PLEASE NOTE: The EPA Regional Administrator, Jared Blumenfeld, signed the following proposed rule on March 13, 2015. EPA is submitting 

it for publication in the Federal Register (FR). While we have taken steps to ensure the accuracy of this internet version of the rule, it is not the 

official version of the rule for purposes of compliance. Please refer to the official version in a forthcoming FR publication, which will appear on 

the Government Printing Office's FDsys website (http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/home.action) and on Regulations.gov 

(http://www.regulations.gov) in Docket No. EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165. 

 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165, FRL-] 

Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze Federal 

Implementation Plan; Reconsideration 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to revise part of the Arizona 

Regional Haze (RH) Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) applicable to the Coronado Generating Station 

(Coronado). In response to a petition for reconsideration from the Salt River Project Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District (SRP), the owner/operator of Coronado, we are proposing to replace a 

plant-wide compliance method with a unit-specific compliance method for determining compliance with 

the best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limits for nitrogen oxides (NOX) from Units 1 

and 2 at Coronado. While the plant-wide limit for the NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 were 

established as 0.065 lb/MMBtu, we are proposing a unit-specific limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 

and 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2. In addition, we are proposing to revise the work practice standard in the 

FIP for Coronado. Finally, we are proposing to remove the affirmative defense for malfunctions from 

the Arizona RH FIP, which applies to both Coronado and the Cholla Power Plant (Cholla). 

DATES: Written comments must be submitted to the designated contact on or before [INSERT DATE 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 2 of 31

45 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Requests for a public hearing 

must be received on or before [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER]. 

ADDRESSES: See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on where 

and how to learn more about this proposal, attend a public hearing, or submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Webb, U.S. EPA, Region 9, Planning 

Office, Air Division, Air-2, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Thomas Webb can be 

reached at telephone number (415) 947-4139 and via electronic mail at webb.thomas@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background 

III. FIP Revision 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

 A. Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows: 

· The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

· The initials ADEQ mean or refer to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 

· The words Arizona and State mean the State of Arizona. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 3 of 31

· The initials BART mean or refer to Best Available Retrofit Technology. 

· The term Class I area refers to a mandatory Class I Federal area.1

· The initials CBI mean or refer to Confidential Business Information. 

· The initials EGU mean or refer to Electric Generating Unit. 

· The words EPA, we, us, or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

· The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan. 

· The initials LNB mean or refer to low-NOX burners. 

· The initials MMBtu mean or refer to million British thermal units. 

· The initials MW mean or refer to megawatts. 

· The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides. 

· The initials NP mean or refer to National Park. 

· The initials OFA mean or refer to over fire air. 

· The initials RMB mean or refer to RMB Consulting and Research. 

· The initials S&L mean or refer to Sargent and Lundy, a consulting firm. 

· The initials SCR mean or refer to Selective Catalytic Reduction. 

· The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan. 

· The initials SRP mean or refer to the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power 

District. 

· The initials UPL mean or refer to Upper Prediction Limit. 

 B. Docket 

 

1 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.” 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 4 of 31

The proposed action relies on documents, information, and data that are listed in the index on 

http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165. Although listed in the 

index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)). 

Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is publicly available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are accessible either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy at the Planning Office of the Air Division, AIR-2, EPA Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105. EPA requests that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 

INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket from Monday through Friday, 

9-5:00 PDT, excluding Federal holidays. 

 C. Instructions for Submitting Comments to EPA 

Written comments must be submitted on or before [INSERT DATE 45 DAYS AFTER 

PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. Submit your comments, identified by docket 

number EPA-R09-OAR-2015-0165, by one of the following methods: 

· Federal Rulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 

submitting comments. 

· Email: webb.thomas@epa.gov . 

· Fax: 415-947-3579 (Attention: Thomas Webb). 

· Mail, Hand Delivery, or Courier: Thomas Webb, EPA Region 9, Air Division (AIR-2), 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105. Hand and courier deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

EPA's policy is to include all comments received in the public docket without change. We may 

make comments available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 5 of 31

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information for which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or that is 

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, we will include your email address 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 not include special characters or any form of encryption, and be 

free of any defects or viruses. 

 D. Submitting Confidential Business Information 

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 as 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 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 includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comment that does 

not contain the information claimed as CBI for inclusion in the public docket. We will not disclose 

information so marked except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. 

 E. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

When submitting comments, remember to: 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 6 of 31

· Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (e.g., subject 

heading, Federal Register date and page number). 

· Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your 

requested changes. 

· Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used. 

· If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient 

detail to allow for it to be reproduced. 

· Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. 

· Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. 

· Make sure to submit your comments by the identified comment period deadline. 

 F. Public Hearings 

If anyone contacts EPA by [INSERT DATE 15 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION IN THE 

FEDERAL REGISTER] requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will schedule a public hearing 

and announce the hearing in the Federal Register. Contact Thomas Webb at webb.thomas@epa.gov or 

at (415) 947-4139 to request a hearing or to determine if a hearing will be held. 

II. Background 

 A. Summary of Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

Congress created a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and wilderness 

areas in 1977 by adding section 169A to the CAA. 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 which impairment results from man-made air pollution.”2It also directs 

 

2 42 U.S.C. 7491(a)(1). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 7 of 31

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 State Implementation Plans (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 built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, 

and operate best available retrofit technology (BART) controls. These sources are referred to as “BARTeligible” sources.3

In the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress amended the visibility provisions in the 

CAA to focus attention on the problem of regional haze, which is visibility impairment produced by a 

multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic area.4 We promulgated the 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) in 1999, which requires states to develop and implement SIPs to ensure 

reasonable progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas5by reducing 

emissions that cause or contribute to regional haze.6 Under the RHR, states are directed to conduct 

BART determinations for BART-eligible sources that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area.7

 B. History of FIP BART Determination 

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) submitted a RH SIP (“Arizona RH 

SIP”) under Section 308 of the RHR to EPA Region 9 on February 28, 2011. The Arizona RH SIP 

included BART determinations for NOX, particulate matter (PM), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) for Units 1 

and 2 at the Coronado Generating Station. We proposed on July 20, 2012, to approve ADEQ’s BART 

 

3 40 CFR 51.301. 

4 See CAA section 169B, 42 U.S.C. 7492. 

5 Areas 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. 

7472(a). When we use the term “Class I area” in this action, we mean a “mandatory Class I Federal area.” 

