TEP Springerville Station Units 1-2

Table 2. Control Options (per EPA Region 9) and Corresponding Emission Reductions Relative to Base Used in Visibility Modeling 

All Units All Units

Technology 

Used

-Emissions 

(TPY, annual)

Technology 

Used

-Emissions 

(TPY, annual)

-Emissions 

(TPY, annual) $/year

Base Case Base 0 0 0 $0

SNCR u.1&2 Ctrl-1 SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 657 SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 734 1391 $5,156,325

SCR u.1&2 Ctrl-2 SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1584 SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1804 3388 $21,796,642

Table 3a. NOx Control Technologies for TEP Springerville Units 1-2 (from Andover Technology Partners Report Table 5-8 revised per EPA recommendation 8/16/2012 on SNCR control efficiency)

SNCR SCR SNCR SCR

Capacity Factor 65% 65% 70% 70%

Control Efficiency 30% 72.4%* 30% 73.6%*

Uncontrolled Rate

NOx Rate (lb/hr) 769 769 798 798

NOx Rate (lb/MMBtu) 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19

NOx (TPY) 2189 2189 2448 2448

Controlled Rate

NOx Rate (lb/hr) 538.3 212 558.6 210

NOx Rate (lb/MMBtu) 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.05

NOx (TPY) 1532.3 605 1713.6 644

Tons/Year Removed 656.7 1584 734.4 1804

Total Cost, $/year $2,494,309 $10,820,423 $2,662,016 $10,976,219 

$/Ton $3,798 $6,829 $3,625 $6,085 

$/Ton (incremental) $8,975 $7,774 

* SCR is actually capable of 90% removal. The model that we used set a lower limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, but lower NOx levels should be achievable

Springerville Units 1-2

visibility method 6, annual average background

Using dv from max impact area (15 areas)

Controls

Control 

Option

ton/yr 

reduction

cost, $/yr 

(millions)

$/ton 

reduction

visibility 

impact, dv 

visibility 

benefit, dv

$/dv 

(millions)

# CIAs w/ 

improvement 

≥ 0.5 dv

Base Case Base 0 $0.0 3.56

SNCR u.1&2 Ctrl-1 1391 $5.2 $3,707 3.45 0.11 $46.5 0

SCR u.1&2 Ctrl-2 3388 $21.8 $6,433 3.20 0.36 $60.5 0

(same tons & costs as above) Using dv sum over all areas (15 areas)

Controls

Control 

Option

ton/yr 

reduction

cost, $/yr 

(millions)

$/ton 

reduction

visibility 

impact, dv 

visibility 

benefit, dv

$/dv 

(millions)

Base Case Base 0 $0.0 17.79

SNCR u.1&2 Ctrl-1 1391 $5.2 $3,707 17.20 0.62 $8.4

SCR u.1&2 Ctrl-2 3388 $21.8 $6,433 16.23 1.55 $14.0

Springerville 2 – NOx

Control 

Option

Unit 1 Unit 2

Springerville 1 – NOx

Controls
TEP Springerville Station Units 1-4

visibility method 6, annual average background

Table 1(a). Visibility Impairment (98th Percentile) for 2001-2003 Base Case Emissions and Control Options

Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2

Base Case SNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2 Base Case SNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2

band Bandelier 0.92 0.86 0.79 0.00 0.06 0.13

chir Chiricahua NM 0.76 0.70 0.65 0.00 0.06 0.12

chrw Chiricahua 0.84 0.84 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.04

gali Galiuro 0.89 0.86 0.82 0.00 0.03 0.07

gila Gila 3.56 3.45 3.20 0.00 0.11 0.36

grca Grand Canyon 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.00 0.02 0.05

maza Mazatzal 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.02

moba Mount Baldy 2.89 2.81 2.71 0.00 0.07 0.17

pefo Petrified Forest 2.14 2.09 2.00 0.00 0.04 0.14

pimo Pine Mountain 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.00 0.06 0.06

