were never intended to apply to 

BART sources; (4) There are numerous 

language clarifications and rewordings 

needed; and (5) The State did not 

include appropriate recordkeeping 

language.44

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

State’s monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4 of 

the SIP. EPA is proposing regulatory 

language as part of our FIP that specifies 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for all BART and 

reasonable progress sources. For 

purposes of consistency, EPA is 

proposing to adopt language that is the 

same we have adopted for other states 

in Region 8. 

E. Federal Implementation Plan for the 

Long-Term Strategy 

We are proposing regulatory language 

as part of our FIP that specifies NOX

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for the following sources: 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1–3, 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

We are also proposing monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements for all BART SIP and FIP 

sources and for Dave Johnston Units 1 

and 2. We are proposing this regulatory 

language to fill the gap in the LTS that 

would be left by our proposed partial 

disapproval of the LTS. 

F. Federal Implementation Plan for 

Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Long-Term Strategy 

In response to EPA’s RAVI rules, 

Wyoming adopted WAQSR Chapter 9, 

Section 2. EPA approved WAQSR 

Chapter 9, Section 2 as part of the SIP 

on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). As 

discussed above, the State is required to 

coordinate the review of its RAVI and 

regional haze LTS and conduct the 

reviews together. WAQSR Chapter 9, 

Section 2(f) requires the State to review 

its RAVI LTS every three years, which 

does not coordinate with the five-year 

review for the State’s regional haze LTS. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33058 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Thus, we are proposing to disapprove 

the State’s SIP because it does not meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). 

We are proposing a FIP in which EPA 

commits to coordinating the State’s 

RAVI LTS review with the regional haze 

LTS review. Thus, EPA is committing to 

provide a review of the State’s RAVI 

LTS every five years in coordination 

with the State’s regional haze LTS 

review. EPA is proposing that our 

review of the State’s RAVI LTS will 

follow those items as indicated by 40 

CFR 51.306(c). 

VIII. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove a regional haze 

SIP revision submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on January 12, 2011. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

disapprove the following: 

• The State’s NOX BART 

determinations for PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 

1, and Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and, 3. 

• The State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• Wyoming’s Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs) 

• The State’s monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements in Chapter 

6.4 of the SIP. 

• Portions of the State’s long-term 

strategy (LTS) that rely on or reflect 

other aspects of the regional haze SIP 

we are proposing to disapprove. 

• The State’s SIP because it does not 

contain the necessary provisions to meet 

the requirements for the coordination of 

the review of the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) and the 

regional haze long-term strategy (LTS). 

We are proposing to approve the 

remaining aspects of the State’s January 

12, 2011, SIP submittal. We are also 

seeking comment on two alternative 

proposals related to the State’s NOX

BART determination for PacifiCorp Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2. 

We are proposing the promulgation of 

a FIP to address the deficiencies in the 

Wyoming regional haze SIP that we 

have identified in this proposal. The 

proposed FIP includes the following 

elements: 

• NOX BART determinations and 

limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 

3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• NOX reasonable progress 

determination and limits for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• RPGs consistent with the SIP limits 

proposed for approval and the proposed 

FIP limits. 

• Monitoring, record-keeping, and 

reporting requirements applicable to all 

BART and reasonable progress sources 

for which there is a SIP or FIP emissions 

limit. 

• LTS elements pertaining to 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for the proposed BART and 

reasonable progress FIP limits. 

• Provisions to ensure the 

coordination of the RAVI and regional 

haze LTS. 

IX. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). As discussed in 

section C below, the proposed FIP 

applies to only four facilities. It is 

therefore not a rule of general 

applicability. 

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. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the 

proposed FIP applies to just four 

facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Regional Haze FIP that 

EPA is proposing for purposes of the 

regional haze program consists of 

imposing federal controls to meet the 

BART requirement for NOX emissions 

on specific units at four sources in 

Wyoming, and imposing controls to 

meet the reasonable progress 

requirement for NOX emissions at one 

additional source in Wyoming. The net 

result of this FIP action is that EPA is 

proposing direct emission controls on 

selected units at only four sources. The 

sources in question are each large 

electric generating plants that are not 

owned by small entities, and therefore 

are not small entities. The proposed 

partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex 

Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 

F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33059 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

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 state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation to prohibit 

emissions from interfering with other 

states measures to protect visibility 

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and state and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this proposed rule will limit 

emissions of NOx, SO2, and PM, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law No. 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

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. 

