ALASKA CALIFORNIA FLORIDA MID

‐ PACIFIC NORTHEAST NORTHERN ROCKIES

NORTHWEST ROCKY MOUNTAIN WASHINGTON, D C INTERNATIONAL

ROCKY MOUNTAIN OFFICE 633 17th STREET, SUITE 1600 DENVER, C O 80202

T : 303.623.9466 F : 303.623.8083 RMOFFICE@EARTHJUSTICE.ORG WWW.EARTHJUSTICE.ORG October 31, 2014

Submitted via www.regulations.gov and electronic mail

Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2014-0647

Thomas Webb EPA Region 9 Air Division (AIR-2)

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

Re: Arizona Regional Haze – Apache BART Alternative

Dear Mr. Webb:

On behalf of National Parks Conservation A ssociation and Sierra Club (collectively, the “Conservation Organizations”); Earthjustice re spectfully submits the following comments regarding the Environmental Protection Agency ’s (EPA) proposed Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) alternative for the Apache Ge nerating Station. Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. 56,322 (Sept. 19, 2014).

The Conservation Organizations appreciat e EPA’s extensive work on the Arizona regional haze plan and its commitment to im proving visibility at the many renowned national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona and ne ighboring states. Unfo rtunately, the proposed BART alternative is not on pa r with EPA’s earlier BART de termination for Apache and will result in greater air pollution a nd worse visibility at some Class I areas. Because the Apache BART alternative does not make greater reasonab le progress than BART, Arizona’s iconic Class

I areas would not receive the full protections they are due under the regional haze program if EPA issues a final rule approving the proposal. Fo rtunately, if EPA makes some relatively minor modifications to improve the alternative in th e final rule, it appears that the Apache BART alternative might be better than BART. Accordingly, the Conser vation Organizations urge EPA to consider amending the proposal so that it fu lly complies with the regional haze program.

BACKGROUND

I. The Clean Air Act’s Regional Haze Program

Americans have long valued our nation’s diverse and stunning natural scenery. John Copeland Nagle, The Scenic Protections of the Clean Air Act , 87 N.D. L. Rev. 571, 576 (2011). In what has been lauded as “America’s best idea, ” Congress first set aside national parks in the 19th century to preserve and celebrate some of the nation’s most spectacular scenery. Id. With the nation’s rapid industrializat ion, however, these remarkable scenic views have becomeArizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 2 increasingly marred by air pollution. See id. at 573. Today, air pollution is “perhaps the greatest threat to national parks,” and po llution all too often degrades visibility in these iconic scenic

areas. Id.

To reduce this threat to national parks and other treas ured public lands, Congress amended the Clean Air Act in 1977. 42 U.S.C. § 7491. Congress determined that national parks, wilderness areas, and other “Class I” federal areas should enjoy th e highest level of air quality, and it set a national goal of eliminating all human-caused visibility impairment at these areas. Id. § 7491(a)(1). After concluding that EPA and the st ates had not made adequate progress toward reducing visibility impairment caused by numerous sources locat ed across a large geographic area (i.e., regional haze), Congre ss again amended the Clean Air Act in 1990 to spur regional

haze reductions. Id. § 7492. The Act delegates implementation of the regional haze program to

EPA. Id. §§ 7491, 7492.

EPA set a goal of achieving na tural visibility conditions at every Class I area by 2064, and the agency directed states to make increm ental, reasonable progres s toward that goal. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), (d)(1)(i i). States and EPA are to make reasonable progress toward the 2064 natural visibility goal by issuing regional haze plans that improve visibility at a pace

sufficient to eliminate human-caused visibili ty impairment at each Class I area by 2064. See id. This steady, incremental rate of visibility impr ovement to the 2064 goal is referred to as the 2064 “glide path” or the “uniform rate of progress.” See Arizona Phase 2 Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 75,704, 75,714 (Dec. 21, 2012) (“The [glide path or uniform rate of progress] is represented as a straight line drawn between a given Class I area’s 2004 baseline value and 2064 natural condition . . . .”).