6 See generally 40 CFR 51.308. 

7 40 CFR 51.308(e). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 8 of 31

determinations for PM and SO2, but to disapprove its determination for NOX at Coronado.8In the same 

notice, we also proposed a FIP that included a NOX BART emission limit of 0.050 lb/MMbtu for Unit 1 

and 0.080 lb/MMbtu for Unit 2 based on a 30-boiler-operating-day (BOD) rolling average. These limits 

correspond to the use of Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) control technology to reduce NOX

emissions. We noted that a consent decree between SRP and EPA required the installation of SCR and 

compliance with a NOX emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu (30-BOD rolling average) at Coronado Unit 

2 by June 1, 2014. We explained that: 

. . . the emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu established in the consent decree was not the 

result of a BART five-factor analysis, nor does the consent decree indicate that SCR at 

0.080 lb/MMBtu represents BART. Nonetheless, given the compliance schedule 

established in the consent decree and the preliminary information received from SRP 

regarding the status of design and construction of the SCR system, it appears that achieving 

a 0.050 lb/MMBtu emission rate may not be technically feasible. Even if it is feasible, 

achievement of this emission rate may not be cost-effective. Therefore, we are proposing 

an emission limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu as BART for NOX at Unit 2. However, if we do not 

receive sufficient documentation establishing that achievement of a more stringent limit is 

infeasible or not cost-effective, then we may determine that a more stringent limit for this 

unit is required in our final action.9

In its comments on our proposal, SRP asserted that a NOX emission rate of 0.050 lb/MMBtu was 

not achievable at either of the Coronado units, due to their startup/shutdown operating profile. In support 

of this assertion, SRP submitted reports by two consultants, Sargent and Lundy (S&L) and RMB 

Consulting and Research (RMB), which indicated that the Coronado units could achieve a rolling 30-

day emission rate in the range of 0.053 to 0.072 lb/MMBtu.10 Specifically, the S&L report examined the 

effect of multiple startup/shutdown events on emission rates over a 30-day period for Unit 2. The S&L 

report also examined potential measures to improve the performance of the current SCR design for Unit 

2, including installation of a “low load temperature control system.” We explained the purpose of this 

control system in the preamble to our final rule: 

 

8 77 FR 42834. 

9 77 FR 42864. 

10 77 FR 72555. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 9 of 31

As described in the S&L report, periods of low load operation generally consist of 

operation between loads of 138 MW to 270 MW (operation above 270 MW can be 

considered “high” load). Broadly speaking, the temperature in the SCR system will fall 

below 599 degrees F during these periods of low load operation, which is the minimum 

temperature required for effective NOX control. A low load temperature control system 

increases the temperature at the SCR inlet in order to maintain 599 degrees F, allowing 

operation of the SCR system during periods of low load. Without this control system, the 

Coronado Unit 2 SCR system will not operate during periods of low load.11

The low-load temperature-control system is referred to as both “pegging steam” and “steam reheat” in 

the various documents submitted by SRP. During periods of low load (138 MW to 270 MW), a certain 

amount of steam is routed to the SCR inlet in order to raise the inlet temperature to above 599 degrees F, 

which allows for proper operation of the SCR. At loads below 138 MW, the SCR could not operate even 

with the low-load temperature-control system. 

In setting the NOX emission limits for Coronado in the final Arizona RH FIP, we considered the 

information and analyses contained in the S&L report and the RMB report.12 We concluded that: 

In recognition of the work already performed by SRP to meet the consent decree emission 

limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, and to avoid interfering with SRP's ability to meet that 

requirement by the deadline of June 1, 2014, we have decided not to require a BART 

emission limit for Coronado 2 more stringent than 0.080 lb/MMBtu. Instead, we are 

finalizing a plant-wide NOX emission limit for Coronado of 0.065 lb/MMBtu on a rolling 

30-day average, which will provide a sufficient compliance margin for startup and 

shutdown events. We are also structuring the compliance determination method so that, 

when one of the two units is not operating, its emissions from the preceding thirty boileroperating-days will continue to be included in the two-unit average. We expect that SRP 

can meet this limit by installing a low load temperature control system on Unit 2 and an 

SCR system including a low load temperature control system on Unit 1.13

Please see our final rule published on December 5, 2012, for further information on the BART 

determinations and compliance methodology. 

 C. Petition for Reconsideration and Stay 

We received a petition from SRP on February 4, 2013, requesting partial reconsideration and 

 

11 Id. 

12 Id. at 72554-56. 

13 Id. at 72555. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 10 of 31

administrative stay of our final rule under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and section 

705 of the Administrative Procedure Act.14 EPA Region 9 sent a letter on April 9, 2013, to 

representatives of SRP informing the company that we were granting partial reconsideration of the final 

rule for the Arizona RH FIP.15 In particular, we stated that we were granting reconsideration of the 

compliance methodology for NOX emissions from Units 1 and 2 at Coronado and that we would issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking seeking comment on an alternative compliance methodology. We also 

noted that, because we initially proposed different NOX emission limits for the two units, we would seek 

comment on the appropriate emission limit for each of the units. Today’s notice of proposed rulemaking 

includes each of these elements, and constitutes EPA’s proposed action for the reconsideration. 

III. Proposed FIP Revision 

EPA is proposing a unit-specific compliance method and separate emission limits for NOX on 

Units 1 and 2 at the Coronado Generating Station. We also are proposing to revise the work practice 

requirement that applies to Coronado and to remove the affirmative defense for malfunctions that is 

currently included in the FIP for Coronado and Cholla. 

 A. Proposed Compliance Method for Unit-Specific Emission Limits 

In a letter sent to EPA on November 18, 2013, SRP outlined its views concerning the compliance 

method and emission limit at Coronado.16 Regarding the compliance method, SRP requested that EPA 

use the same approach specified in the Consent Decree, noting that this would ensure “consistency 

across applicable requirements.”17 EPA notes that the Consent Decree contains two different types of 

 

14 Petition of Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District for Partial Reconsideration and Stay of EPA’s 

Final Rule: “Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Arizona; Regional Haze State and 

Federal Implementation Plans” (February 4, 2013). 