We have determined that this 

proposed action, if finalized, will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule limits emissions of 

NOX from four facilities in Wyoming. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33060 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

The partial approval of the SIP, if 

finalized, merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

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, does not apply 

because this action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 15, 2012. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

2. Add section 52.2636 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2636 Federal implementation plan for 

regional haze. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to each owner and operator of the 

following emissions units in the State of 

Wyoming for which EPA proposes to 

approve the State’s BART 

determination: 

FMC Westvaco Trona Plant Units NS– 

1A and NS–1B (PM and NOX); 

TATA Chemicals Partners (previously 

General Chemical) Boilers C and D (PM 

and NOX); 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3 

(PM); 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant 

Unit 3 (PM); 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant 

Unit 4 (PM and NOX); 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant 

Units 1 and 2 (PM); 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant 

Units 3 and 4 (PM and NOX); 

Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant 

Units 1, 2, and 3 (PM and NOX); and 

Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 

1 (PM). 

This section also applies to each 

owner and operator of the following 

emissions units in the State of Wyoming 

for which EPA proposes to disapprove 

the State’s BART determination and 

issue a NOX BART Federal 

Implementation Plan: 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3; 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant 

Unit 3; 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant 

Units 1 and 2; and 

Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 

1. 

This section also applies to each 

owner and operator of the following 

emissions units in the State of Wyoming 

for which EPA proposes to disapprove 

the State’s reasonable progress 

determinations and issue a reasonable 

progress determination NOX Federal 

Implementation Plan: Pacificorp Dave 

Johnston Power Plant Units 1 and 2. 

(b) Definitions. Terms not defined 

below shall have the meaning given 

them in the Clean Air Act or EPA’s 

regulations implementing the Clean Air 

Act. For purposes of this section: 

(1) BART means Best Available 

Retrofit Technology. 

(2) BART unit means any unit subject 

to a Regional Haze emission limit in 

Table 1 and Table 2 of this section. 

(3) CAM means Compliance 

Assurance Monitoring as required by 40 

CFR part 64. 

(4) Continuous emission monitoring 

system or CEMS means the equipment 

required by this section to sample, 

analyze, measure, and provide, by 

means of readings recorded at least once 

every 15 minutes (using an automated 

data acquisition and handling system 

(DAHS)), a permanent record of NOX

emissions, diluent, or stack gas 

volumetric flow rate. 

(5) FIP means Federal Implementation 

Plan. 

(6) Lb/hr means pounds per hour. 

(7) Lb/MMBtu means pounds per 

million British thermal units of heat 

input to the fuel-burning unit. 

(8) NOX means nitrogen oxides. 

(9) Operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12 midnight and the 

following midnight during which any 

fuel is combusted at any time in the 

BART or RP unit. It is not necessary for 

fuel to be combusted for the entire 24- 

hour period. 

(10) The owner/operator means any 

person who owns or who operates, 

controls, or supervises a unit identified 

in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(11) PM means filterable total 

particulate matter. 

(12) RP unit means any Reasonable 

Progress unit subject to a Regional Haze 

emission limit in Table 3 of this section. 

(13) Unit means any of the units 

identified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) Emissions limitations. 

(1) The owners/operators of emissions 

units subject to this section shall not 

emit, or cause to be emitted, PM or NOX

in excess of the following limitations: 

TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS FOR BART UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES TO APPROVE THE STATE’S BART 

DETERMINATION

Source Name/BART Unit 

PM Emission Limits NOX Emission Limits 

lb/MMBtu lb/hr Tons per year lb/MMBtu lb/hr Tons per year 

FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS–1A .................... 0 .05 45 197 0.35 284 1244 

FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS–1B .................... 0 .05 45 197 0.35 284 1244 

TATA Chemicals Partners (General Chemical) Green 

River Trona Plant/Boiler C ....................................... 0 .09 50 219 0.28 149.5 654 .9 

TATA Chemicals Partners (General Chemical) Green 

River Trona Plant/Boiler D ....................................... 0 .09 80 350 .4 0.28 246.4 1,079 .2 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 1 ................................................................. 0 .03 193 844 N/A N/A N/A 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 2 ................................................................. 0 .03 193 844 N/A N/A N/A 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 3 ................................................................. 0 .03 198 867 N/A N/A N/A 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 3 ............. 0 .015 42 .1 184 N/A N/A N/A 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 4 ............. 0 .015 61 .5 269 0.15 615 2,694 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 33061 

TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS FOR BART UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES TO APPROVE THE STATE’S BART 

DETERMINATION—Continued 

Source Name/BART Unit 

PM Emission Limits NOX Emission Limits 

lb/MMBtu lb/hr Tons per year lb/MMBtu lb/hr Tons per year 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 1 .................. 0 .03 180 788 N/A N/A N/A 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 2 .................. 0 .03 180 788 N/A N/A N/A 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 3 .................. 0 .03 180 788 0.07 N/A N/A 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 4 .................. 0 .03 180 788 0.07 N/A N/A 

Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1 ..................... 0 .04 74 324 0.26 481 2,107 

Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2 ..................... 0 .04 96 421 0.26 624 2,733 

Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 3 ..................... 0 .015 56 243 0.07 259 1,134 

Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1 ........................ 0 .015 71 308 .8 N/A N/A N/A 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR BART 

UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES

TO DISAPPROVE THE STATE’S BART 

DETERMINATION AND IMPLEMENT A

FIP 

Source Name/BART Unit 

NOX Emission 

Limit 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 1 .......................... 0.12 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 2 .......................... 0.12 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 3 .......................... 0.12 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston 

Power Plant/Unit 3 ............ 0.19 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power 

Plant/Unit 1 ....................... 0.07 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power 

Plant/Unit 2 ....................... 0.07 

Pacificorp Wyodak Power 

Plant/Unit 1 ....................... 0.18 

TABLE 3—EMISSION LIMITS FOR RP 

UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES

TO DISAPPROVE THE STATE’S RP 

DETERMINATION AND IMPLEMENT A

FIP 

Source Name/RP Unit 

NOX Emission 

Limit 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston 

Power Plant/Unit 1 ............ 0.20 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston 

Power Plant/Unit 2 ............ 0.20 

(2) These emission limitations shall 

apply at all times, including startups, 

shutdowns, emergencies, and 

malfunctions. 

(d) Compliance date. The owners and 

operators of the BART and RP sources 

subject to this section shall comply with 

the emissions limitations and other 

requirements of this section within five 

years of the effective date of this rule 

(e) Compliance determinations for 

NOX. 

(1) For all BART and RP units other 

than Trona Plant units: 

(i) CEMS. At all times after the 

compliance date specified in paragraph 

(d) 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. The CEMS shall be used to 

determine compliance with the 

emission limitations in paragraph (c) of 

this section for each unit. 

(ii) Method. 

(a) For any hour in which fuel is 

combusted in a unit, the owner/operator 

of each unit shall calculate the hourly 

average NOX concentration in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 75. At the end of each 

operating day, the owner/operator shall 

calculate and record a new 30-day 

rolling average emission rate in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic 

average of all valid hourly emission 

rates from the CEMS for the current 

operating day and the previous 29 

successive operating days. 

(b) An hourly average NOX emission 

rate in lb/MMBtu or lb/hr is valid only 

if the minimum number of data points, 

as specified in 40 CFR part 75, is 

acquired by both the pollutant 

concentration monitor (NOX) and the 

diluent monitor (O2 or CO2). 

(c) Compliance with tons-per-year 

emission limits shall be calculated on a 

rolling 12-month basis. At the end of 

each calendar month, the owner/ 

operator shall calculate and record a 

new 12-month rolling average emission 

rate from the arithmetic average of all 

valid hourly emission rates from the 

CEMS for the current month and the 

previous 11 months and the report the 

result in tons. 

(d) Data reported to meet the 

requirements of this section shall not 

include data substituted using the 

missing data substitution procedures of 

subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall 

the data have been bias adjusted 

according to the procedures of 40 CFR 

part 75. 

(2) For all Trona Plant BART units: 

(i) CEMS. At all times after the 

compliance date specified in paragraph 

(d) 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 

60, to accurately measure NOX, diluent, 

and stack gas volumetric flow rate from 

each unit, including the CEMS quality 

assurance requirements in appendix F 

of 40 CFR part 60. The CEMS shall be 

used to determine compliance with the 

emission limitations in paragraph (c) of 

this section for each unit. 

(ii) Method. 

(a) For any hour in which fuel is 

combusted in a unit, the owner/operator 

of each unit shall calculate the hourly 

average NOX concentration in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 60. At the end of each 

operating day, the owner/operator shall 

calculate and record a new 30-day 

rolling average emission rate in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic 

average of all valid hourly emission 

rates from the CEMS for the current 

operating day and the previous 29 

successive operating days. 