One of the primary mechanisms to achieve the overarching reasonable progress mandate is the requirement that certain sources inst all Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) pollution controls. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e). A source is “BARTeligible” if it is w ithin one of 26 source cat egories, it was built between 1962 and 1977, and it has the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year of any air pollutant. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(b)(2)(A), (g)(7); 40 C.F.R. § 51.301. BART is defined as “an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best system of continuous emission reduction.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.301 (emphasis added). States and EPA must consider five factors when making BART determ inations: (1) the costs of comp liance, (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts, (3) existing pollution controls in use at the source, (4) the source’s remaining useful life, and (5) the reasonably anticipa ted visibility improvements. 42 U.S.C. § 7491(g)(2); 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). BART is an essential component of the regional haze program because Congress largely gr andfathered the antiquated sources subject to BART into many of the Clean Air Act’s requirements. See 2005 Regional Haze Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 39,104, 39,111 (July 6, 2005). Consequently, many of these older sources have insufficient pollution controls. BART compels these disproportio nately-polluting sources to install up-to-date and cost-effective pollution controls.

States and EPA may implement a BART alternat ive in lieu of BART if the alternative “achieve[s] greater reasonable progress than wo uld be achieved through the installation and operation of BART” controls.” 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e )(2). The regional haze regulations provide aArizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 3 two-part test to determine whether a BART alte rnative is better than BART. First, if the “distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART,” the alternative is

better than BART if it results in greater emissions reductions. Id. § 51.308(e)(3). Second, if the “distribution of emissions is significantly di fferent,” States or EP A must conduct dispersion modeling demonstrating that “(i) Vi sibility does not decline in any Class I area, and (ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between

BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.” Id. This modeling is based on the

difference between BART and the BART alte rnative on the worst and best 20% days. Id. If there are technical limitations precluding application of the two-part test or there is strong confidence

the alternative will lead to visibi lity benefits, a State or EPA may conclude that an alternative is

better than BART if the “clea r weight of evidence” shows the alternative achieves greater reasonable progress than BART. Id. § 51.308(e)(2)(i)(E); BART Alternative Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 60,612, 60,622 (Oct. 13, 2006); BART Alterna tive Proposed Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. 44,154, 44,158 (Aug. 1, 2005).

II. The Arizona Regional Haze Plan’s Benefits

Arizona is home to a wealth of iconic natio nal parks and wilderness areas, such as Grand Canyon, Saguaro, and Petrified Forest National Pa rks. Pollution from Arizona sources obscures the scenic views in at least thirty Class I ar eas in Arizona and nearby states. Arizona Phase 2 Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 75,713. Air polluti on from Apache Generating Station impairs visibility at nine of these Class I areas, in cluding Saguaro National Pa rk, Chiricahua National Monument, and seven wilderness areas. Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,328. These national parks and wilderness ar eas preserve the region’s most inspiring landscapes, rare geological formations, and diverse flora and fauna. Each of these Class I areas is entitled to the highest level of ai r quality under the Clean Air Act. See, e.g. , 42 U.S.C. §§ 7470(2), 7475(a)(5), (d)(2), 7491, 7492.

In addition to improving visibility, the re gional haze plan for Arizona will yield significant public health, economic, and other envi ronmental benefits if properly implemented. The same pollutants that mar scenic views at national parks an d wilderness areas also cause significant public health impact s. Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a precursor to ground level ozone, which is associated with respiratory diseases, asthma attacks, and decreased lung function. In addition, NOx reacts with ammonia, moisture, and other compounds to form particulates that can cause and worsen respiratory diseases, aggravat e heart disease, and lead to premature death. 1
Similarly, sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) increases asthma symptoms, lead s to increased hospital visits, and can form particulates that aggravate resp iratory and heart diseases and cause premature

death. 2 Particulate matter (PM) can penetrate deep into the lung s and cause a host of health problems, such as aggravated asthma and heart attacks. 3 The emissions reductions required by

1 EPA, Health – Nitrogen Dioxide, http://www.epa. gov/air/nitrogenoxides/health.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1).

2 EPA, Health – Sulfur Dioxide, http://www.epa.gov/ air/sulfurdioxide/health.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1).

