### 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 657SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 734 1391 $5,156,325 SCR u.1&2 **Ctrl-2** SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1584SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1804 3388 $21,796,642

**Table 3a. NO x** **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 CaseSNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2 

### bandBandelier 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 chrwChiricahua 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 grcaGrand Canyon 0.64 0.62 0.58 0.00 0.02 0.05
mazaMazatzal 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.02 mobaMount Baldy 2.89 2.81 2.71 0.00 0.07 0.17 pefoPetrified Forest 2.14 2.09 2.00 0.00 0.04 0.14 pimoPine Mountain 0.62 0.59 0.56 0.00 0.06 0.06 saguSaguaro 0.56 0.54 0.52 0.00 0.01 0.03 sapeSan 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 supeSuperstition 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.00 0.01 0.04 sycaSycamore 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

**Ta ble 5(a). Control Opon Cost Effecveness (million $/dv)†**  Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 CIA SNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2 

### bandBandelier 85.9 174.4 chir Chiricahua NM 80.6 183.2 chrwChiricahua 1289.1 506.9 gali Galiuro 191.0 325.3 gila Gila 46.5 60.5 grcaGrand Canyon 343.8 403.6
mazaMazatzal 5156.3 1037.9 mobaMount Baldy 71.6 126.7 pefoPetrified Forest 119.9 157.9 pimoPine Mountain 87.4 369.4 ($/yr) / (sum of dv benefits over all areas) saguSaguaro 368.3 641.1 ($/yr) / (max dv benefit of any area) sapeSan Pedro Parks 62.9 108.4 sian Sierra Ancha 322.3 427.4 supeSuperstition 736.6 622.8 sycaSycamore Canyon 128.9 290.6 **$/dv_sum** 8.4 14.0 **$/dv_m ax**  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 98** **th**

### Percentile**-dv**

# CIAs with visibility improvement≥ 0.5 dv **Class I Area** CIA**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 657SNCR+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 1584SCR+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. NO x** **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 3**  **Unit 2 2001**  **98th Percentile****-dv 2002**  **2003 dv Change w.r.t. base**  **98th Percentile****-dv 98th Percentile** **-dv Change w.r.t. base (dv)**  **dv Change w.r.t. base dv Change w.r.t. base**  **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 657SNCR+LNB+CCOFA 734 1391 $5,156,325 SCR u.1&2 **Ctrl-2** SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1584SCR+LNB+CCOFA 1804 3388 $21,796,642

**Table 3a. NO x** **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 (98** **th**

### 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&2SCR u.1&2 Base CaseSNCR u.1&2 SCR u.1&2 

### bandBandelier 1.08 1.01 0.95 0.00 0.07 0.13 chirChiricahua NM 0.85 0.77 0.71 0.00 0.07 0.14 chrwChiricahua 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01 galiGaliuro 0.95 0.92 0.87 0.00 0.03 0.08 gilaGila 4.39 4.21 3.99 0.00 0.18 0.41 grcaGrand Canyon 0.79 0.73 0.72 0.00 0.07 0.07
mazaMazatzal 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.01 0.01
mobaMount Baldy 3.63 3.49 3.31 0.00 0.13 0.32 pefoPetrified Forest 2.46 2.40 2.37 0.00 0.06 0.09 pimoPine Mountain 0.67 0.65 0.61 0.00 0.02 0.06 saguSaguaro 0.57 0.56 0.53 0.00 0.01 0.04 sapeSan Pedro Parks 1.53 1.48 1.31 0.00 0.05 0.23 sianSierra Ancha 1.01 0.99 0.96 0.00 0.02 0.05 supeSuperstition 0.52 0.49 0.46 0.00 0.03 0.06 sycaSycamore 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

**Ta ble 5(d). Control Opon Cost Effecveness (million $/dv)†**  Ctrl-1 Ctrl-2 CIA SNCR u.1&2SCR u.1&2 

### bandBandelier 72 163 chirChiricahua NM 70 156 chrwChiricahua 1289 1982 galiGaliuro 147 263 gilaGila 28 53 grcaGrand Canyon 77 311
mazaMazatzal 737 2180
mobaMount Baldy 39 69 pefoPetrified Forest 92 256 pimoPine Mountain 215 382 saguSaguaro 344 574 sapeSan Pedro Parks 94 96 sianSierra Ancha 322 427 supeSuperstition 156 376 sycaSycamore 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 Change relative to Base (dv)**  **98 th** 

### Percentile**-dv**

†

## $/dv = $ per year from

Table 2 divided by visibility im provement from

Table 1(d) for each control option, in millions # CIAs with visibility im

provement≥ 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 (98** **th**

## 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


# dv Change w.r.t. base **2001 98th Percentile**  **98th Percentile****-dv**

# 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 **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**


# dv Change w.r.t. base **2002 2003**  **98th Percentile****-dv** **-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 chrwChiricahua 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 mazaMazatzal Mazatzal Wild. Mazatzal Wilderness AZ meveMesa Verde Mesa Verde NP Mesa Verde NP CO mobaMount Baldy Mount Baldy Wild. Mount Baldy Wilderness AZ pefo Petrified Forest Petrified Forest NP Petrified Forest NP AZ pimoPine 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 CanyonSycamore Canyon Wild.Sycamore Canyon Wilderness AZ zion Zion Zion NP Zion NP UT