sagu Saguaro 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.00 0.01 0.03

sape San Pedro Parks 1.07 0.99 0.87 0.00 0.08 0.20

sian Sierra Ancha 0.94 0.93 0.89 0.00 0.02 0.05

supe Superstition 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.04

syca Sycamore Canyon 0.65 0.61 0.57 0.00 0.04 0.08

Total 17.79 17.20 16.23 0.00 0.62 1.55

Max 3.56 3.45 3.20 0.00 0.11 0.36

# CIAs w/ -dv ≥ 0.5 14 14 14 0 0 0

Table 5(a). Control Opon Cost Effecveness (million $/dv)†

Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2

CIA SNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2

band Bandelier 85.9 174.4

chir Chiricahua NM 80.6 183.2

chrw Chiricahua 1289.1 506.9

gali Galiuro 191.0 325.3

gila Gila 46.5 60.5

grca Grand Canyon 343.8 403.6

maza Mazatzal 5156.3 1037.9

moba Mount Baldy 71.6 126.7

pefo Petrified Forest 119.9 157.9

pimo Pine Mountain 87.4 369.4 ($/yr) / (sum of dv benefits over all areas)

sagu Saguaro 368.3 641.1 ($/yr) / (max dv benefit of any area)

sape San Pedro Parks 62.9 108.4

sian Sierra Ancha 322.3 427.4

supe Superstition 736.6 622.8

syca Sycamore Canyon 128.9 290.6

$/dv_sum 8.4 14.0

$/dv_max 46.5 60.5

 Change relative to base (dv)

†$/dv = $ per year from Table 2 divided by visibility improvement from Table 1(a) for each control option, in millions

Class I Area

98th Percentile -dv

# CIAs with visibility improvement ≥ 0.5 dv

CIA Class I Area
Table 1(a). Visibility Impairment (98th Percentile) at Each Class I Area (CIA) Within TEP Springerville Station's Zone of Influence (300 km) for 2001-2003 Base Case Emissions and Control Options (listed in Table 2)

Table 2. Control Options (per EPA Region 9) and Corresponding Emission Reductions Relative to Base Used in Visibility Modeling 

Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2

band 0.732 0.707 0.643 0.025 0.089 0.825 0.768 0.729 0.057 0.096 1.157 1.076 0.967 0.081 0.190 0.919 0.859 0.794 0.060 0.125

chir 0.651 0.630 0.608 0.021 0.043 0.742 0.675 0.620 0.067 0.122 0.945 0.898 0.834 0.047 0.111 0.764 0.700 0.645 0.064 0.119 Base LNB+CCOFA 0 0 0 $0

chrw 0.746 0.701 0.664 0.045 0.082 0.824 0.791 0.742 0.033 0.082 1.084 1.032 0.955 0.052 0.129 0.839 0.835 0.796 0.004 0.043 Ctrl-1 SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 657 SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 734 1391 $5,156,325

gali 0.948 0.946 0.851 0.002 0.097 0.715 0.711 0.706 0.004 0.009 0.889 0.862 0.822 0.027 0.067 0.889 0.862 0.822 0.027 0.067 Ctrl-2 SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1584 SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1804 3388 $21,796,642

gila 3.002 2.869 2.591 0.133 0.411 3.949 3.753 3.460 0.196 0.489 3.579 3.504 3.421 0.075 0.158 3.561 3.450 3.201 0.111 0.360

grca 0.747 0.728 0.700 0.019 0.047 0.511 0.511 0.505 0.000 0.006 0.473 0.453 0.438 0.020 0.035 0.636 0.621 0.582 0.015 0.054 Table 3a. NOx Control Technologies for TEP Springerville Units 1-2 (from Andover Technology Partners Report Table 5-8 revised per EPA recommendation 8/16/2012 on SNCR control efficiency)

maza 0.621 0.602 0.590 0.019 0.031 0.751 0.730 0.701 0.021 0.050 0.946 0.945 0.943 0.001 0.003 0.820 0.819 0.799 0.001 0.021

moba 3.187 3.035 2.796 0.152 0.391 2.438 2.352 2.226 0.086 0.212 3.026 2.963 2.871 0.063 0.155 2.885 2.813 2.713 0.072 0.172 SNCR SCR SNCR SCR

pefo 1.887 1.752 1.640 0.135 0.247 2.839 2.633 2.452 0.206 0.387 1.674 1.672 1.612 0.002 0.062 2.136 2.093 1.998 0.043 0.138 Capacity Factor 65% 65% 70% 70%

pimo 0.487 0.483 0.478 0.004 0.009 0.531 0.512 0.489 0.019 0.042 0.804 0.780 0.746 0.024 0.058 0.621 0.589 0.562 0.032 0.059 Control Efficiency 30% 72.4%* 30% 73.6%*

sagu 0.515 0.515 0.515 0.000 0.000 0.633 0.633 0.586 0.000 0.047 0.494 0.485 0.484 0.009 0.010 0.557 0.543 0.523 0.014 0.034 Uncontrolled Rate