3 EPA, Health – Particulate Matter, http://www. epa.gov/air/particlepollution/health.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2014) (Ex. 1).Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 4 the Arizona regional haze plan will reduce the serious public health toll imposed on Arizonans by the state’s power plants, copper sme lters, and other sources of pollution. 4

The regional haze plan for Arizona will also provide substantial economic benefits. EPA values the regional haze program’s health bene fits nationally at $8.4 to $9.8 billion annually. 5
Requiring sources to invest in m odern pollution controls is a job- creating mechanism in itself, as

each installation creates short- term construction jobs, as we ll as permanent operations and management positions. 6 As EPA has explained, installing BA RT controls “will require well-paid, skilled labor which can potentially be drawn fr om the local area and support local growth.” Montana Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 57,864, 57,909 (Sept. 18, 2012). Moreover, the regional haze program protects national parks and wilderness areas, which are of grea t natural and cultural value, in addition to serving as engines for sustainable local capital . A recent National Park Service study found that national parks attract ne arly 300 million visitors every year, and this tourism supports nearly $27 billion in private- sector spending and ge nerates $10 in economic activity for every federal dollar invested. 7

Arizona’s renowned national pa rks and wilderness areas are important components of the state’s economy. Two of the Class I areas most impacted by Apache are Saguaro National Park and Chiricahua National Monument. Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 56,328. In 2012, more than 675,000 people visited thes e two Class I areas, and this tourism supported more than 550 jobs and resulted in more than $39 million in visitor spending. 8 Studies show that national park visitors prioritize enjoying beautiful s cenery when visiting national parks and will visit parks less during hazy conditions. 9 The haze plan for Arizona and Apache will

4 Dr. George Thurston, Professor of Environmental Medicine at Ne w York University School of Medicine, prepared an expert report on the significan t public health benefits that would result from installing SCR at Navajo Generating Station (NGS) under the haze program. Dr. George D. Thurston, Written Report Regarding the Proposed Na vajo Generating Plant EPA Rulemaking (Dec. 12, 2013) (Ex. 2). As just one example of the haze program’s public health benefits, Dr. Thurston concluded that installing SCR at NGS would save between 2 to 5 li ves every year, with total public health-based

economic benefits of between $14 million and $34 million annually. Id. at 21.

5 EPA, Fact Sheet – Final Amendments to the RHR and BART Guidelines (Ex. 3), available at http://www.epa.gov/visibility/fs_2005_6_15.html.

6 Ceres, New Jobs – Cleaner Air: Employment Effects Under Planned Changes to the EPA’s Air

Pollution Rules 1–3 (2011) (Ex. 4), available athttp://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/new-jobs-cleanerair.

7 Catherine C. Thomas et al., Nat’l Park Serv., 2012 National Park Visitor Spending Effects , at page v (2014) (Ex. 5), available at http://www.nature.nps.gov/socialscience/economics.cfm; see also Daniel J. Stynes, Mich. State Univ., Economic Benefits to Local Communities from National Park Visitation and Payroll, 2010 , at page v (2011) (Ex. 6), available at http://nature.nps.gov/socialscience/docs/NPSSyst emEstimates2010.pdf; Jared Hardner & Bruce McKenney, Hardner & Gullison, The U.S. National Park System, An Economic Asset at Risk 5 (2006) (Ex. 7), available at http://www.npca.org/assets/pdf/NPCA_Economic_Significance_Report.pdf.

8 Thomas et al., 2012 National Park Visitor Spending Effects

, supra note 7, at 19, 25 (Ex. 5).

9 Abt Assocs. Inc., Out of Sight: The Science and Economics of Visibility Impairment , at ES-7 (2000) (Ex. 8), available at http://www.abtassociates.com/reports/ES-clear.pdf.Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 5 noticeably improve visibility at Arizona’s nati onal parks and wilderness areas, and thereby increase revenue to the parks and surrounding communities.

The regional haze plan for Arizona will also provide important environmental benefits. In addition to impairing visibility, NOx, SO 2 , and PM pollution harms plants and animals, soil health, and entire ecosystems. NOx and SO 2 are the primary causes of acid rain, which acidifies lakes and streams and can damage certain types of trees and soils. Acid rain also accelerates the decay of building materials and pa ints, including irreplaceable buildings and statues that are part of our nation’s cultural heritage. 10 In addition, nitrogen deposition, caused by wet and dry deposition of nitrates derived from NOx emissions, causes well-known adverse impacts on ecological systems. At times, nitrogen depositio n exceeds “critical loads” beyond the tolerance of various ecosystems. 11 NOx is also a precursor to oz one, and ground-level ozone impacts plants and ecosystems by interfering with plan ts’ ability to produce food and increasing their susceptibility to disease and insects. 12 Ozone also contributes to wildfires and bark beetle outbreaks in the West by depressing plant water levels and growth. 13

