Vol. 78 Monday, 

No. 111 June 10, 2013 

Part III 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 52 

Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 

Wyoming; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Proposed Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34738 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2012–0026, FRL–9820–4] 

Approval, Disapproval and 

Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 

State of Wyoming; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Wyoming on January 12, 

2011, that addresses regional haze. This 

SIP revision was submitted to address 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or ‘‘the Act’’) and our rules that 

require states to prevent any future and 

remedy any existing anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

taking this action pursuant to section 

110 of the CAA. 

EPA is also proposing a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) to address 

the deficiencies identified in our 

proposed partial disapproval of 

Wyoming’s regional haze SIP. In lieu of 

our proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, 

we will propose approval of a SIP 

revision as expeditiously as practicable 

if the State submits such a revision and 

the revision matches the terms of our 

proposed FIP. We will also review and 

take action on any regional haze SIP 

submitted by the state to determine 

whether such SIP is approvable, 

regardless of whether or not its terms 

match those of the FIP. We encourage 

the State to submit a SIP revision to 

replace the FIP, either before or after our 

final action. 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

must be received at the address below 

on or before August 9, 2013. Public 

Hearing: A public hearing for this 

proposal is scheduled to be held on 

Monday, June 24, 2013, at the 

Hershchler Building, Room 1699, 122 

W. 25th St., Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002. 

The public hearing will be held from 1 

p.m. until 5 p.m., and again from 6 p.m. 

until 8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2012–0026, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: r8airrulemakings@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, 

Air Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. Such deliveries are only 

accepted Monday through Friday, 8:00 

a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 

holidays. Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2012– 

0026. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or 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, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included 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 avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly-available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laurel Dygowski, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop, Denver, Colorado 80202– 

1129, (303) 312–6144, 

dygowski.laurel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

i. The words or initials Act or CAA mean 

or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

ii. The initials AFRC mean or refer to airfuel ratio controls. 

iii. The initials BART mean or refer to Best 

Available Retrofit Technology. 

iv. The initials CAMx mean or refer to 

Comprehensive Air Quality Model. 

v. The initials CMAQ mean or refer to 

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality 

modeling system. 

vi. The initials CEMS mean or refer to 

continuous emission monitoring systems. 

vii. The initials EC mean or refer to 

elemental carbon. 

viii. The initials EGUs mean or refer to 

Electric Generating Units. 

ix. The initials EGR mean or refer to 

exhaust gas recirculation. 

x. The words EPA, we, us or our mean or 

refer to the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

xi. The initials ESP mean or refer to 

electrostatic precipitator. 

xii. The initials FGC mean or refer to flue 

gas conditioning. 

xiii. The initials FGD mean or refer to flue 

gas desulfurization. 

xiv. The initials FGR mean or refer to 

external flue gas recirculation. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34739 

xv. The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

xvi. The initials FLMs mean or refer to 

Federal Land Managers. 

xvii. The initials FS mean or refer to the 

U.S. Forest Service. 

xviii. The initials IMPROVE mean or refer 

to Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments monitoring network. 

xix. The initials IWAQM mean or refer to 

Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality 

Modeling. 

xx. The initials LEC mean or refer to lowemission combustion. 

xxi. The initials LNB mean or refer to low 

NOX burner. 

xxii. The initials LTS mean or refer to the 

long-term strategy. 

xxiii. The initials MW mean or refer to 

megawatts. 

xxiv. The initials NH3 mean or refer to 

ammonia. 

xxv. The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

xxvi. The initials NPS mean or refer to 

National Park Service. 

xxvii. The initials OC mean or refer to 

organic carbon. 

xxviii. The initials OFA mean or refer to 

overfire air. 

xxix. The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers. 

xxx. The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers. 

xxxi. The initials PSAT mean or refer to 

Particle Source Apportionment Technology. 

xxxii. The initials PSD mean or refer to 

Prevention of Signification Deterioration. 

xxxiii. The initials RAVI mean or refer to 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment. 

xxxiv. The initials RHR mean or refer to 

the Regional Haze Rule. 

xxxv. The initials RMC mean or refer to the 

Regional Modeling Center at the University 

of California Riverside. 

xxxvi. The initials RPGs mean or refer to 

Reasonable Progress Goals. 

xxxvii. The initials RPOs mean or refer to 

regional planning organizations. 

xxxviii. The initials SCR mean or refer to 

selective catalytic reduction. 

xxxix. The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

xl. The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

selective non-catalytic reduction. 

xli. The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur 

dioxide. 

xlii. The initials SOFA mean or refer to 

separated overfire air. 

xliii. The initials TSD mean or refer to 

Technical Support Document. 

xliv. The initials ULNB mean or refer to 

ultra-low NOX burners. 

xlv. The initials URP mean or refer to 

Uniform Rate of Progress. 

xlvi. The initials VOC mean or refer to 

volatile organic compounds. 

xlvii. The initials WAQSR mean or refer to 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations. 

xlviii. The initials WEP mean or refer to 

Weighted Emissions Potential. 

xlix. The initials WRAP mean or refer to 

the Western Regional Air Partnership. 

l. The words Wyoming and State mean the 

State of Wyoming. 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. EPA’s Prior Action 