sape 0.758 0.739 0.700 0.019 0.058 1.080 1.073 0.970 0.007 0.110 1.127 1.041 0.919 0.086 0.208 1.074 0.992 0.873 0.082 0.201 NOx Rate (lb/hr) 769 769 798 798

sian 0.820 0.819 0.802 0.001 0.018 0.952 0.928 0.893 0.024 0.059 1.002 1.002 1.002 0.000 0.000 0.944 0.928 0.893 0.016 0.051 NOx Rate (lb/MMBtu) 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19

supe 0.456 0.439 0.403 0.017 0.053 0.492 0.459 0.413 0.033 0.079 0.517 0.512 0.505 0.005 0.012 0.492 0.485 0.457 0.007 0.035 NOx (TPY) 2189 2189 2448 2448

syca 0.509 0.504 0.497 0.005 0.012 0.589 0.551 0.498 0.038 0.091 0.683 0.676 0.666 0.007 0.017 0.649 0.609 0.574 0.040 0.075 Controlled Rate

NOx Rate (lb/hr) 538.3 212 558.6 210

NOx Rate (lb/MMBtu) 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.05

NOx (TPY) 1532.3 605 1713.6 644

Tons/Year Removed 656.7 1584 734.4 1804

Total Cost, $/year $2,494,309 $10,820,423 $2,662,016 $10,976,219 

$/Ton $3,798 $6,829 $3,625 $6,085 

$/Ton (incremental) $8,975 $7,774 

* SCR is actually capable of 90% removal. The model that we used set a lower limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, but lower NOx levels should be achievable

Springerville 2 – NOx

Unit 2 Unit 3

2001

98th Percentile -dv 

2002 2003

98th Percentile -dv dv Change w.r.t. base 98th Percentile -dv dv Change w.r.t. base dv Change w.r.t. base Change w.r.t. base (dv) All Units

NOx -Emis 

(TPY) 

NOx -Emis 

(TPY)

NOx -Emis 

(TPY)

$/year

Springerville 1 – NOx

Control Option

Control Control

CIA

2001-2003

98th Percentile -dv 
TEP Springerville Station Units 1-2

Table 2. Control Options (per EPA Region 9) and Corresponding Emission Reductions Relative to Base Used in Visibility Modeling 

All Units All Units

Technology Used

-Emissions 

(TPY, annual)

Technology 

Used

-Emissions 

(TPY, annual)

-Emissions 

(TPY, annual) $/year

Base Case Base 0 0 0 $0

SNCR u.1&2 Ctrl-1 SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 657 SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 734 1391 $5,156,325

SCR u.1&2 Ctrl-2 SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1584 SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1804 3388 $21,796,642

Table 3a. NOx Control Technologies for TEP Springerville Units 1-2 (from Andover Technology Partners Report Table 5-8revised per EPA recommendation 8/16/2012 on SNCR control efficiency)

SNCR SCR SNCR SCR

Capacity Factor 65% 65% 70% 70%

Control Efficiency 30% 72.4%* 30% 73.6%*

Uncontrolled Rate

NOx Rate (lb/hr) 769 769 798 798

NOx Rate (lb/MMBtu) 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19

NOx (TPY) 2189 2189 2448 2448

Controlled Rate

NOx Rate (lb/hr) 538.3 212 558.6 210

NOx Rate (lb/MMBtu) 0.14 0.05 0.15 0.05

NOx (TPY) 1532.3 605 1713.6 644

Tons/Year Removed 656.7 1584 734.4 1804

Total Cost, $/year $2,494,309 $10,820,423 $2,662,016 $10,976,219 

$/Ton $3,798 $6,829 $3,625 $6,085 

$/Ton (incremental) $8,975 $7,774 

* SCR is actually capable of 90% removal. The model that we used set a lower limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu, but lower NOx levels should be achievable

Springerville Units 1-2

visibility method 8, 20% best background

Using dv from max impact area (15 CIAs)

Controls

Control 

Option

ton/yr reduction

cost, $/yr 

(millions)

$/ton 

reduction

visibility 

impact, dv 

visibility 

benefit, dv

$/dv 

(millions)

# CIAs w/ 

improvemen

t ≥ 0.5 dv

Base Case Base 0 $0.0 4.4

SNCR u.1&2 Ctrl-1 1391 $5.2 $3,707 4.2 0.18 $28.2 0

SCR u.1&2 Ctrl-2 3388 $21.8 $6,433 4.0 0.41 $53.4 0

(same tons & costs as above) Using dv sum over all areas (15 CIAs)