DISCUSSION

Apache Generating Station is a 560 megawatt faci lity located in Cochise, in southeast Arizona. Three of Apache’s seven electric generating units (EGUs) are subject to BART (Units 1, 2, and 3). Units 2 and 3 are coal-fired EGUs , and Unit 1 primarily burns pipeline-quality natural gas. Apache Units 1, 2, and 3 cause a 31.66 d eciview (dv) cumulative visibility impact at

9 Class I areas. 14 These substantial visibility impacts include a 7.59 dv impact at Chiricahua National Monument, a 5.22 dv impact at Saguaro National Park, and a 5.25 dv impact at Galiuro

Wilderness. 15 The Clean Air Task Force estimates that air pollution from Apache also causes 2 deaths, 4 heart attacks, a nd 43 asthma attacks annually. 16

On December 5, 2012, EPA issued a federal h aze plan for Arizona that requires Apache to install Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) po llution controls on Units 2 and 3. Arizona Phase 1 Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 72,512 (Dec. 5, 2012). EPA set a 0.07 lb/MMBtu 30-day rolling

10 EPA, Effects of Acid Rain, http://www.epa.gov/acidr ain/effects/index.html (last visited Oct. 30, 2014) (Ex. 9).

11 See, e.g. , William D. Bowman et al., Nitrogen critical loads for alpi ne vegetation and soils in Rocky Mountain National Park , 103 J. Envtl. Mgmt. 165, 165–70 (2012) (Ex. 10); Nat’l Park Serv., Nitrogen Deposition: Issues and Effects in Rocky Mountain National Park (2005) (Ex. 11), available at http://www.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/upload/ROMO_N_Fact_Final.pdf.

12 EPA, Ground-level Ozone – Ecosystem Effects, http://www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/ecosystem .html (last visited Oct. 30, 2014) (Ex. 9).

13 Nathanael Massey, As Colo. firefighters gain upper hand, scientist says pollution fueled forest vulnerability , ClimateWire, July 2, 2012 (Ex. 12).

14 ADEQ RH SIP at App. D, pages 49–50.

15 Id.

16 Clean Air Task Force, Death and Disease From Power Plants, http://www.catf.us/fossil/problems/power_plants/ (last visited Oct. 30, 2014) (Ex. 13).Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 6 average NOx emission limit averaged across both units. Id. at 72,515. Installing SCR at Apache would reduce the power plant’s NOx polluti on by approximately 5,000 tons per year. Id. at 72,537–38. This substantial pollution reduction would significantly im prove visibility at over nine Class I areas, including a 1.0 deciview (dv) or greater visi bility improvement at Saguaro National Park, Galiuro Wilderness, and Chir icahua National Monument and Wilderness. See Arizona Phase 1 Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 42,834, 42,858 (July 20, 2012). Installing SCR at Apache would also significantly reduce the power plant’s public health impacts on those who live, work, and recreate near the plant.

On May 29, 2013, Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO)—which owns and operates Apache—submitted a BART alternative proposal to EPA. Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,324. Under the pr oposal, rather than installing SCR, AEPCO would switch Unit 2 to gas and install Selec tive Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) pollution

controls on Unit 3. Id. at 56,324–25. SNCR controls are far less effective at reducing NOx pollution than SCR. Accordingly, the proposed NOx emission limit for the SNCR controls on Unit 3 is 0.23 lbs/MMBtu on a 30-day rolling average. Id. at 56,325.

On June 6, 2013, EPA granted AEPCO’s petiti on for reconsiderati on of EPA’s initial BART determination for Apache. Id. In the current rulemaking, EPA has proposed to approve the Apache BART alternative and withdraw its earlier federal pl an requiring Apache to install

SCR on Units 2 and 3.