15 Letters from Jared Blumenfeld, EPA, to Norman W. Fichthorn and Aaron Flynn, Hunton and Williams (April 9, 2013). 

16 Letter from Kelly Barr, SRP, to Deborah Jordan, EPA (November 18, 2013). 

17 Id. at 4. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 11 of 31

NOX emission limits: unit-specific 30-day rolling lb/MMBtu limits and a 365-day plant-wide rolling 

NOX tonnage limit.18 For purposes of BART, we consider a 30-BOD rolling lb/MMBtu limit to be 

appropriate.19 Therefore, we propose to set a separate 30-BOD rolling lb/MMBtu limit for each of the 

two Coronado Units, based on the following compliance method: 

The 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate for each unit shall be calculated in 

accordance with the following procedure: First, sum the total pounds of NOX emitted from 

the unit during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boileroperating days; second, sum the total heat input to the unit in MMBtu during the current 

boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days; and third, 

divide the total number of pounds of NOX emitted during the thirty (30) boiler-operating 

days by the total heat input during the thirty (30) boiler-operating days. A new 30-day 

rolling average NOX emission rate shall be calculated for each new boiler operating day. 

Each 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate shall include all emissions that occur 

during all periods within any boiler operating day, including emissions from startup, 

shutdown, and malfunction. 

This method is identical to that employed for the unit-specific 30-day rolling lb/MMBtu limit in the 

Consent Decree, except that it uses the term “boiler operating day” instead of “Unit Operating Day.” 

This method would replace the plant-wide method promulgated in the final rule at 40 CFR 

52.145(f)(5)(B)(ii). All other compliance-related requirements, including the monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements, would remain as promulgated. 

 B. Proposed Emission Limits for Coronado Units 1 and 2

Because we are proposing to replace the plant-wide average emission rate limit for NOX with

unit-specific limits, we also must propose separate emission limits for each of the two units at Coronado. 

However, we are not reconsidering our determination that BART for Coronado Units 1 and 2 is an 

emission limit consistent with the use of SCR, low-NOX burners (LNB) with over fire air (OFA), and 

 

18 Consent Decree in United States v. Salt River Project, CV 08-1479-PHX-JAT (D. Az.) (entered Dec. 19, 2008)(“Coronado 

Consent Decree”). 

19 BART Guidelines, 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section V (“For EGUs, specify an averaging time of a 30-day rolling 

average, and contain a definition of “boiler operating day” that is consistent with the definition in the proposed revisions to the 

NSPS for utility boilers in 40 CFR Part 60, subpart Da.”). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 12 of 31

low-load temperature control. Nor are we conducting a new five-factor analysis for these units. Rather, 

we are reconsidering only the emission limits achievable with SCR and LNB with OFA at Coronado 

Units 1 and 2. Due to the different regulatory requirements that currently apply to these units, we have 

analyzed them separately. 

1. Proposed Emission Limit for Coronado Unit 1 

a. SRP’s Analysis of Unit 1 

After EPA granted reconsideration, SRP submitted additional information to EPA, including two 

reports prepared by S&L and RMB concerning the achievability of various NOX emission limits at 

Coronado Unit 1.20 The 2013 S&L analysis presented modeling results intended to predict NOX

emissions from Unit 1 under various operating scenarios.21 The 2013 RMB report further analyzed the 

achievable NOX emission limit at Coronado Unit 1, “based on the results of S&L’s modeling and 

application of an appropriate compliance margin.”22 In particular, RMB applied an “upper prediction 

limit” (UPL) technique in order to account for “the impact of measurement uncertainty and other 

process variation.”23

The 2013 S&L report consisted of an emission analysis of the SCR for Unit 1. Similar to the 

2012 S&L report, which concerned Unit 2, the 2013 analysis examined the effect of startup/shutdown 

events, low-load cycling, and steam reheat on emissions over a 30-day average. In summary, the 2013 

S&L analysis examined load profile data for Unit 1 for the period from January 1, 2011, through July 

31, 2013, and estimated NOX emission rates with the hypothetical use of SCR for the various load 

profiles that occurred during this period. S&L’s estimates of SCR performance and emission rate under 

 

20 Letter from Kelly J. Barr, SRP, to Deborah Jordan, EPA (November 18, 2013) and attachments. 

21 Attachment 1 to November 18, 2013, Letter, Sargent and Lundy LLC Report SL-011754, Salt River Project Coronado 

Generating Station Unit 1 SCR NOX emissions Modeling (November 14, 2013). 

22 Attachment 2 to November 18, 2013 Letter, Technical Memorandum from RMB Consulting & Research, Inc. to Salt River 

Project NOX limits Compliance monitoring Consideration on Coronado Unit 1 (October 28, 2013) at 1. 

23 Id. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 13 of 31

various load profiles are summarized in Table 1. For greater detail, consult the 2013 S&L report, which 

is included in the docket for this proposed rule. 

TABLE 1—UNIT 1 LOAD PROFILE OF NOX EMISSIONS

Load Profile Unit 1 Emission 

Rate (lb/MMBtu) 

Description 

SCR Design Target Emission 

Rate 

0.030 Full load performance guarantee per 

vendor 

SCR emission rate at full 

load steady state conditions 

0.040 Actual controlled NOX emissions are 

expected to average 0.01 above the 

design target rate 

SCR emission rate when load 

increasing by more than 10 

MW/hour 

0.050 Emission expected to change as control 

systems adjust to changes in boiler load, 

gas flow rates, and NOX loading 

SCR emission rate when load 

decreasing by more than 10 

MW/hour 

0.035 Emission expected to change as control 

systems adjust to changes in boiler load, 

gas flow rates, and NOX loading 

Emission rate during cold 

start, oil-firing24

0.10 Low NOX burners (LNB) only, no SCR 

during startup. Unit 1 initially uses fuel 

oil for startup, and transitions to coal to 

complete startup 

Emission rate during cold 

start, coal-firing 

0.25 LNB only, no SCR during startup 

Emission rate during warm 

start, oil-firing25

0.19 LNB only, no SCR during startup. Unit 1 

initially uses fuel oil for startup, and 

transitions to coal to complete startup 

Emission rate during warm 

start, coal-firing 

0.28 LNB only, no SCR during startup 

Emission rate during low 

load periods 

0.29 For low-load periods with no steam 

reheat (LNB-only, no SCR control) 

SCR emission rate during 

initial shutdown 

0.10 Emission rate during shutdown with SCR 

inlet > 599 degrees F, allowing for SCR 

operation 

Emission rate after SCR 

shutdown 

0.45 LNB only. Corresponds to shutdown 

period after SCR inlet < 599 degrees F. 