Controls

Control 

Option ton/yr reduction

cost, $/yr 

(millions)

$/ton 

reduction

visibility 

impact, dv 

visibility 

benefit, dv

$/dv 

(millions)

Base Case Base 0 $0.0 20.8

SNCR u.1&2 Ctrl-1 1391 $5.2 $3,707 20.0 0.79 $6.5

SCR u.1&2 Ctrl-2 3388 $21.8 $6,433 19.1 1.73 $12.6

Springerville 2 – NOx

Control 

Option

Unit 1 Unit 2

Springerville 1 – NOx

Controls
TEP Springerville Station Units 1-4

visibility method 8, 20% best background

Table 1(d). Visibility Impairment (98th Percentile) for 2001-2003 Base Case Emissions and Control Options

Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2

Base Case SNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2 Base Case SNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2

band Bandelier 1.08 1.01 0.95 0.00 0.07 0.13

chir Chiricahua NM 0.85 0.77 0.71 0.00 0.07 0.14

chrw Chiricahua 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01

gali Galiuro 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.00 0.03 0.08

gila Gila 4.39 4.21 3.99 0.00 0.18 0.41

grca Grand Canyon 0.79 0.73 0.72 0.00 0.07 0.07

maza Mazatzal 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.01 0.01

moba Mount Baldy 3.63 3.49 3.31 0.00 0.13 0.32

pefo Petrified Forest 2.46 2.40 2.37 0.00 0.06 0.09

pimo Pine Mountain 0.67 0.65 0.61 0.00 0.02 0.06

sagu Saguaro 0.57 0.56 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.04

sape San Pedro Parks 1.53 1.48 1.31 0.00 0.05 0.23

sian Sierra Ancha 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.00 0.02 0.05

supe Superstition 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.00 0.03 0.06

syca Sycamore Canyon 0.65 0.64 0.61 0.00 0.02 0.04

Total 20.83 20.05 19.10 0.00 0.79 1.73

Max 4.39 4.21 3.99 0.00 0.18 0.41

# CIAs with dv ≥ 0.5 15 14 14 0 0

Table 5(d). Control Opon Cost Effecveness (million $/dv)†

Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2

CIA SNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2

band Bandelier 72 163

chir Chiricahua NM 70 156

chrw Chiricahua 1289 1982

gali Galiuro 147 263

gila Gila 28 53

grca Grand Canyon 77 311

maza Mazatzal 737 2180

moba Mount Baldy 39 69

pefo Petrified Forest 92 256

pimo Pine Mountain 215 382

sagu Saguaro 344 574

sape San Pedro Parks 94 96

sian Sierra Ancha 322 427

supe Superstition 156 376

syca Sycamore Canyon 344 532

$/dv_sum 6.5 12.6 ($/yr) / (sum of dv benefits over all areas)

$/dv_max 28.2 53.4 ($/yr) / (max dv benefit of any area)

Class I Area

98 Change relative to Base (dv) th Percentile -dv

†$/dv = $ per year from Table 2 divided by visibility improvement from Table 1(d) for each control option, in millions

# CIAs with visibility improvement ≥ 0.5 dv

CIA Class I Area
CIA

Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Base Ctrl-1

band 0.906 0.833 0.793 0.073 0.113 1.010 0.938

chir 0.683 0.664 0.663 0.019 0.020 0.813 0.735

chrw 0.784 0.734 0.694 0.050 0.090 0.858 0.821

gali 1.001 0.999 0.923 0.002 0.078 0.748 0.744

gila 3.667 3.540 3.185 0.127 0.482 4.834 4.589

grca 0.942 0.917 0.881 0.025 0.061 0.611 0.583

maza 0.662 0.644 0.634 0.018 0.028 0.810 0.785

moba 4.006 3.809 3.500 0.197 0.506 3.021 2.955

pefo 2.305 2.134 1.918 0.171 0.387 3.465 3.206

pimo 0.503 0.503 0.499 0.000 0.004 0.586 0.566

sagu 0.503 0.503 0.500 0.000 0.003 0.630 0.630

sape 1.065 1.037 0.979 0.028 0.086 1.612 1.481

sian 0.841 0.841 0.841 0.000 0.000 1.007 0.980

supe 0.474 0.455 0.417 0.019 0.057 0.522 0.486

syca 0.577 0.554 0.521 0.023 0.056 0.659 0.635

Table 1(d). Visibility Impairment (98th Percentile) at Each Class I Area (CIA) Within TEP Springerville Station's Zon