III. Overview of Proposed Actions 

IV. SIP and FIP Background 

V. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

VI. Requirements for the Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

VII. EPA’s Evaluation of Wyoming’s Regional 

Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, 

and Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. BART Determinations 

1. BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Sources Subject-to-BART 

a. Modeling Methodology 

b. Contribution Threshold 

c. Sources Identified by Wyoming as 

Subject-to-BART 

3. BART Determinations and Federally 

Enforceable Limits 

a. Costs of Compliance 

b. Visibility Improvement Modeling 

c. Summary of BART Determinations and 

Federally Enforceable Limits 

i. FMC Westvaco—Units NS–1A and 

NS–1B 

ii. General Chemical Green River—Boilers 

C and D 

iii. Basin Electric Laramie River Station— 

Units 1–3 

iv. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 3 and 

4 

v. PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1–4 

vi. PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1–3 

vii. PacifiCorp Wyodak—Unit 1 

D. Reasonable Progress Requirements 

1. Visibility Impairing Pollutants and 

Sources 

2. Four-Factor Analyses 

a. Stationary Sources 

b. Summary of Reasonable Progress 

Determinations and Limits 

i. Oil and Gas Area Sources 

ii. Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant—Kiln 

3. Reasonable Progress Goals 

E. Long Term Strategy 

1. Emission Inventories 

2. Consultation and Emissions Reductions 

for Other States’ Class I Areas 

3. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution 

Programs 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

c. Smoke Management 

d. Emission Limitations and Schedules for 

Compliance 

e. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

f. Enforceability of Wyoming’s Measures 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due 

to Projected Changes 

4. Our Conclusions on Wyoming’s LongTerm Strategy 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze 

Rule Requirements 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

H. Consultation With FLMs 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year 

Progress Reports 

VIII. Federal Implementation Plan 

A. Disapproval of the State’s NOX BART 

Determinations and Federal 

Implementation Plan for NOX BART 

Determinations and Limits 

1. Disapproval of the State’s Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1–3 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP To Address NOX

BART 

2. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4 NOX

BART Determination and FIP To 

Address NOX BART 

3. Proposals in the Alternative for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 

NOX BART 

4. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Naughton Units 1and 2 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP to Address NOX

BART 

5. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP to Address NOX

BART 

B. Disapproval of the State’s NOX

Reasonable Progress Determinations and 

Federal Implementation Plan for NOX

Reasonable Progress Determinations and 

Limits 

1. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 1 and 

2 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

D. Federal Monitoring, Recordkeeping, and 

Reporting Requirements 

E. Federal Implementation Plan for the 

Long-Term Strategy 

F. Federal Implementation Plan for 

Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze 

Long-Term Strategy 

IX. EPA’s Proposed Action 

X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. General Information 

A. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. 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 to be 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 then 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34740 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1The Conservation Organizations refers to 

comments submitted on behalf of Powder River 

Basin Resource Council, Wyoming Outdoor 

Council, Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Sierra Club, 

National Parks Conservation Association, and 

WildEarth Guardians. 

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, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. EPA’s Prior Action 

We signed a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on May 15, 2012, and it was 

published in the Federal Register on 

June 4, 2012 (77 FR 33022). 

In our proposal, we proposed to 

disapprove the following: 

• The State’s nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

best available retrofit technology 

(BART) determinations for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 3, PacifiCorp Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric 

Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• The State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• The State’s Reasonable Progress 

Goals (RPGs). 

• The State’s monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP. 

• Portions of the State’s long-term 

strategy (LTS) that rely on or reflect 

aspects of the regional haze SIP that we 

are disapproving. 

• The State’s SIP because it does not 

contain the necessary provisions to meet 

the requirements for the coordination of 

the review of the reasonably attributable 

visibility impairment (RAVI) and the 

regional haze LTS. 

We proposed to approve the 

remaining aspects of the State’s January 

12, 2011 SIP submittal. We also sought 

comment on two alternative proposals 

related to the State’s NOX BART 

determination for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2. 

We proposed the promulgation of a 

FIP to address the deficiencies in the 

Wyoming regional haze SIP that we 

identified in the proposal. The proposed 

FIP included the following elements: 

• NOX BART determinations and 

limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 

3, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Station Units 1, 

2, and 3. 

• NOX reasonable progress 

determination and limits for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• RPGs consistent with the SIP limits 

proposed for approval and the proposed 

FIP limits. 

• Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements applicable to all 

BART and reasonable progress sources 

for which there is a SIP or FIP emissions 

limit. 

• LTS elements pertaining to 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for the proposed BART and 

reasonable progress FIP emission limits. 

• Provisions to ensure the 

coordination of the RAVI and regional 

haze LTS. 

In lieu of our proposed FIP, or a 

portion thereof, we stated that we would 

propose approval of a SIP revision if the 

State submits such a revision and the 

revision matches the terms of our 

proposed FIP. We encouraged the State 

to submit a SIP revision to replace the 

FIP, either before or after our final 

action. 

We requested comments on all 

aspects of our proposed action and 

provided a 60-day comment period, 

with the comment period closing on 

August 3, 2012. We also held two public 

hearings. The public hearings were held 

on June 26, 2012, in Cheyenne, 

Wyoming and June 28, 2012, in Rock 

Springs, Wyoming. 

The Conservation Organizations 1 and 

the National Park Service submitted 

comments during the public comment 

period pertaining to, among other 

things, the cost analyses that the State 

relied upon in its SIP and that EPA 

subsequently relied on to make its 

proposed rulemaking decision. The 

commenters asserted that the State 

overestimated the costs for some control 

technologies and underestimated the 

costs for other control technologies. 