 

24 The term “cold startup” is not specifically defined by SRP or S&L in its analysis. Typically, a “cold startup” refers to a 

startup event that occurs after the boiler has been offline for approximately 24 to 48 hours or longer. Compared to hot or warm 

startups, a cold startup event produces greater emissions because it is longer in duration and consumes more fuel. 

25 The term “hot” or “warm” startup is not defined by SRP or S&L in its analysis. However, a “hot” or “warm” typically refers 

to a startup event that occurs when the boiler has been offline for less than 24 hours. Because certain elements of the boiler 

may still be hot or warm following shutdown, less time is required to reach normal operating temperatures and conditions. As 

a result, hot and warm startup events produce fewer emissions than cold startup events because they are shorter in duration and 

consume less fuel. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 14 of 31

Based on the emission rates summarized in Table 1 above, the S&L analysis examined the 30-

day emission rate for Unit 1 assuming several combinations of startup events and loading profiles. The 

highest controlled 30-day average emission rate for several selected scenarios is presented in Table 2. 

The full analysis, including selected spreadsheets that contain the emission rate modeling for certain 

operating scenarios, is available in the docket for this proposed rule.26

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF UNIT 1 EMISSION MODELING RESULTS (PER S&L ANALYSIS) 

Scenario Description Controlled NOX

Emission Rates based on 

30-day average 

(lb/MMBtu) 

0 Full Load high-cycle loading 0.041 

1b Low-load cycling for 30 days (with 

steam reheat) 

0.048 

5a One cold startup with low-load cycling 

(with steam reheat) 

0.055 

5b Two cold startups with low-load cycling 

(with steam reheat) 

0.061 

5c Three cold startups with low-load 

cycling (with steam reheat) 

0.065 

The supplemental information submitted by SRP on November 13, 2013, also included a report 

from RMB. In this report, RMB stated that it used equations for calculating the UPL, which is a 

statistical technique that examines an existing set of data points and predicts the chances (i.e., the 

probability) of future data points (in this case, emission rates). In general terms, the UPL is a value that 

is calculated from a data set that identifies the emission rate that a source or group of sources is meeting 

and would be expected to meet a specified percent of the time that the source is operating. For example, 

 

26

“SRP Coronado Generating Station, Unit 1 SCR NOx Emissions Modeling”, Prepared by Sargent and Lundy, Report SL011754, November 14, 2013. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 15 of 31

the 99 percent UPL value is the emission level that the source(s) would be predicted to be below during 

99 out of 100 performance tests. The UPL value is calculated using an equation based on the average 

and variance of a data set (in this instance, the aforementioned emission rates), the distribution of the 

data, quantity of data points, confidence level, and common statistical values such as t-scores and zscores. The underlying regulatory concept behind the use of UPL values is that a source should have 

only a very small risk of being determined to be in noncompliance when the emission control system is 

actually performing as expected under each type of normal operation that takes place. UPL values are 

used in a wide variety of industries for predictive purposes, including finance, manufacturing, and 

healthcare. 

RMB stated that it applied the equations for calculating UPL values to CEMS data for Unit 1, as 

well as to the CEMS data from three SCR-equipped coal-fired boilers that it considered comparable to 

Unit 1.27 To summarize, RMB calculated the 99th percentile emission rate for each of the four units, and 

compared the 99th percentile emission rate to the average emission rate of each respective unit. RMB 

indicated that for Unit 1, the 99th percentile emission rate was three to seven percent greater than 

average emission rates. For the three SCR-equipped units examined, RMB reports that the 99th 

percentile emission rate was approximately 15 percent higher than average emission rates. RMB then 

adjusted the average 30-day emission rates from the S&L emission modeling analysis for each operating 

scenario upwards by 15 percent in order to account for the variability indicated by the UPL values. The 

results of RMB’s analysis are summarized in Table 3. 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF UNIT 1 EMISSION MODELING RESULTS (PER RMB REPORT) 

Scenario Description Controlled NOX Emission Rate 

(30-day average in lb/MMBtu) 

 

27 The CEMS data examined for Unit 1 corresponded to operation with low NOX burners, as Unit 1 does not presently operate 

with SCR. For the three other units, CEMS data corresponding to SCR operation was examined. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 16 of 31

1b Low-load cycling for 30 days 

(with steam reheat) 

0.055 

5a One cold startup with low-load 

cycling (with steam reheat) 

0.062 

5b Two cold startups with low-load 

cycling (with steam reheat) 

0.069 

5c Three cold startups with lowload cycling (with steam reheat) 0.073 

 

RMB then indicated that if the emission limit were considered a “never to be exceeded value,” 

an additional compliance margin should be incorporated given that the 99th percentile value does not 

account for the entire potential range of operating conditions that may occur. RMB indicated that 

rounding upwards to the next highest reasonable interval, 0.080 lb/MMBtu, would provide an 

approximate 10 percent compliance margin, and proposed that this value represents the lowest 

achievable NOX emission limit for Unit 1. The full RMB analysis is included in the docket for this 

proposed rule. 

SRP provided additional information to EPA on April 28, 2014, that included documentation on 

SCR design parameters for Unit 2, the number of historical startup events occurring within single 30-day 

periods for Units 1 and 2, and expected future operation of Units 1 and 2.28

b. EPA’s Evaluation of Unit 1 

In proposing a unit-specific limit for Unit 1, we have reviewed each of the analyses provided by 

SRP including the emission spreadsheets developed by S&L for several load profile scenarios. In 

addition, we have compared SRP’s emission estimates for certain load profiles with actual Unit 1 

emission data as reported to the Air Markets Program Data (AMPD).29 We consider the emission rates 

used by S&L for the various load profiles to be reasonable and generally consistent with emission data 

 

28 Letter from Kelly J. Barr, SRP, to Deborah Jordan, EPA (April 28, 2014) and attachments. 

29 As noted in SRP’s April 28, 2014 information response, we requested detailed emission spreadsheets for several scenarios, 

including high-load cycling, low-load cycling, and low-load cycling including multiple startups. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 17 of 31

reported to AMPD. We also consider the scenarios examined by S&L to be realistic depictions of load 

profile scenarios that were historically experienced by the Coronado units. AMPD and Energy 

Information Administration (EIA) records indicate periods of both high-load and low-load cycling, as 

well as 30-day periods with multiple shutdown periods.30 The greatest number of cold startups occuring 

in a single 30-day period examined by the the S&L load profile scenarios was three. Although we have 

not identified an actual historical 30-day period exhibiting three cold startups, we consider this a 

reasonable assumption given both the number of startup events that have historically occurred,31 as well 

as SRP’s expectation that the Coronado units will experience greater periods of operation in loadfollowing service or non-operation given the expanded role of renewable energy sources.32 As a result, 

we consider the emission rate of 0.065 lb/MMBtu, which corresponds to a scenario consisting of lowload cycling operations (with steam reheat) and 3 cold startups within a 30-day period, to be a 

reasonable estimate of average SCR performance for Unit 1. 