I. The Proposed Apache BART Al ternative Is Not Better Than BART.

As discussed above, the regional haze regulatio ns provide a two-part test to determine

whether a BART alternative is better than BART. See supra at 2–3; 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2), (e)(3). The Apache BART alternative is not bett er than BART because it does not pass either prong of the two-part test. The Apache BART altern ative fails the first prong of the two-part test because it would result in greater pollution than BART, as established in EPA’s December 2012 BART determination for Apache. The alternative al so fails the second prong of the two-part test because EPA has not adequately shown that the Apache BART alternative will result in greater visibility improvements than BART. Moreover, EPA’s modeling shows that visibility at two

Class I areas would be worse under the alternativ e. Because the Apache BART alternative fails the two-part test, EPA ca nnot approve the alternativ e without modification.

A. The alternative would result in more annual tons of pollution than BART.

The first prong of the two-part test considers whether a BART alternative would result in greater emissions reductions than BART. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(3) (“If the distribution of emissions is not substantially di fferent than under BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achieve greater reasonable progress.”). It is undisp uted that the Apache BART altern ative would result in greater

overall emissions than EPA’s initial BART de termination. The record shows that while the

alternative will result in fewer SO 2 and PM emissions than BART, these pollution reductions are offset by the increase in NOx pollution. Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,327. Specifically, the Apache BART alternative would result in 1,183 tons per year (tpy)Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 7 more NOx pollution, 957 tpy less SO 2 pollution, and 141 tpy less PM pollution. Id. In sum, the Apache BART alternative would result in 85 tpy of increased overall pollution compared to EPA’s earlier BART determination. The Apache BA RT alternative thus fails to pass the first prong of the two-part test. As discussed below, the Conservati on Organizations do not believe that this test should apply because of the unequal impact of NOx, SO 2 , and PM emissions on visibility. However, if this test were applie d, the Conservation Organi zations would encourage EPA to close the relatively small emissions gap between the alternative and BART by improving

the alternative.

There appears to be considerable confusion over whether the “distr ibution of emissions” under the Apache BART alternative and BART are different, and thus whether the first prong of the two-part test applies. Arizona claimed that the first prong does not apply because “a significant change in the distri bution of emissions occurs when comparing AEPCO’s alternative

control measure to EPA determined BART.” 17 EPA implicitly accepted th is view, as it did not discuss the first prong of the two- part test and instead applied a “modified version” of the second prong when evaluating Arizona’s “weight-o f-evidence demonstration.” Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,328. However, when evaluating similar singlesource BART alternatives elsewhere, EPA has concl uded that the first prong of the two-part test does apply. Specifically, for Sundt Unit 4 in Tucs on and the Tesoro refinery in Washington, EPA

found that the “distribution of em issions” is the same as long as the geographic location of the emissions does not change significantly (i.e., when a BART alternative a nd BART apply to the same facility). See Arizona Phase 3 Proposed Rule , 79 Fed. Reg. 9318, 9334 (Feb. 18, 2014) (“Because the emissions reductions under EPA’ s BART proposal for Sundt Unit 4 and the reductions from TEP’s proposed alternative would o ccur at the same facility, the distribution of

emissions under BART and the alternative are no t substantially different. Therefore, if the alternative . . . results in greater emissions reductions than our BA RT proposal, [it is better than BART].”); Washington Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. 79,344, 79,354 (Dec. 30, 2013) (“Because in this case, the emission sources covered by BART and the BART Alte rnative are within the same facility and the distributi on of emissions is not substantially differe nt, applying the [first prong of the two-part test] would meet regulatory requirements.”).

The Conservation Organizations urge EPA to cl arify that the distribut ion of emissions is different under a single-source BART alternative—and thus the firs t prong of the two-part test does not apply—when the alternative results in greater emissions of any visibility-impairing pollutant. In other words, even if a BART alternative applies to the same facility as the underlying BART determination, th e distribution of emissions is not the same if NOx, SO 2 , PM, and other visibility-impairing pollutants will be emitted in different amounts or different proportions. As EPA has recogni zed, for each source and Class I area, some pollutants will impact visibility differently than other pollutant s. Thus, reductions in di fferent pollutants are not fungible, and a ton of NOx reductions is not necessarily equivalent to a ton of SO 2 reductions for visibility purposes. Notably, EP A has recognized this fact even when it mistakenly concluded that the first prong of the two-pa rt test applies. For example, when EPA analyzed the singlesource BART alternative for Sundt Unit 4, after c oncluding that the altern ative passed the first prong of the test EPA proceeded to analyze the al ternative’s visibility benefits. Arizona Phase 3