Based on our review of these comments 

and upon further review of the State’s 

cost and visibility analyses, we 

determined that the State’s analyses are 

flawed in several respects and are 

therefore inconsistent with the BART 

Guidelines and statutory requirements, 

as discussed further in this notice. As a 

result, EPA conducted its own cost 

analyses for the BART and reasonable 

progress electric generating units 

(EGUs), and also revised its modeling of 

the visibility improvement for these 

sources in order to be comparable to the 

revised costs analyses as explained in 

section V.II.C.3. The revised costs and 

visibility modeling are explained in 

further detail in section VII.C.3. Because 

we have developed new cost and 

visibility improvement modeling 

analyses, we are re-proposing action on 

Wyoming’s SIP in order to give the 

public the opportunity to comment on 

our updated cost and visibility analyses 

and our proposed determinations based 

on this new information. 

III. Overview of Proposed Actions 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove a regional haze 

SIP submitted by the State of Wyoming 

on January 12, 2011. Specifically, we are 

proposing to disapprove the following: 

• The State’s NOX BART 

determinations for PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Units 3 and 4, PacifiCorp 

Naughton Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• The State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determinations for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• Wyoming’s RPGs. 

• The State’s monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements in Chapter 6.4 of the SIP. 

• Portions of the State’s LTS that rely 

on or reflect other aspects of the 

regional haze SIP. 

• The provisions necessary to meet 

the requirements for the coordination of 

the review of the RAVI and the regional 

haze LTS. 

We are proposing to approve the 

remaining aspects of the State’s January 

12, 2011SIP submittal. However, we are 

also seeking comment on an alternative 

proposal, related to the State’s NOX

BART determinations, for PacifiCorp 

Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, that would 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34741 

2 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

3Areas 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). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). 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.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal area.’’ 

4EPA’s regional haze regulations require 

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

involve disapproval and the 

promulgation of a FIP. 

We are proposing the promulgation of 

a FIP to address the deficiencies in the 

Wyoming regional haze SIP that we 

have identified in this notice. The 

proposed FIP includes the following 

elements: 

• NOX BART determinations and 

limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston 

Units 3 and 4, PacifiCorp Naughton 

Units 1 and 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 

1, and Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• NOX reasonable progress 

determinations and limits for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• RPGs consistent with the SIP limits 

proposed for approval and the proposed 

FIP limits. 

• Monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements applicable to all 

BART and reasonable progress sources 

for which there is a SIP or FIP emissions 

limit. 

• LTS elements pertaining to 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for the proposed BART and 

reasonable progress FIP emission limits. 

• Provisions to ensure the 

coordination of the RAVI and regional 

haze LTS. 

In lieu of our proposed FIP, or a 

portion thereof, we will propose 

approval of a SIP revision as 

expeditiously as practicable if the State 

submits such a revision and the revision 

matches the terms of our proposed FIP. 

We will also review and take action on 

any regional haze SIP submitted by the 

state to determine whether such SIP is 

approvable, regardless of whether or not 

its terms match those of the FIP. We 

encourage the State to submit a SIP 

revision to replace the FIP, either before 

or after our final action. 

IV. SIP and FIP Background 

The CAA requires each state to 

develop plans to meet various air 

quality requirements, including 

protection of visibility. CAA sections 

110(a), 169A, and 169B. The plans 

developed by a state are referred to as 

SIPs. A state must submit its SIPs and 

SIP revisions to us for approval. Once 

approved, a SIP is enforceable by EPA 

and citizens under the CAA, also known 

as being federally enforceable. If a state 

fails to make a required SIP submittal or 

if we find that a state’s required 

submittal is incomplete or 

unapprovable, then we must promulgate 

a FIP to fill this regulatory gap. CAA 

section 110(c)(1). As discussed 

elsewhere in this notice, we are 

proposing to disapprove aspects of 

Wyoming’s regional haze SIP. We are 

proposing a FIP to address the 

deficiencies in Wyoming’s regional haze 

SIP. 

V. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental 

carbon (EC), and soil dust), and their 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

NOX, and in some cases, ammonia (NH3) 

and volatile organic compounds (VOC)). 

Fine particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5, which 

impairs visibility by scattering and 

absorbing light. Visibility impairment 

reduces the clarity, color, and visible 

distance that one can see. PM2.5 can also 

cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range 2 in many Class I 

areas (i.e., national parks and memorial 

parks, wilderness areas, and 

international parks meeting certain size 

criteria) in the western United States is 

100–150 kilometers, or about one-half to 

two-thirds of the visual range that 

would exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. In most of the eastern Class 

I areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 

1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. 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 3 which impairment 

results from manmade air pollution.’’ 

On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment.’’ 45 FR 80084. These 

regulations represented the first phase 

in addressing visibility impairment. 

EPA deferred action on regional haze 

that emanates from a variety of sources 

until monitoring, modeling and 

scientific knowledge about the 

relationships between pollutants and 

visibility impairment were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze on July 1, 1999. 

64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 

40 CFR part 51, subpart P. The RHR 

revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into the 

regulation provisions addressing 

regional haze impairment and 

established a comprehensive visibility 

protection program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in EPA’s visibility protection 

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300–309. Some 

of the main elements of the regional 

haze requirements are summarized in 

section III of this preamble. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

SIP applies to all 50 states, the District 

of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. 40 

CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 

the first implementation plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007.4

Few states submitted a regional haze 

SIP prior to the December 17, 2007 

deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA 

found that 37 states (including 

Wyoming), the District of Columbia, and 

the Virgin Islands, had failed to submit 

SIPs addressing the regional haze 

requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once EPA 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34742 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the dv. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 

1999). 

6 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

Regional Haze_envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘our 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance’’); and Guidance for Tracking Progress 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, (September 2003, 

EPA–454/B–03–004, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as our 

‘‘2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

has found that a state has failed to make 

a required submission, EPA is required 

to promulgate a FIP within two years 

unless the state submits a SIP and the 

Agency approves it within the two-year 

period. CAA § 110(c)(1). 