With regard to the RMB analysis, we are unable to assess fully this analysis, as it lacked 

documentation regarding many of its components. In particular, RMB did not identify the UPL 

equation(s) it used or the emission rate characteristics, data distribution, number of emission rates, or tor z-scores. RMB did not present specific evidence that the two SCR-equipped units are representative 

of how Coronado will perform when carefully operated after installation of SCR. In particular, RMB did 

not address the possibility that the SCR systems on these two units malfunctioned or were incorrectly 

operated during the data period. Accordingly, we are unable to evaluate RMB’s assertions regarding its 

UPL calculations. 

More fundamentally, we do not consider a UPL analysis to be necessary or appropriate for use in 

 

30 See spreadsheet “Coronado 2008-11 NOx Emission Data (daily).xls”. 

31 See SRP’s April 28, 2014 letter, Attachment A (Multiple Start Summary). 

32 See April 28, 2014 letter. Expanded periods of load following service will result in greater periods of low-load cycling, as 

well as increase the need for startup/shutdown events. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 18 of 31

establishing an emission limit for Coronado Unit 1. Because the UPL method is a statistical technique, it 

is essentially an analytical tool that can be applied to any data set and produce a UPL value for a 

specified percentile (i.e., 95th, 98th, 99th percentile, etc). While UPL has been used by EPA to establish 

emission standards in other rulemakings, the context for those rulemakings differs significantly from the 

context for this action. In general, EPA has employed the UPL method in instances where it was 

necessary to establish an emission standard based on a limited number of emission measurements, such 

as when establishing maximum available control technology (MACT) standards or new source 

performance standards (NSPS).33 The emission data available for establishing MACT standards are 

generally in the form of short-term, three-run stack tests, with each test-run lasting between one and 

four hours. These short-term tests represent three “snapshots” of a source’s operation and generally will 

not represent a source’s full range of operations or emission levels. Accordingly, when establishing an 

emission standard that applies continuously across an entire source category, EPA considers it necessary 

to account for the emissions and operations over a fuller range using data sets that encompass longer 

time periods (i.e., collected over several months to a year or more of operation). In such situations, EPA 

applies the UPL method to predict the emission levels the source is achieving at times other than when 

the stack testing is conducted. For example, it is common for EPA to establish an emission standard for 

a particular source category for which only three to six test results may be available. Because these three 

to six data points do not represent the full range of unit operations, the UPL method is employed to “fill 

in the blanks” when developing an emission standard that is appropriate for a broader range of 

operations. As described in a memo regarding the use of UPL in establishing MACT standards, “EPA 

did not have emissions information from sources at all times each source was operating, and therefore 

determined it was necessary to apply a methodology that addressed the fact that the data were not 

 

33 In particular, EPA has used the UPL method in the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS), also known as the Boiler 

MACT, the Wool Fiberglass MACT, the Phosphoric Acid and Phosphate Fertilizer MACT, and the Nitric Acid Plant NSPS. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 19 of 31

complete.”34 Furthermore, while EPA has used the UPL method in other instances besides MACT 

standards, such as in developing NSPS, the emission data sets for those rulemakings were also very 

limited, numbering at most in the dozens of test results for specific source subcategories. 

By contrast, the data set available here is much more extensive, represents continuous data 

collected over a long period of time, and covers a wider range of unit operations. In particular, the UPL 

analyses performed by RMB for Coronado Unit 1 and the three SCR-equipped coal-fired boilers 

examined actual emission data from CEMS (or in the case of Coronado Unit 1, modeled emission data 

based on actual load operation) that consisted of thousands of data points collected continuously over 

periods of time ranging from eight months to over a year. As noted above, this is a different context than 

rulemakings in which EPA has employed the UPL method to develop category-wide emission standards 

based on, at most, a few dozen data points. Given the size and scope of the data set available in this 

instance, we propose to find that the use of the UPL method is not appropriate.35

Finally, we do not agree with RMB’s suggestion that the emission limit for Coronado Unit 1 

should be rounded up to provide an additional compliance margin. We note that the UPL methodology 

used by EPA for MACT standard development does not include rounding up to the next highest 

reasonable interval as suggested by RMB. Given the conservative nature of the assumptions in the S&L 

analysis, we do not consider additional compliance margin appropriate in this instance. 

Accordingly, in evaluating an appropriate limit for Coronado Unit 1, we have relied primarily 

upon the information provided in the S&L analysis. This analysis found that an emission rate of 0.065 

lb/MMBtu would be appropriate for a scenario consisting of low-load cycling operations (with steam 

 

34 Memorandum from Susan Fairchild to Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, “Use of the Upper Prediction Limit for 

Calculating MACT Floors” (July 14, 2014); see also Memo from Susan Fairchild to Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-1041, 

“Approach for Applying the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets” (October 6, 2014). 

35 In addition, we note that we consider RMB’s application of its UPL-estimated variability to the results of the S&L modeling 

inappropriate. The S&L modeling results already account for substantial degree of operational variability by assuming a 

conservative operating scenario of low-load cycling and 3 cold startups in a single 30-day period. Applying the UPL-estimated 

variability on top of the S&L modeling could be described, to a degree, as “double counting” operational variability. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 20 of 31

reheat) and three cold startups within a 30-day period. As described above, we consider this to be a 

reasonable estimate of SCR performance for Coronado Unit 1. We are are therefore proposing a limit of 

0.065 lb/MMBtu on a rolling 30-BOD basis. 