(b) An hourly average NOX emission 

rate in lb/MMBtu or lb/hr is valid only 

if the minimum number of data points, 

as specified in 40 CFR part 60, is 

acquired by both the pollutant 

concentration monitor (NOX) and the 

diluent monitor (O2 or CO2). 

(c) Compliance with tons-per-year 

emission limits shall be calculated on a 

rolling 12-month basis. At the end of 

each calendar month, the owner/ 

operator shall calculate and record a 

new 12-month rolling average emission 

rate from the arithmetic average of all 

valid hourly emission rates from the 

CEMS for the current month and the 

previous 11 months and report results 

in tons. 

(f) Compliance determinations for 

particulate matter. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

33062 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 107 / Monday, June 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Compliance with the particulate 

matter emission limit for each BART 

and RP unit shall be determined from 

annual performance stack tests. Within 

60 days of the compliance deadline 

specified in section (d), and on at least 

an annual basis thereafter, the owner/ 

operator of each unit shall conduct a 

stack test on each unit to measure 

particulate emissions using EPA Method 

5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as appropriate, in 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A. A test shall 

consist of three runs, with each run at 

least 120 minutes in duration and each 

run collecting a minimum sample of 60 

dry standard cubic feet. Results shall be 

reported in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr. In 

addition to annual stack tests, the 

owner/operator shall monitor 

particulate emissions for compliance 

with the BART emission limits in 

accordance with the applicable 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

(CAM) plan developed and approved by 

the State in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 64. 

(g) Recordkeeping. The owner/ 

operator shall maintain the following 

records for at least five years: 

(1) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(2) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, 

records of quality assurance and quality 

control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to appendix F of 40 CFR part 60. 

(3) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS. 

(4) Any other CEMS records required 

by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant 

units, any other CEMs records required 

by 40 CFR part 60. 

(5) Records of all particulate stack test 

results. 

(6) All data collected pursuant to the 

CAM plan. 

(h) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to the 

Director, Office of Enforcement, 

Compliance and Environmental Justice, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF–AT, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

(1) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for NOX BART and RP units no 

later than the 30th day following the 

end of each calendar quarter. Excess 

emissions means emissions that exceed 

the emissions limits specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The reports 

shall include the magnitude, date(s), 

and duration of each period of excess 

emissions, specific identification of 

each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. The 

owner/operator shall also submit reports 

of any exceedances of tons-per-year 

emission limits. 

(2) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit quarterly CEMS 

performance reports, to include dates 

and duration of each period during 

which the CEMS was inoperative 

(except for zero and span adjustments 

and calibration checks), reason(s) why 

the CEMS was inoperative and steps 

taken to prevent recurrence, and any 

CEMS repairs or adjustments. The 

owner/operator of each unit shall also 

submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, the 

owner/operator of each unit shall also 

submit results of any CEMs performance 

test required appendix F of 40 CFR part 

60 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, 

Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder 

Gas Audits). 

(3) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by sections (h)(1) and (2) 

above. 

(4) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit results of any particulate 

matter stack tests conducted for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter BART limits in 

section (c) above, within 60 calendar 

days after completion of the test. 

(5) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit semi-annual reports of any 

excursions under the approved CAM 

plan in accordance with the schedule 

specified in the source’s title V permit. 

(i) Notifications. 

(1) The owner/operator shall submit 

notification of commencement of 

construction of any equipment which is 

being constructed to comply with the 

NOX emission limits in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(2) The owner/operator shall submit 

semi-annual progress reports on 

construction of any such equipment. 

(3) The owner/operator shall submit 

notification of initial startup of any such 

equipment. 

(j) Equipment operation. At all times, 

the owner/operator shall maintain each 

unit, including associated air pollution 

control equipment, in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(k) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this 

section shall preclude the use, including 

the exclusive use, of any credible 

evidence or information, relevant to 

whether a source would have been in 

compliance with requirements of this 

section if the appropriate performance 

or compliance test procedures or 

method had been performed. 

3. Add section 52.2637 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2637 Federal implementation plan for 

reasonable attributable visibility impairment 

long-term strategy. 

As required by 40 CFR 41.306(c), EPA 

will ensure that the review of the State’s 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment long-term strategy is 

coordinated with the regional haze longterm strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

EPA’s review will be in accordance with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). 

[FR Doc. 2012–12923 Filed 6–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2