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

federal agencies. As noted above, 

pollution affecting the air quality in 

Class I areas can be transported over 

long distances, even hundreds of 

kilometers. Therefore, to effectively 

address the problem of visibility 

impairment in Class I areas, states need 

to develop strategies in coordination 

with one another, taking into account 

the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of pollutants that lead to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) RPO is a collaborative effort of 

state governments, tribal governments, 

and various federal agencies established 

to initiate and coordinate activities 

associated with the management of 

regional haze, visibility and other air 

quality issues in the western United 

States. WRAP member state 

governments include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and 

Wyoming. Tribal members include 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand 

Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 

Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San 

Felipe, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of 

Fort Hall. 

VI. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs 

The following is a summary of the 

requirements of the RHR. See 40 CFR 

51.308 for further detail regarding the 

requirements of the rule. 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install BART controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

regional haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview as 

the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility. See 70 FR 39104, 

39118. This visibility metric expresses 

uniform changes in the degree of haze 

in terms of common increments across 

the entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Visibility expressed in 

deciviews is determined by using air 

quality measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithmic function. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview.5

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs (which are interim visibility goals 

towards meeting the national visibility 

goal), defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., anthropogenic sources 

of air pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

regional haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

RHR requires states to determine the 

degree of impairment (in deciviews) for 

the average of the 20 percent least 

impaired (‘‘best’’) and 20 percent most 

impaired (‘‘worst’’) visibility days over 

a specified time period at each of their 

Class I areas. In addition, states must 

also develop an estimate of natural 

visibility conditions for the purpose of 

comparing progress toward the national 

goal. Natural visibility is determined by 

estimating the natural concentrations of 

pollutants that cause visibility 

impairment and then calculating total 

light extinction based on those 

estimates. We have provided guidance 

to states regarding how to calculate 

baseline, natural and current visibility 

conditions.6

For the first regional haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34743 

7The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject-to-BART is listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

8BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed 

source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two RPGs (i.e., two 

distinct goals, one for the ‘‘best’’ and 

one for the ‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class 

I area for each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d), (f). The RHR does not 

mandate specific milestones or rates of 

progress, but instead calls for states to 

establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural visibility conditions. In setting 

RPGs, states must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the most 

impaired days over the (approximately) 

10-year period of the SIP, and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the least 

impaired days over the same period. Id. 

In establishing RPGs, states are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 169A of 

the CAA and in our RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. States must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. In setting the 

RPGs, states must also consider the rate 

of progress needed to reach natural 

visibility conditions by 2064 (referred to 

as the ‘‘uniform rate of progress’’ (URP) 

or the ‘‘glidepath’’) and the emission 

reduction measures needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 10-year 

period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress, which states are to 

use for analytical comparison to the 

amount of progress they expect to 

achieve. In setting RPGs, each state with 

one or more Class I areas (‘‘Class I 

state’’) must also consult with 

potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., 

other nearby states with emission 

sources that may be affecting visibility 

impairment at the state’s Class I areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining 

whether a state’s goals for visibility 

improvement provide for reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility 

conditions, EPA is required to evaluate 

the demonstrations developed by the 

state pursuant to paragraphs 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iii). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

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 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 7 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

the ‘‘Best Available Retrofit 

Technology’’ as determined by the state. 

Under the RHR, states are directed to 

conduct BART determinations for such 

‘‘BART-eligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant 

with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state 

must use the approach set forth in the 

BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, 

but not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. Regardless of source size or 

type, a state must meet the requirements 

of the CAA and our regulations for 

selection of BART, and the state’s BART 

analysis and determination must be 

reasonable in light of the overarching 

purpose of the regional haze program. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: First, 

states identify those sources which meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301;8 second, 

states determine which of such sources 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART’’); and third, for each source 

subject-to-BART, states then identify the 

best available type and level of control 

for reducing emissions. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 emissions impair visibility 

in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciview. 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section III.A.1. 

In their SIPs, states must identify the 

sources that are subject-to-BART and 

document their BART control 

determination analyses for such sources. 

In making their BART determinations, 

section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires 

that states consider the following factors 

when evaluating potential control 

technologies: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject-to-BART. Once a state 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34744 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

has made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition 

to what is required by the RHR, general 

SIP requirements mandate that the SIP 

must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. See CAA 

section 110(a). As noted above, the RHR 

allows states to implement an 

alternative program in lieu of BART so 

long as the alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal than would BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10- 

to 15-year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a LTS in their regional haze SIPs. The 

LTS is the compilation of all control 

measures a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The LTS must include ‘‘enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

necessary to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals’’ for all Class I areas 

within, or affected by emissions from, 

the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included, in its SIP, all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). 

The RPOs have provided forums for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their longterm strategy, including stationary, 

minor, mobile, and area sources. At a 

minimum, states must describe how 

each of the following seven factors 

listed below are taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment 

As part of the RHR, EPA revised 40 

CFR 51.306(c) regarding the LTS for 

RAVI to require that the RAVI plan must 

provide for a periodic review and SIP 

revision not less frequently than every 

three years until the date of submission 

of the state’s first plan addressing 

regional haze visibility impairment, 

which was due December 17, 2007, in 

accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) and 

(c). On or before this date, the state must 

revise its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated LTS for 

addressing RAVI and regional haze, and 

the state must submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTS’s, and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs, must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and must be 

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision. 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping, and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018, with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d) 

with the exception of BART. The 

requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first regional 

haze SIP. Facilities subject-to-BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted 

above. Periodic SIP revisions will assure 

that the statutory requirement of 

reasonable progress will continue to be 

met. 

G. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with FLMs before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34745 

9The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and regional planning 

organizations. The IMPROVE monitoring program 

was established in 1985 to aid the creation of 

Federal and State implementation plans for the 

protection of visibility in Class I areas. One of the 

objectives of IMPROVE is to identify chemical 

species and emission sources responsible for 

existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

TheIMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

VII. EPA’s Evaluation of Wyoming’s 

Regional Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d), the 

State identified seven mandatory Class 

I areas in Wyoming: Grand Teton 

National Park, Yellowstone National 

Park, Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness, North Absaroka Wilderness, 

Teton Wilderness, and Washakie 

Wilderness. 

B. Baseline Visibility, Natural Visibility, 

and Uniform Rate of Progress 

As required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2), 

Wyoming provided baseline visibility, 

natural visibility, and the URP for each 

Class I area in the State. Natural 

background visibility, as defined in our 

2003 Natural Visibility Guidance, is 

estimated by calculating the expected 

light extinction using default estimates 

of natural concentrations of fine particle 

components adjusted by site-specific 

estimates of humidity. This calculation 

uses the IMPROVE equation, which is a 

formula for estimating light extinction 

from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

As documented in our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states to 

use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative approaches 

to this guidance to estimate the values 

that characterize the natural visibility 

conditions of Class I areas. 

One alternative approach is to 

develop and justify the use of 

alternative estimates of natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components. Another alternative is to 

use the ‘‘new IMPROVE equation’’ that 

was adopted for use by the IMPROVE 

Steering Committee in December 2005.9

The purpose of this refinement to the 

‘‘old IMPROVE equation’’ is to provide 

more accurate estimates of the various 

factors that affect the calculation of light 

extinction. 

Wyoming used the new IMPROVE 

equation to calculate natural conditions 

and baseline visibility. The natural 

condition for each Class I area 

represents the visibility goal expressed 

in deciviews for the 20% worst days 

and the 20% best days that would exist 

if there were only naturally occurring 

visibility impairment. In accordance 

with 40 CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iii), the State 

calculated natural visibility conditions 

based on available monitoring 

information and appropriate data 

analysis techniques and in accordance 

with our 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance. The State also calculated the 

number of deciviews by which baseline 

conditions exceed natural conditions at 

each of its Class I areas to meet the 

requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A). 

Wyoming established the baseline 

visibility for the best and worst 

visibility days for each Class I area 

based on data from the IMPROVE 

monitoring sites. Each IMPROVE 

monitor collects particulate 

concentration data which are converted 

into reconstructed light extinction 

through a complex calculation using the 

IMPROVE equation (see Chapter 13 of 

the SIP for more information on 

reconstructed light extinction and the 

IMPROVE equation). Per 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2)(i), the State calculated 

baseline visibility using a five-year 

average (2000 to 2004) of IMPROVE data 

for both the 20% best and 20% worst 

days. The State’s baseline calculations 

were made in accordance with our 2003 

Tracking Progress Guidance. 

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(B), 

the State calculated the URP for each of 

its Class I areas. For the 20% worst 

days, the URP is the calculation of the 

deciview reduction needed to achieve 

natural conditions by 2064. For the 20% 

worst days, the State calculated the URP 

in deciviews per year using the 

following formula: URP = [Baseline 

Condition—Natural Condition]/60 

years. In order to determine the uniform 

progress needed by 2018 to be on the 

path to achieving natural visibility 

conditions by 2064, the State multiplied 

the URP by the 14 years in the first 

planning period (2004–2018). 

Table 1 shows the baseline visibility, 

natural conditions, and URP for each of 

the Class I areas. As indicated by the 

table, some Class I areas share a single 

monitor because of the proximity of the 

areas to each other. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, NATURAL CONDITIONS, AND URP FOR WYOMING CLASS I AREAS

20% Worst Days 20% Best Days 

Wyoming Class I 

areas Monitor name 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

2018 URP 

(deciview) 

Reduction 

Needed to 

Reach 2018 

URP 

(delta 

deciview) 

2064 Natural 

Conditions 

(deciview) 

Delta Baseline—2064 

Natural 

Conditions 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

Yellowstone National 

Park, Grand Teton 

National Park, Teton 

Wilderness .............. YELL2 11.8 10.5 1.3 6.44 5.36 2 .58 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34746 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

10Wyoming has elected to submit its RH SIP 

pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR 51.309. For 

states electing to submit under section 309, States 

do not have to do a BART analysis for SO2. SO2

controls are included in the backstop trading 

program under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(4). 

11Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer at http://www.src.com/ 

verio/download/download.htm. 

TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, NATURAL CONDITIONS, AND URP FOR WYOMING CLASS I AREAS—Continued 

20% Worst Days 20% Best Days 

Wyoming Class I 

areas Monitor name 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

2018 URP 

(deciview) 

Reduction 

Needed to 

Reach 2018 

URP 

(delta 

deciview) 

2064 Natural 

Conditions 

(deciview) 

Delta Baseline—2064 

Natural 

Conditions 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

North Absaroka Wilderness ...................

Washakie Wilderness NOABI 11.5 10.4 1.1 6.83 4.67 2 .0 

Bridger Wilderness, 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness ........................ BRID1 11.1 10.0 1.1 6.45 4.65 2 .1 

We have reviewed Wyoming’s 

baseline visibility, natural conditions, 

and URP. We find they have been 

calculated correctly and are proposing 

to approve them. 