2. Proposed Emission Limit for Coronado Unit 2 

a. SRP’s Analysis of Unit 2 

SRP also provided documentation in its April 28, 2014 letter of Unit 2 design parameters and 

indicated that it is proceeding with the installation of a low-load temperature-control system (i.e., steam 

reheat) for Unit 2. In addition, SRP stated that the design parameters demonstrate that Unit 2 was 

properly designed to meet the 0.080 lb/MMBtu NOX limit required by the Coronado Consent Decree. 

Based on these design parameters and emission modeling performed by S&L, SRP reiterated that the 

design of Unit 2 could not accommodate a NOX emission limit lower than that required by the Consent 

Decree. SRP has met certain terms of the Consent Decree by operating Unit 2 with SCR since June 1, 

2014. Finally, in response to an inquiry from EPA regarding the possibility of a work practice standard 

for the SCR system on Unit 2, SRP indicated that certain language from the Coronado Consent Decree 

and the Title V operating permit requiring proper operation of NOX controls are sufficient to ensure that 

NOX emissions are minimized. 

b. EPA’s Evaluation of Unit 2

In our final rule published on December 5, 2012, establishing the NOX emission limit for 

Coronado Units 1 and 2, we stated the following regarding Unit 2: 

In recognition of the work already performed by SRP to meet the consent decree emission 

limit of 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2, and to avoid interfering with SRP's ability to meet that 

requirement by the deadline of June 1, 2014, we have decided not to require a BART 

emission limit for Coronado 2 more stringent than 0.080 lb/MMBtu. 

The information subsequently provided by SRP supports the assertion that the emission limit in the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 21 of 31

Consent Decree of 0.080 lb/MMBtu represents BART for this unit. In particular, the fact that SRP has 

already installed a low-load temperature-control system at this unit in order to meet the 0.080 lb/MMBtu 

limit suggests that a lower limit would not be achievable on a 30-BOD basis. As a result, we propose to 

set a unit-specific NOX limit for Unit 2 of 0.080 lb/MMBtu, based on a rolling 30-BOD basis. 

In addition, we propose to revise the work practice standard at 40 CFR 52.145(f)(10) to require 

the operation of the SCR at all times that Unit 2 is in operation, consistent with technological 

limitations.36 As noted in SRP’s letter dated April 28, 2014, the Consent Decree contains a work 

practice standard for Unit 2. This language is included in the facility’s current Title V operating 

permit.37 We are proposing to include this same language in the BART FIP in order to ensure that the 

SCR is operated at all times during which it is technologically feasible to do so. In particular, we note 

that, based on the information provided by SRP, periods of low-load operation are a significant element 

of the Coronado units’ operations. Given the installation of a low-load temperature-control system on 

Unit 2, the SCR system is now capable of operating at lower loads (i.e., between about 138 MW and 270 

MW) on Unit 2. Accordingly, we are proposing to revise the work practice standard in the FIP to ensure 

that the SCR system operates during these periods of low-load operation. 

C. Proposed Removal of Affirmative Defense for Malfunctions 

The Arizona RH FIP incorporates by reference certain provisions of the Arizona Administrative 

Code that establish an affirmative defense for excess emissions due to malfunctions.38 In the interim since 

EPA's promulgation of that FIP, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that CAA 

sections 113 and 304 preclude EPA from creating affirmative defense provisions in the Agency's own 

 

36 See CAA Section 302(k)(defining “emission limit” to include “any requirement relating to the operation or maintenance of 

a source to assure continuous emission reduction, and any design, equipment, work practice or operational standard 

promulgated under this chapter”). 

37 Specific Conditions II.E.2.b and c, Title V Operating Permit No. 52693, issued December 6, 2011. 

38 See 40 CFR 52.145(f)(11) (incorporating by reference R-18-2-101, paragraph 65; R18-2-310, sections (A), (B), (D) and 

(E); and R18-2-310.01). 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 22 of 31

regulations imposing emission limits on sources.39 The court found that such affirmative defense provisions 

purport to alter the jurisdiction of federal courts to assess liability and impose penalties for violations of 

those limits in private civil enforcement cases. The court’s holding makes it clear that the CAA does not 

authorize promulgation ofsuch a provision by EPA. In particular, the court's decision turned on an analysis 

of CAA sections 113 (“Federal enforcement”) and 304 (“Citizen suits”). These provisions apply with 

equal force to a civil action brought to enforce the provisions of a FIP. The logic of the court's decision 

thus applies to the promulgation of a FIP, and precludes EPA from including an affirmative defense 

provision in a FIP. Furthermore, in light of the D.C. Circuit’s decision, EPA has proposed to find R18-2-

310(B) and R18-2-310(C) substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and to issue a SIP call with 

respect to these provisions.40 Consistent with the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit and EPA’s proposed SIP 

call, we are proposing to remove the affirmative defense provision in the Arizona Regional Haze FIP. In 

addition to Coronado, this revision would also affect Cholla. 

D. Non-interference with Applicable Requirements 

The CAA requires that any revision to an implementation plan shall not be approved by the 

Administrator if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment, 

reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA.41 

EPA has promulgated health-based standards, known as the national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS), for seven pollutants, including NO2, a component of NOX, and pollutants such as 

ozone and particulate matter with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), that are 

formed in the atmosphere from reactions between NOX and other pollutants. Using a process that 

 

39 See NRDC v. EPA, 749 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2014). 

40 79 FR 55920, 55947 (September 17, 2014).

41 CAA Section 110(l), 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). In this instance EPA is proposing to promulgate a revision to a FIP, rather than to 

approve a revision to a SIP. Although 110(l) on its face applies only to EPA approvals of plan revisions, we have nonetheless 

considered whether this proposed action would interfere with the requirements of the CAA. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 23 of 31

considers air quality data and other factors, EPA designates areas as “nonattainment” if those areas 

violate a NAAQS or cause or contribute to violations of a NAAQS in a nearby area. Reasonable further 

progress, as defined in section 171 of the CAA, is related to attainment and means “such annual 

incremental reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant . . . for the purpose of ensuring 

attainment of the applicable [NAAQS].” Coronado is located in Apache County, Arizona, which is 

designated as Unclassifiable/Attainment for all of the NAAQS. Therefore, we propose to find that a 

revision to the BART emission limits for NOX will not interfere with attainment or reasonable further 

progress for any air quality standard. 

 The other requirements of the CAA that are applicable to Coronado are: 

· Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D; 

· National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart 

UUUUU; 

· Compliance Assurance Monitoring, 40 CFR Part 64; 

· BART and other visibility protection requirements under CAA sections 110(a)(2)(J) and 

169A and 40 CFR Part 51, subpart P; and 

· Interstate transport visibility requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). 