17 ADEQ Apache BART Alternative TSD at 2 (Doc. No. B-3) (hereinafter “ADEQ TSD”).Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 8 Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 9335. EPA explai ned: “Although visibility modeling is not required to support a better-than-BART determina tion [because the alternative would result in less pollution], EPA conducted modeling to veri fy the visibility benefits of the proposed alternative, as compared with EPA’s BART determination.” Id. Similarly, EPA acknowledged that visibility modeling is “appropriate” when a single-source BART alternative results in greater overall pollution reductions than BART in its analysis of the Tesoro refinery. Washington Proposed Rule, 78 Fed. Reg. at 79,354–55.

In sum, regardless of whether the first prong of the two-part test applies, the Apache

BART alternative is not better th an BART with regard to total emissions because the alternative would result in greater annual tons of polluti on than EPA’s initial BART determination. Had EPA used the same approach it used for similar single-source BART alternatives in Arizona and Washington and concluded that th e first prong applies, the Apach e BART alternative would not

be better than BART. And had EPA instead properly analyzed the alternative under the second prong of the two-part test, the a lternative is still not better than BART because EPA has not

shown that it would result in greater visibility benefits.

B. EPA has not adequately shown that the alternative would result in greater visibility benefits than BART.

The second prong of the two-part test consid ers whether a BART alternative would result in greater visibility benefits than BART. 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(3) (“If the distribution of emissions is significantly diffe rent, the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the worst and best 20 percent of days.”). A BART alternative results in greater visibility benefits than BART if: “(i) Visibility does not d ecline in any Class I area, and (ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determined by comparing the average differences between

BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.” Id. EPA’s modeling is flawed and the Apache BART alternative does not pass the second prong of the two-part test for several reasons.

First, the modeling does not accurately re flect emissions under the Apache BART alternative and BART. The modeling underlying th e Apache BART alternative and summarized in Table 5 of EPA’s proposal is based on AEPCO’ s initial BART alternative proposal from May

2013. 18 However, the emissions projections under both BART and the BART alternative have been significantly revised since that initial proposal. 19 Yet, neither Arizona nor EPA ever updated the modeling to reflect the changed emi ssions projections. As a result, the modeling EPA used to support its approval of the Apache BA RT alternative does not accurately reflect the

18 Compare Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,328, with AEPCO Supplemental Petition for Reconsideration at 6 (May 29, 2013) (Doc. No. C-2) (EPA Table 5 and May 2013 AEPCO petition contain same modeling results for Apache BART alternative and BART).

19 Compare AEPCO Supplemental Petition for Reconsid eration at 4–5 (AEPCO’s initial BART alternative proposal projected that BART would result in 2,535 tpy of SO 2 emissions and the alternative would result in 1,247 tpy of SO 2 emissions), with Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,326–27 & ADEQ TSD at 13 (final BART alternative proposal projected that BART would result in 2,013 tpy of SO 2 emissions and the alternative would result in 1,056 tpy of SO 2 emissions).Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 9 visibility benefits of the alternative compared to BART . EPA and the public thus do not know how the Apache BART alternative’s visi bility benefits compare to BART.

Second, the modeling reflects an emission rate for Unit 2 (0.225 lbs/MMBtu) that is lower than the permitted emission limit for the unit (0.23 lbs/MMBtu). 20 As a result, EPA’s modeling overestimates the Apache BART alternativ e’s visibility benefits relative to BART. When the Conservation Organizations raised this issue during the State permitting process, 21
AEPCO conducted supplemental modeling reflec ting the 0.23 lbs/MMBtu emission limit. The Conservation Organizations appreciate AEPCO’ s efforts to address this concern. However, EPA’s actions must be based on accurate modeling assumptions—which it is not—and EPA would have to verify the accuracy of AEPCO’s supplemental modeling before relying on it as a basis for approving the Apache BART alternative.