C. BART Determinations 

BART is an element of Wyoming’s 

LTS for the first implementation period. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

VI.D of this notice, the BART evaluation 

process consists of three components: 

(1) An identification of all the BARTeligible sources; (2) an assessment of 

whether those BART-eligible sources are 

in fact subject-to-BART; and (3) a 

determination of any BART controls. 

Wyoming addressed these steps as 

follows: 

1. BART-Eligible Sources 

The first step of a BART evaluation is 

to identify all the BART-eligible sources 

within the state’s boundaries. Wyoming 

identified its BART-eligible sources by 

using the approach set out in the BART 

Guidelines (70 FR 39158). This 

approach provides three criteria for 

identifying BART-eligible sources: (1) 

One or more emission units at the 

facility fit within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART 

Guidelines; (2) the emission unit or 

units began operation on or after August 

6, 1962, and were in existence on 

August 6, 1977; and (3) combined 

potential emissions of any visibilityimpairing pollutant from the units that 

meet the criteria in (1) and (2) are 250 

tons or more per year. Wyoming 

reviewed source permits and emission 

data from 2001–2003 to identify 

facilities in the BART source categories 

with potential emissions of 250 tons per 

year or more for any visibility-impairing 

pollutant from any unit or units that 

were in existence on August 7, 1977 and 

began operation on or after August 7, 

1962. The BART Guidelines direct states 

to address SO2

10, NOX, and direct PM 

(including both PM10 and PM2.5) 

emissions as visibility-impairing 

pollutants and to exercise their ‘‘best 

judgment to determine whether VOC or 

NH3 emissions from a source are likely 

to have an impact on visibility in an 

area.’’ (70 FR 39162). 

The State analyzed the emissions 

from VOC and NH3 from sources in the 

State and eliminated them from further 

consideration for BART controls. The 

State evaluated the BART-eligible 

sources and determined emissions of 

VOC and NH3 were negligible. Thus, the 

State has eliminated VOC and NH3 from 

further consideration for BART controls. 

We agree with the State that emissions 

of VOC and NH3 are negligible and 

propose to accept this determination. 

The State determined that the 

following were BART-eligible sources: 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger, P4 Production, 

PacifiCorp Naughton, OCI Wyoming, 

FMC Granger, Dyno Nobel, FMC 

Westvaco, Sinclair Casper Refinery, 

Basin Electric Laramie River, Black Hills 

Neil Simpson 1, PacifiCorp Wyodak, 

Sinclair—Sinclair Refinery, PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston, and General Chemical 

Green River. 

We have reviewed this information 

and propose to accept this 

determination. 

2. Sources Subject-to-BART 

The second step of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e., those sources that are subject-toBART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, Wyoming performed 

dispersion modeling on the BARTeligible sources to assess the extent of 

their contribution to visibility 

impairment at surrounding Class I areas. 

a. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may use the CALPUFF 11

modeling system or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area 

and to, therefore, determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The Guidelines state that 

CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment (70 

FR 39162). 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions, and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with EPA and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. Wyoming used 

the CALPUFF model for Wyoming 

BART sources in accordance with a 

protocol it developed titled BART Air 

Modeling Protocol Individual Source 

Visibility Impairment Analysis, March 

2006, which was approved by EPA and 

is included in Chapter 6 of the State’s 

TSD. The Wyoming protocol follows 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34747 

12The State of Wyoming performed a refined 

CALPUFF visibility modeling analysis for the two 

BART-eligible units at the FMC Wyoming Granger 

Facility and demonstrated that the predicted 98th 

percentile impacts at Bridger Wilderness Area and 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area would be below 0.5 dv 

for all meteorological periods modeled. This 

modeling used higher-resolution meteorological 

data as compared to the data used by the State for 

the initial screening modeling that identified the 

facility as subject-to-BART. 

13CALPUFF modeling results, which provide the 

maximum change in visibility are summarized in 

the WY BART Screening Analysis Results and the 

WY BART Screening Analysis Results DV 

Frequency, which can also be found in Chapter 6 

of the State’s TSD. 14See our BART Guidelines, Section III.A.3. 

recommendations for long-range 

transport described in appendix W to 40 

CFR part 51, Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, and in EPA’s Interagency 

Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

(IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and 

Recommendations for Modeling Long 

Range Transport Impacts as 

recommended by the BART Guidelines. 

(40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section 

III.A.3). To determine if each BARTeligible source has a significant impact 

on visibility, Wyoming used the 

CALPUFF model to estimate daily 

visibility impacts above estimated 

natural conditions at each Class I area 

within 300 km of any BART-eligible 

facility. The emission rates used in the 

CALPUFF modeling were determined 

by Wyoming based upon existing 

permits, allowable rates, and emissions 

reporting data. 

b. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ (70 FR 39104, 39161). The 

BART Guidelines also state that ‘‘the 

appropriate threshold for determining 

whether a source contributes to 

visibility impairment may reasonably 

differ across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘‘contributes’’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, states should 

‘‘consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts.’’ The 

Guidelines affirm that states are free to 

use a lower threshold if they conclude 

that the location of a large number of 

BART-eligible sources in proximity to a 

Class I area justifies this approach. 

Wyoming used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciviews for 

determining which sources are subjectto-BART. By using a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciviews, Wyoming 

exempted seven of the fourteen BARTeligible sources in the State from further 

review under the BART requirements. 