 

Today’s proposed revisions would not affect the applicable requirements of the National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources, or 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring requirements. Therefore, we propose to find that these revisions 

would not interfere with these requirements. 

The proposed revisions would alter the specific emission limits that constitute BART for NOX at 

Coronado under CAA section 169A and 40 CFR 51.308(e). However, we expect the effect of the 

proposed changes on visibility will be very small. In particular, we note that, under the BART 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 24 of 31

Guidelines, the “degree of visibility improvement” expected to result from BART is evaluated through 

modeling of the highest emission rate observed on a 24-hour average.42 Although today’s rule would 

raise the emission rate allowed on a 30-day rolling average, we do not expect that it would alter the rate 

on a 24-hour basis. First, the 24-hour maximum emission rate used in visibility modeling corresponds to 

operation of the SCR during periods of full load, steady state operation. As noted previously, the BART 

limits proposed in today’s rule are still consistent with the application of SCR. In addition, the 

underlying assumptions regarding SCR emission rate and performance remain unchanged from the 

December 5, 2012, final rule. Second, the adjustments to the rolling 30-day emission limit were made to 

accommodate periods of startup and shutdown. Specifically, BART limits for EGUs are established 

based on a 30-day rolling average and must be met on a continuous basis, including during periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction.43 As described previously, the SCR system requires a certain 

minimum temperature in order to operate properly. As a result, there will necessarily be certain periods 

of time during startup and shutdown in which the SCR system is not technologically capable of 

operating. This does not alter any of the assumptions regarding the SCR system when it is in operation, 

such as the maximum 24-hour emission rate, which is the basis of the visibility modeling. Moreover, the 

BART Guidelines recommend that periods of startup and shutdown be excluded from the visibility 

modeling.44 Therefore, the degree of visibility improvement would not be significantly diminished. 

With respect to the CAA’s reasonable progress requirements under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) 

and 169A, we note that in a September 3, 2014, final rule, we set reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for 

Arizona that accounted for the emission reductions projected to result from implementation of BART at 

Coronado (among other sources).45 The revised emission limits we are proposing today will allow for 

 

42 BART Guidelines 40 CFR part 51, Appendix Y, section IV.D.5. 

43 See CAA section 302(k). 

44 Id. section III.A.3 (recommending that “emissions reflecting periods of start-up, shutdown, and malfunction” not be used 

for modeling.). 

45 79 FR 52420, 52468-52469. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 25 of 31

greater total annual NOX emissions than the FIP. We have therefore considered the impact of additional 

emissions on the RPGs. As summarized in Tables 4 and 5, the difference in NOX emissions between the 

Arizona RH FIP and today’s proposed rule is approximately 233 tons per year (tpy).46 This amount 

represents less than one percent of the projected total NOX emission reductions in the FIP. Therefore, we 

consider its potential impact on the RPGs to be de minimis. 

Finally, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) requires that all SIPs contain adequate provisions to 

prohibit emissions that will interfere with other states' required measures to protect visibility. In our final 

rule of September 3, 2014, we determined that control measures in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP were 

sufficient to fulfill this requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone, 1997 PM2.5, and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.47

As noted above, while today’s proposal would allow for an increase in emissions of 233 tpy compared to 

the FIP, this represents less than one percent of the projected total NOX emission reductions in the FIP. 

Accordingly, we propose to determine that this change would not alter our determination that the control 

measures in the Arizona RH SIP and FIP are adequate to prevent Arizona's emissions from interfering 

with other states' required measures to protect visibility. Thus, we propose to find that today’s proposed 

revisions would not interfere with any applicable requirement of the CAA. 

TABLE 4—CORONADO SCR EMISSION RATE ALLOWED UNDER 2012 EPA FIP

Unit No. Heat Duty1 NOX Emission Limit2 Capacity Factor1 NOX

(MMBtu/hr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (tpy) 

Coronado 1 4316 0.065 0.84 280.54 2,042 

Coronado 2 3984 0.89 258.96 

1 Supplemental Cost Analysis 2012-11-15 

2 Emission limit per FIP final rule, 77 FR 72578 

 

46 This value assumes that the units will fully operate at the allowed emission rates in Table 4 and 5 for every month of the 

year. Given that the 30-BOD limits are based on conditions that occur infrequently (i.e., low-load cycling, 3 cold 

startup/shutdowns), during many periods the units can be expected to operate at a lower emission rate. As a result, this value 

represents a conservative (i.e., tending to overestimate rather than underestimate in this context) estimate of the difference in 

NOX emissions. 

47 79 FR 52426. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 26 of 31

TABLE 5—CORONADO SCR EMISSION RATE ALLOWED UNDER PROPOSED 2015 EPA FIP REVISION 

Unit No. Heat Duty1 NOX Emission Limit Capacity Factor1 NOX

(MMBtu/yr) (lb/MMBtu) (lb/hr) (tpy) 

Coronado 1 4316 0.065 0.84 280.54 2,275 

Coronado 2 3984 0.080 0.89 318.72 

1 Supplemental Cost Analysis 2012-11-15 

 

IV. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to revise the Arizona RH FIP to replace a plant-wide BART compliance 

method and emission limit for NOX on Units 1 and 2 at Coronado with a single-unit compliance method 

and emission limit on each of the units. As described in today’s action, we are proposing an emission 

limit of 0.065 lb/MMBtu for Unit 1 and 0.080 lb/MMBtu for Unit 2 with compliance based on a rolling 

30-BOD basis. This revision would constitute our action on SRP’s petition for reconsideration of the 

FIP. We also are proposing to remove the affirmative defense for malfunctions in the FIP and revise the 

work practice requirement that applies to Coronado. 

V. 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 and was therefore not submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule applies to only two facilities and is therefore not a 

rule of general applicability. 

 B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 27 of 31

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule applies to only two facilities. Therefore, its 

recordkeeping and reporting provisions do not constitute a “collection of information” as defined under 

44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c). 

 C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily 

engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale are small if, 

including affiliates, the total electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed 4 million 

megawatt hours. Each of the owners of facilities affected by this rule, SRP, Arizona Public Service and 

PacifiCorp, exceeds this threshold. 

 D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in 

UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531–1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

 E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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. 