 dv Change w.r.t. base 

2001

98th Percentile -dv 98th Percentile 
 dv Change w.r.t. base 

Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2

0.858 0.072 0.152 1.400 1.297 1.150 0.103 0.250

0.648 0.078 0.165 1.062 1.006 0.928 0.056 0.134

0.767 0.037 0.091 1.199 1.138 1.050 0.061 0.149

0.739 0.004 0.009 0.947 0.915 0.870 0.032 0.077

4.220 0.245 0.614 4.457 4.291 4.100 0.166 0.357

0.583 0.028 0.028 0.598 0.555 0.535 0.043 0.063

0.751 0.025 0.059 1.028 1.002 1.000 0.026 0.028

2.787 0.066 0.234 3.798 3.713 3.589 0.085 0.209

2.911 0.259 0.554 1.992 1.989 1.886 0.003 0.106

0.539 0.020 0.047 0.887 0.858 0.819 0.029 0.068

0.605 0.000 0.025 0.512 0.490 0.489 0.022 0.023

1.434 0.131 0.178 1.638 1.517 1.345 0.121 0.293

0.941 0.027 0.066 1.053 1.052 1.052 0.001 0.001

0.434 0.036 0.088 0.520 0.514 0.506 0.006 0.014

0.569 0.024 0.090 0.661 0.654 0.644 0.007 0.017

n TEP Springerville Station's Zone of Influence (300 km) for 2001-2003 Base Case Emissions and Control Options

 dv Change w.r.t. base 

2002 2003

-dv 98th Percentile -dv 
 dv Change w.r.t. base 

Base Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2

1.079 1.007 0.945 0.072 0.134

0.848 0.774 0.708 0.074 0.140

0.875 0.871 0.864 0.004 0.011

0.953 0.918 0.870 0.035 0.083

4.394 4.211 3.986 0.183 0.408

0.794 0.727 0.724 0.067 0.070

0.856 0.849 0.846 0.007 0.010

3.626 3.493 3.308 0.133 0.318

2.457 2.401 2.372 0.056 0.085

0.670 0.646 0.613 0.024 0.057

0.572 0.557 0.534 0.015 0.038

1.533 1.478 1.305 0.055 0.228

1.007 0.991 0.956 0.016 0.051

0.520 0.487 0.462 0.033 0.058

0.650 0.635 0.609 0.015 0.041

2001-2003

98th Percentile -dv 
lookup tables includes areas for: TEP Sundt, Catalyst Paper/Snowflake, Chemical Lime Nelson, AEPCO Apache, APS Cholla, SRP Coronado

TEP Springerville Control scenarios Class I areas

scenarios unit 1 unit 2 short abbr Class I area Class I area, medium Class I area, long state

Base LNB, CCOFA LNB, CCOFA Base Case band Bandelier Bandelier NM Bandelier NM NM

Ctrl-1 SNCR SNCR SNCR u.1&2 brca Bryce Canyon Bryce Canyon NP Bryce Canyon NP UT

Ctrl-2 SCR SCR SCR u.1&2 care Capitol Reef Capitol Reef NP Capitol Reef NP UT

chir Chiricahua NM Chiricahua NM Chiricahua NM AZ

chrw Chiricahua Chiricahua Wild. Chiricahua Wilderness AZ

gali Galiuro Galiuro Wild. Galiuro Wilderness AZ

gila Gila Gila Wild. Gila Wilderness NM

grca Grand Canyon Grand Canyon NP Grand Canyon NP AZ

jotr Joshua Tree Joshua Tree NP Joshua Tree NP CA

maza Mazatzal Mazatzal Wild. Mazatzal Wilderness AZ

meve Mesa Verde Mesa Verde NP Mesa Verde NP CO

moba Mount Baldy Mount Baldy Wild. Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ

pefo Petrified Forest Petrified Forest NP Petrified Forest NP AZ

pimo Pine Mountain Pine Mountain Wild. Pine Mountain Wilderness AZ

sagu Saguaro Saguaro NP Saguaro NP AZ

sape San Pedro Parks San Pedro Parks Wild. San Pedro Parks Wilderness NM

sian Sierra Ancha Sierra Ancha Wild. Sierra Ancha Wilderness AZ

supe Superstition Superstition Wild. Superstition Wilderness AZ

syca Sycamore Canyon Sycamore Canyon Wild. Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ

zion Zion Zion NP Zion NP UT