Based on the modeling results, the State 

determined that P4 Production, FMC 

Granger,12 and OCI Wyoming had an 

impact of .07 deciview, 0.39 deciview, 

and 0.07 deciview, respectively, at 

Bridger Wilderness. Black Hills Neil 

Simpson 1, Sinclair Casper Refinery, 

and Sinclair—Sinclair Refinery have an 

impact of 0.27 deciview, 0.06 deciview, 

and 0.12 deciview, respectively, at 

Wind Cave. Dyno-Nobel had an impact 

of 0.22 deciview at Rocky Mountain 

National Park. These sources’ modeled 

visibility impacts fell below the State’s 

threshold of 0.5 deciview and were 

determined not to be subject-to-BART.13

Given the relatively limited impact on 

visibility from these seven sources, we 

propose to agree with Wyoming that 0.5 

deciviews is a reasonable threshold for 

determining whether its BART-eligible 

sources are subject-to-BART. 

Because our recommended modeling 

approach already incorporates choices 

that tend to lower peak daily visibility 

impact values,14 our BART Guidelines 

state that a state should compare the 

98th percentile (as opposed to the 90th 

or lower percentile) of CALPUFF 

modeling results against the 

‘‘contribution’’ threshold established by 

the state for purposes of determining 

BART applicability. Wyoming used a 

98th percentile comparison that we find 

appropriate. Further explanation on use 

of the 98th versus 90th percentile value 

is provided at 70 FR 39121. 

c. Sources Identified by Wyoming as 

Subject-to-BART 

Table 2 shows the sources identified 

by the State as subject-to-BART and the 

results of the CALPUFF modeling. The 

results reflect the single highest 

impacted year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34748 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

15Attachment A to the Wyoming 309(g) Regional 

Haze SIP. 

16White Paper, SNCR for Controlling NOX

Emissions, Institute of Clean of Clean Air 

Companies, pp. 4 and 9, February 2008. 17Hofmann, J., Sun, W., ‘‘Process for Nitrogen 

Oxides Reduction to Lowest Achievable Level’’, US 

Patent 5,229,090, July 20, 1993, Figure 6. 18Review of Estimated Compliance Costs for 

Wyoming Electric Generating (EGUs)—Revision of 

Previous Memo, memo from Jim Staudt, Andover 

Technology Partners, to Doug Grano, EC/R, Inc., 

February 7, 2013, page 7 (Staudt Memo). 

19Staudt memo, Table 2, p. 7. 

20Staudt memo, Table 1, p. 4. 

TABLE 2—WYOMING SUBJECT-TO-BART SOURCES AND CALPUFF MODELING RESULTS

Facility name Subject-to-BART units 

State modeling 

results—98th 

percentile 

delta-deciview 

PacifiCorp—Jim Bridger ..................................................................... Units 1–4 ...................................................................... 3 .1 

Basin Electric—Laramie River ............................................................ Units 1, 2 and 3 ............................................................ 3 .68 

PacifiCorp—Dave Johnston ............................................................... Units 3 and 4 ................................................................ 3 .30 

PacifiCorp—Naughton ........................................................................ Units 1–3 ...................................................................... 4 .36 

PacifiCorp—Wyodak ........................................................................... Unit 1 ............................................................................ 1 .66 

FMC—Westvaco ................................................................................. Units NS–1A and NS–1B ............................................. 1 .3 

General Chemical—Green River ........................................................ Boilers C and D ............................................................ 1 .36 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s determination of the subject-toBART sources. 

3. BART Determinations and Federally 

Enforceable Limits 

The third step of a BART evaluation 

is to perform the BART analysis. The 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164) 

describe the BART analysis as 

consisting of the following five steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies; 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options; 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies; 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results; and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

In determining BART, the State must 

consider the five statutory factors in 

section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs 

of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. See also 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

We find that Wyoming considered all 

five steps above in its BART 

determinations, but we propose to find 

that its consideration of the costs of 

compliance and visibility improvement 

for the EGUs was inadequate and did 

not properly follow the requirements in 

the BART Guidelines and statutory 

requirements, as explained below. 

a. Costs of Compliance 

Wyoming obtained the costs of 

compliance for controls from the BART 

applications submitted by sources that 

were subject to BART.15 EPA in turn 

relied on these costs in our original 

proposed rule. EPA has reviewed 

Wyoming’s cost analyses and has 

identified deficiencies in various cost 

assumptions and methods. Accordingly, 

EPA has subsequently and 

independently calculated costs of 

compliance and performed new 

visibility modeling. In many instances, 

the BART sources underestimated the 

cost of selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR), while overestimating the cost of 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) (both 

in combination with additional 

combustion controls). Depending on the 

particular BART source in question, we 

believe this was due to a number of 

errors, such as: use of incorrect baseline 

emissions; overestimation of the ability 

of SNCR to reduce NOX; 

underestimation of SNCR reagent (urea) 

usage and cost; and underestimation of 

the ability of SCR to reduce NOX. 

EPA has identified a number of flaws 

in Wyoming’s cost analyses for SNCR. 

For example, in the case of Laramie 

River Units 1–3, Wyoming significantly 

overestimated the ability of SNCR to 

reduce NOX. The analyses submitted by 

the source, and in turn used by 

Wyoming, assumed that after the 

installation of additional combustion 

controls, SNCR would reduce NOX from 

0.23 lb/MMBtu to 0.12 lb/MMBtu (or by 

roughly 48%). However, SNCR typically 

reduces NOX an additional 20 to 30% 

above combustion controls without 

excessive NH3 slip.16 NOX reduction 

with SNCR is known to be greater at 

higher NOX emission rates than lower 

rates.17 Accordingly, EPA has estimated 

that the NOX reduction from SNCR as 

30% for initial NOX greater than 0.25 lb/ 

MMBtu, 25% for NOX from 0.20 to 0.25 

lb/MMBtu and 20% for NOX less than 

0.20 lb/MMBtu.18 Due to the relatively 

recent installation of overfire air at the 

Laramie River units, the actual annual 

emissions in 2012 dropped to around 

0.19 lb/MMBtu,19 even lower than the 

0.23 lb/MMbtu rate assumed by 

Wyoming. Therefore, EPA predicts that 

the reduction that can be achieved with 

SNCR at the Laramie River units is 20%, 

which is much lower than the 48% 

assumed by Wyoming. This 

significantly reduces the tons reduced 

by SNCR which is in turn used in the 

calculation of cost effectiveness. It also 

affects the incremental cost 

effectiveness between SNCR and SCR 

(both in combination with additional 

combustion controls). In addition, our 

analysis of urea prices indicates that 

producer prices for urea have increased 

the past three years. This increase in 

price is not reflected in the Wyoming 

estimates for SNCR. 