 F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 

This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government 

and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government 

and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 28 of 31

 G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 

safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of 

“covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. 

 H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory 

action under Executive Order 12866. 

 I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. EPA is not proposing to revise any 

technical standards or impose any new technical standards in this action. 

 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations 

EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this action will not have 

potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, lowincome or indigenous populations. We expect that Coronado will install the same control technology in 

order to meet the revised emission limits as would have been necessary to meet the previously finalized 

limits. As shown in Tables 4 and 5 above, the difference in NOX emissions between the final EPA FIP 

and today’s proposed rule is approximately 233 tons per year (tpy). Although this is a not a trivial 

amount of emissions, it is relatively small compared to the facility’s total emissions. In particular, 233 

tpy is equivalent to about 3 percent of the 7,300 tpy of NOX that the facility is presently allowed to emit 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 29 of 31

under the Coronado Consent Decree.48 Furthermore, as shown in Table 5, if today’s proposal is 

finalized, total NOX emissions from the facility would be roughly 2,275 tpy, a decrease of over 5,000 tpy 

compared to the plant-wide cap under the Consent Decree. Thus, although today’s proposed revision 

will allow for a marginal increase in emissions compared to the FIP, it will still ensure a significant 

reduction in emissions compared to present levels. 

 K. Determination Under Section 307(d) 

Pursuant to CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), EPA proposes to determine that this action is subject to the 

requirements of CAA section 307(d), as it revises a FIP under CAA section 110(c). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Visibility. 

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

March 13, 2015 /s/ 

__________________________________ __________________________________ 

Dated: Jared Blumenfeld, 

 Regional Administrator 

 EPA Region IX. 

 

48 Coronado Consent Decree, paragraph 44. 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 30 of 31

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: 

 

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

 

Subpart D--Arizona 

2. Section 52.145 is proposed to be amended by revising paragraphs (f)(3)(i), (f)(5)(ii)(A) and (B), 

(f)(10) and removing paragraph (f)(11) to read as follows: 

§ 52.145 Visibility protection.

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(i) NOX emission limitations. The owner/operator of each coal-fired unit subject to this paragraph (f) 

shall not emit or cause to be emitted NOX in excess of the following limitations, in pounds per million 

British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) from any coal fired unit or group of coal-fired units. Each emission limit 

shall be based on a rolling 30-boiler-operating-day average, unless otherwise indicated in specific 

paragraphs. 

Coal fired unit or Group of coal-fired units 

Federal 

emission 

limitation 

Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3, and 4 0.055 

Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 0.065 

Coronado Generating Station Unit 2 0.080 

* * * 

(5) * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Cholla Power Plant. The 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate for the group of coal-fired 

units identified as Cholla Power Plant, Units 2, 3, and 4 shall be calculated for each calendar day, even if 

a unit is not in operation on that calendar day, in accordance with the following procedure: step one, for 

each unit, sum the hourly pounds of NOX emitted during the current boiler-operating day (or most recent 

boiler-operating day if the unit is not in operation), and the preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating 

days, to calculate the total pounds of NOX emitted over the most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day 

period for each coal-fired unit; step two, for each unit, sum the hourly heat input, in MMBtu, during the 

current boiler-operating day (or most recent boiler-operating day if the unit is not in operation), and the 

preceding twenty-nine (29) boiler-operating days, to calculate the total heat input, in MMBtu, over the 

most recent thirty (30) boiler-operating day period for each coal-fired unit; step 3, sum together the total 

pounds of NOX emitted from the group of coal-fired units over each unit's most recent thirty (30) boileroperating day period (the most recent 30 boiler-operating day periods for different units may be different); 

step four, sum together the total heat input from the group of coal-fired units over each unit's most recent 

thirty (30) boiler-operating day period; and step five, divide the total pounds of NOX emitted from step 

three by the total heat input from step four for each group of coal-fired units, to calculate the 30-day rolling 

average NOX emission rate for each group of coal-fired units, in pounds of NOX per MMBtu, for each 
This document is a prepublication version, signed by Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Regional Administrator, on March 13, 2015. We have taken steps to 

ensure the accuracy of this version, but it is not the official version. 

Page 31 of 31

calendar day. Each 30-day rolling average NOX emission rate shall include all emissions and all heat input 

that occur during all periods within any boiler-operating day, including emissions from startup, shutdown, 

and malfunction. 

(B) Coronado Generating Station. Compliance with the NOX emission limits for Coronado Unit 1 

and Coronado Unit 2 in paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section shall be determined on a rolling 30 boileroperating-day basis. The 30-boiler-operating-day rolling NOX emission rate for each unit shall be 

calculated in accordance with the following procedure: Step one, sum the total pounds of NOX emitted 

from the unit during the current boiler operating day and the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler operating 

days; Step two, sum the total heat input to the unit in MMBtu during the current boiler operating day and 

the previous twenty-nine (29) boiler operating days; Step three, divide the total number of pounds of NOX

emitted from that unit during the thirty (30) boiler operating days by the total heat input to the unit during 

the thirty (30) boiler operating days. A new 30-boiler-operating-day rolling average NOX emission rate 

shall be calculated for each new boiler operating day. Each 30-boiler-operating-day average NOX emission 

rate shall include all emissions that occur during all periods within any boiler operating day, including 

emissions from startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

* * * 

(10) Equipment operations. 

(i) Cholla Power Plant. At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the 

owner or operator of Cholla Power Plant Units 2, 3 and 4 shall, to the extent practicable, maintain and 

operate each unit including associated air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good 

air pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Pollution control equipment shall be designed 

and capable of operating properly to minimize emissions during all expected operating conditions. 

Determination of whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used will be based 

on information available to the Regional Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, 

monitoring results, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and inspection of each unit. 

(ii) Coronado Generating Station. At all times, including periods of startup, shutdown, and 

malfunction, the owner or operator of Coronado Generating Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 shall, to the extent 

practicable, maintain and operate each unit in a manner consistent with good air pollution control practices 

for minimizing emissions. The owner or operator shall continuously operate pollution control equipment 

at all times the unit it serves is in operation, and operate pollution control equipment in a manner consistent 

with technological limitations, manufacturer’s specifications, and good engineering and good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of whether acceptable operating and 

maintenance procedures are being used will be based on information available to the Regional 

Administrator which may include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operating and 

maintenance procedures, and inspection of each unit.

*****