Third, EPA’s modeling shows that visibility at two Class I areas—the Gila and Mt. Baldy

Wilderness Areas—will be worse under the BA RT alternative compared to BART. Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Re g. at 56,328. EPA should update its modeling to

correct the flaws discussed above and confirm whether the BART alte rnative will in fact result in worse visibility improvements at these two Class I areas. If the updated modeling confirms the

alternative will result in worse visibility at the Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas, EPA could likely amend the BART alternative in the final ru le to provide greater em issions reductions and greater visibility benefits, as discussed below. These measures may improve the BART alternative’s performance enough to “close the gap” at the Gila and Mt. Baldy Wilderness Areas

and result in a BART alternativ e that improves visibility at every Class I area compared to

BART. When achievable measures exist to ensure that a BART alternative will result in better visibility at all Class I areas—r ather than at just some Class I areas—EPA should require these

measures to ensure that the alternativ e truly makes greater reasonable progress. See 40 C.F.R. § 51.308(e)(2). EPA’s failure to consider measures to improve visibility at every Class I area impacted by Apache is contrary to the in tent of the regional haze regulations.

Finally, EPA’s modeling is flawed because it only considered visibility impacts at Class I areas within 300 kilometers (km) of Apache. Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,328. CALPUFF models, however, have shown that sources can cause visibility impairment at Class I areas located 500 km or farther from the source. See, e.g. , South Dakota Proposed Rule, 76 Fed. Reg. 76,646, 76,654 (Dec. 8, 2011) (Big Stone I in South Dakota causes a 0.687 dv visibility impact at Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, which is located 555 km from Big Stone I). EPA’s recent assessment of CALPUFF shows that the model is more accurate at farther distances than previously assumed. 22 Consequently, it is appropriate to consider Apache’s visibility impacts at a radius of 500 km. This extended radius is necessary to capture Apache’s full contributi on to visibility impairment.

20 See ADEQ TSD at 11.

21 See Letter from Nathan Miller, Nat’l Parks Conserva tion Ass’n, to Trevor Baggiore, Ariz. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, at 4 (Mar. 21, 2014) (Ex. 14).

22 See EPA, Documentation of the Evaluation of CALPUFF and Other Long Range Transport Models Using Tracer Field Experiment Data (2012), available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/re ports/EPA-454_R-12-003.pdf.Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 1 0 Many of the flaws in EPA’s modeling and analys is reflect the flaws in Arizona’s Apache BART alternative analysis, where the State incorrect ly determined that the standard two-part test does not apply. See Apache BART Alternative Propos ed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,327–28. However, EPA has the final say on whether Arizona ’s regional haze analysis complies with the

law. See 42 U.S.C. § 7410(c)(1), (k)(3), ( l ). When EPA adopts elements of a state’s flawed analysis, EPA must remedy any defi ciencies in the analysis to ensure full compliance with the

Clean Air Act. See, e.g. , Arizona Phase 1 Proposed Rule , 77 Fed. Reg. at 42,852–65 (replacing Arizona’s flawed BART analyses for Apache, C holla, and Coronado with a federal haze plan). Because Arizona’s analysis for the Apache BART alternative was flawed, EPA is obligated to

correct those deficiencies. 23

II. EPA Should Improve The Apache B ART Alternative In The Final Rule.

As discussed above, the proposed Apache BART alternative is not better than BART because it would result in more pollution than BA RT and EPA has not adequately shown that it would improve visibility relative to BART. However, it appears th at the alternative is close to being better than BART and it possibly could be a permissible BART a lternative if it achieved relatively marginal additional emissions reduc tions. Based on EPA’s existing (but flawed) modeling, the alternative would improve visibility at all Class I areas if it achieved an additional 0.025 dv improvement at the Gila Wilderness and an additional 0.003 dv improvement at Mt. Baldy Wilderness (based on the 98 percentile impacts). See Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. Reg. at 56,328. As a result, relativel y minor adjustments would likely improve the Apache BART alternative’s performance so that it would be better than BART.

