# EPA’S Proposal on the Oklahoma 

# and Texas Regional Haze and Visibility Transport SIPs and FIPs

January 13, 2015 , Austin, Texas January 15, 2015 , Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

# Preliminaries

# What’s a SIP?

• The State Implementation Plan (SIP) shows how a state will meet federal CAA requirements

• SIPs are basically legally enforceable documents that state governments develop to address federal 

### air quality requirements

• SIPs include planning documents and regulations 

### that States intend to use to address, as here, visibility and regional haze

## How Can I Have Input to the SIP Process ?

• OK and TX submitted regional haze SIPs to us for review • We propose to partially approve & partially disapprove those SIPs, and implement FIPs 

### • We will hold two hearings and you can provide comments until April 20, 2015 • We will carefully consider those comments 

### • We will issue a final decision in the FR, containing our response to comments

# Regional Haze

• Regional haze is visibility impairment caused by air pollution from numerous sources located over a 

### wide geographic area • Caused mainly by sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, black carbon, and wind - blown soil 

### • Particles absorb/scatter light – impairing visibility • Sources include major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area sources • Goal of the regional haze program is to improve visibility at Class I areas

## Why Did We Evaluate TX and OK Together?

• We explain in our 2011 OK proposal we did not take action on OK’s RPGs because we first had to review the TX RH SIP • The TX and OK RH SIPs document that the 

## impacts of sources in TX are several times greater than the impact from OK’s own 

## point sources

## Texas Impacts on Wichita Mountains, 2018

TX Non - EGU point, 6.3% TX EGU point, 7.7%

OK point, 3.9% Percent Extinction Source: CENRAP - 2007

8 (back)

## Summary Of Our Regional Haze Proposal

• Disapprove Oklahoma’s Reasonable Progress Goals • Disapprove Texas’ calculation of natural visibility at its 

### two Class I areas – Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains • Disapprove Texas’ Reasonable Progress Goals for its 

### Class I areas • Disapprove Texas’ long-term strategy for its Class I areas and for the Wichita Mountains in Oklahoma 

### • Promulgate a Federal Implementation plan to control 15 units, located at 8 coal -fired power plants(back)

## Summary of Our Interstate Transport of 

## Visibility Impairing Pollution Proposal

• Basic requirement: Ensure air pollution sources in TX don’t interfere with other states’ measures to protect visibility 

### • TX intended that its regional haze plan satisfy this requirement 

### • We believe our proposed actions on TX’s regional haze plan will satisfy this requirement

## What Are The Details Of Our Proposed FIPs?

• Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) emission limits at fifteen units, located at eight coal -fired power plants • Based on 7 SO 2 scrubber retrofits, 7 SO 2 scrubber upgrades, and 1 maintenance of a scrubber upgrade • SO 2 Limits based on 30 boiler operating day average • Compliance in 5 years for scrubber retrofits, 3 years for scrubber upgrades, and 1 year for the scrubber maintenance • Revised natural conditions for Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mts • Revised RPGs for the Wichita Mountains, Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mts

# How Did We Reach Our Proposed FIP

Determination?

• Conducted a Q/D analysis on all facilities in Texas, reducing potential control candidates from over 1,600 

### facilities to 38 facilities • Used CAMx photochemical modeling to investigate the visibility impacts of individual facilities • Also investigated the visibility improvement if SO 2 

### scrubbers or Dry Sorbent Injection (DSI) were installed • Analyzed the cost of SO2 scrubbers and DSI, and scrubber retrofits 

### • Selected a control set that we believe represents the best combination of cost effectiveness and visibility benefit

# Other Parts of Our Proposed FIPs

• Natural conditions calculations for Big 

## Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains • Calculation depends on all sources of natural visibility impairment • Texas assumed all coarse mass and fine soil was natural 

## • Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for the 

## Wichita Mountains, Big Bend and the Guadalupe Mountains

## Other Benefits of Our Proposal

• Sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) is one of a group of highly reactive gasses known as “oxides of sulfur.” The largest sources of SO 2 emissions are from fossil fuel combustion at power plants (73%) and other industrial facilities (20 %) • In 2010, EPA strengthened the SO 2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for SO 2 • SO 2 can cause adverse respiratory effects include narrowing of the airways which can cause difficulty in breathing and increased asthma symptoms • We estimate that if finalized as proposed, our plan will reduce the SO 2 emitted by Texas sources by over 230,000 tons per year

# What Are The Next Steps?

• We’ll break into informal groups for questions 

### • If you’d like to comment during the hearing that follows this open house, please see the folks who are registering commenters 

### • We’ll hold our hearing • We’ll further collect comments 

### • Our target date for a final decision is 9/4/2015Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA- R06- OAR2014-0754, by one of the following methods:

• Federal e - Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. • E - mail: R6_TXOKRegionalHaze@epa.gov. • Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section ( 6PD– L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202 - 2733. • Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section ( 6PD–L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202 - 2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. • Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section ( 6PD– L), at fax number 214- 665 - 7263.

## (The following slide is jumped to from another slide within the presentation)

## Our Proposed 

## SO 2 

## Emission 

## Limits Unit Proposed SO 2 Emission Limit (lbs/MMBtu) Scrubber Upgrad es Sandow 4 0.20 Martin Lake 1 0.12 Martin Lake 2 0.12 Martin Lake 3 0.11 Monticello 3 0.06 Limestone 2 0.08 Limestone 1 0.08 San Miguel 0.60 Scrubber Retrofits Big Brown 1 0.04 Big Brown 2 0.04 Monticello 1 0.04 Monticello 2 0.04 Coleto Creek 1 0.04 Tolk 172B 0.06 Tolk 171B 0.06 (back)