The Apache BART alternative could likely be improved to achieve additional emissions reductions in several ways. For example, EPA coul d consider revising the alternative to require

AEPCO to install SNCR at Unit 2 and switch Unit 3 to gas, rather than switching Unit 2 to gas and installing SNCR at Unit 3. Unit 2’s baseline NOx emissions are significantly higher than

Unit 3’s baseline NOx emissions. See Arizona Phase 1 Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 42,845 (Unit 2’s baseline emission rate is 0.47 lb/MMBtu and Unit 3’ s baseline emission rate is 0.43 lb/MMBtu). Consequently, instal ling SNCR at Unit 2, rather than Unit 3, would achieve greater NOx reductions at a given control efficiency. In its final Phase 1 rule, EPA recognized this fact

23 Arizona concluded that the Apache BART altern ative is better than BART based on a “weight-ofevidence demonstration.” Apache BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 56,328. However, the “clear weight of evidence” alternative to the two-pa rt test is generally appropriate only when a state cannot conduct the two-part test, or when the state has significant confidence th at the BART alternative will have greater visibility benefits than BART. See BART Alternative Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. at 60,622 (“clear weight of evidence” alternative may be warrant ed “when there is confidence that the difference in visibility impacts between BART and the alternative scenarios are expected to be large enough”); BART Alternative Proposed Rule, 70 Fed. Reg. at 44,158 (“clear weight of evidence” alternative may be appropriate when a state “is unable to perform a su fficiently robust assessment of the programs using the two pronged visibility test due to technical or data limitations”). Arizona’s weight of evidence approach was inappropriate here because the state had suffici ent data to conduct the two-part test. Moreover, Arizona should not have used the weight of evidence test because the State could not have had confidence that the alternative would result in superior visibilit y benefits, as the alternative results in greater overall pollution and worse visibility at some Class I areas.Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 1 1 when it found that SNCR with a 25% control e fficiency at Apache would result in a 0.19

lb/MMBtu emission rate for Unit 2 and a 0.23 lb/MMBtu emission rate for Unit 3. See Arizona Phase 1 Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. at 72,536. As EPA’s earlier analysis sh ows, installing SNCR at Unit 2 instead of Unit 3 would significantly im prove the performance of the Apache BART alternative. In addition, EPA could consider capa city limitations or other operational limits that would codify realistic operating scenarios. Th ese improvements to the Apache BART alternative may well result in the alternative achieving great er pollution reductions a nd greater visibility benefits than BART, while still allowing AE PCO to install SNCR on one unit and switch the other unit to gas. EPA would need to demonstrat e the visibility benefits resulting from these improvements, but it appears these options could remedy the Conservation Organizations’ concerns. As a result, the Conser vation Organizations strongly ur ge EPA to assess whether an Apache BART alternative that installs SNCR on Unit 2 and switches Unit 3 to gas would be better than BART, or if capacity limits would al so sufficiently improve the alternative. If so, AEPCO, its customers, the public, and the many iconic national parks and wilderness areas in Arizona and neighboring states would all bene fit. In order to a pprove the Apache BART alternative, EPA must provide a definitive demons tration that the alternative passes the two-part BART test. If an improved alternative still w ould not pass this test, EPA should disapprove the

alternative and reinstate its initial BART determination.

CONCLUSION

The Conservation Organizations support EPA’s e fforts to reduce the large levels of air pollution currently emitted by the Apache Generati ng Station. However, EPA must ensure that any finalized alternative meets the threshold requ irements of a BART alternative and is better than BART. The proposed BART alternative does not deliver the full visibility benefits at all impacted Class I areas in comparison to EPA’s earlier BART determination for Apache and will not result in greater reas onable progress. Fortunately, if EPA re vises the alternative in its final rule, the Apache BART alternative may in fact be better than BART. EPA should thus amend the proposal so that it fully complies with the regi onal haze program. If an improved Apache BART alternative would still not pass th e two-part better than BART test, EPA should disapprove the

alternative and reinstate its earlie r BART determination for Apache.

A strong haze plan for Arizona that complies with the regional haze program is critically important to improve visibility at the many nati onal parks and wilderness areas in Arizona and nearby states. Moreover, a strong regional haze plan will protect public health and benefit tourism and local economies by ensuring that pe ople from around the world will continue to travel to Arizona to explore and enjoy the region’s many treasured landscapes.

Sincerely,

Michael Hiatt Earthjustice 633 17th Street, Suite 1600Arizona Regional Haze

– Apache BART Alternative 1 2 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 996-9617 mhiatt@earthjustice.org

On behalf of National Parks Conser vation Association and Sierra Club

cc: Kevin Dahl, Stephanie Kodish, Nathan Miller – National Parks Conservation

Association Sandy Bahr, Nellis Kennedy-Howard, Gloria Smith – Sierra Club