EPA has also identified a number of 

flaws in Wyoming’s cost analyses for 

SCR. For example, Wyoming assumed 

that SCR could only achieve a control 

effectiveness of 0.07 lb/MMBtu. By 

contrast, EPA has determined that on an 

annual basis SCR can achieve emission 

rates of 0.05 lb/MMbtu or lower. 

Moreover, we note that Wyoming’s SCR 

capital costs on a $/kW basis often 

exceeded real-world industry costs. The 

capital costs for SCR claimed by 

Wyoming for Dave Johnston 3 and 4, 

Naughton Units 1–3, and Wyodak are in 

excess of the range of capital costs 

documented by various studies for 

actual installations. Five industry 

studies conducted between 2002 and 

2007 have reported the installed unit 

capital cost of SCRs, or the costs 

actually incurred by owners, to range 

from $79/kW to $316/kW (2010 dollars). 

By contrast, Wyoming’s SCR costs range 

from $415/kW to $531/kW.20 These 

studies show actual capital costs are 

much lower than Wyoming’s, 

particularly for the PacifiCorp units. 

For all control technologies, EPA has 

identified instances in which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34749 

21 ‘‘In order to maintain and improve consistency, 

cost estimates should be based on the OAQPS 

Control Cost Manual, where possible.’’ 70 FR 

39166. 

22 70 FR 39167. 

23Review of Estimated Compliance Costs for 

Wyoming Electric Generating (EGUs)—Revision of 

Previous Memo, memo from Jim Staudt, Andover 

Technology Partners, to Doug Grano, EC/R, Inc., 

February 7, 2013. (Staudt Memo). 

24Review of Estimated BART Compliance Costs 

for Wyoming Electricity Generating Units (EGUs) 

memo from Jim Staudt, Andover Technology 

Partners, to Doug Grano, EC/R, Inc., February 7, 

2013. 

25A summary of EPA’s modeling methodology 

and results for the original proposed rulemaking 

can be found in the docket under EPA BART and 

RP Modeling for Wyoming Sources. 

26 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). 27See Staudt memos. 

Wyoming’s source-based cost analyses 

did not follow the methods set forth in 

the EPA Control Cost Manual.21 For 

example, Wyoming included an 

allowance for funds used during 

construction and for owners costs and 

did not provide sufficient 

documentation such as vendor estimates 

or bids. 

In addition, for the PacifiCorp units, 

Wyoming calculated the baseline annual 

emissions used for determining cost 

effectiveness based on allowable 

emissions, rated heat input, and 7,884 

hours of operation (equivalent to a 85% 

capacity factor), which are not 

representative of actual emissions from 

the baseline period. By contrast, the 

BART Guidelines state that the baseline 

emissions should ‘‘represent a realistic 

depiction of anticipated annual 

emissions for the source.’’ 22 Therefore, 

in our revised cost analyses, we have 

consistently used the actual annual 

average emissions from 2001–2003 to 

represent baseline emissions. 

To address these flaws and 

deficiencies, EPA has developed 

independent cost analyses. In our 

revised cost analyses, we have followed 

the structure of the EPA Control Cost 

Manual, though we have largely used 

the Integrated Planning Model cost 

calculations to estimate direct capital 

costs and operating and maintenance 

costs. We have also followed the BART 

Guidelines. Detailed information on the 

revised costs can be found in the 

docket.23 24 In addition, we received 

comments on our original proposed 

rulemaking from the National Park 

Service and Conservation Organizations 

that expressed similar concerns with the 

State’s cost analyses. 

b. Visibility Improvement Modeling 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may use the CALPUFF modeling 

system or another appropriate model to 

determine the visibility improvement 

expected at a Class I area from potential 

BART control technologies applied to 

the source. The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for modeling 

visibility improvement, and suggest that 

states may want to consult with EPA 

and their RPO to address any issues 

prior to modeling. Wyoming developed 

a modeling protocol titled BART Air 

Modeling Protocol Individual Source 

Visibility Assessments for BART 

Control Analyses, September 2006, for 

sources to use when they performed 

their BART analysis (see Chapter 6 of 

the State’s TSD). The Wyoming protocol 

follows recommendations for long-range 

transport described in appendix W to 40 

CFR part 51, Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, and in EPA’s Interagency 

Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling 

(IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report and 

Recommendations for Modeling Long 

Range Transport Impacts, as 

recommended by the BART Guidelines 

(40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section 

III.D.5). 

While we are able to propose approval 

of the State’s PM BART determinations 

without having additional visibility 

improvement modeling for PM controls, 

as discussed below, additional visibility 

improvement modeling to address the 

EGU NOX BART controls was needed 

and subsequently performed by EPA 

and presented in our original proposed 

rulemaking.25 Our additional modeling 

to support the original proposed rule 

was intended to addresses two 

deficiencies. First, while Wyoming took 

into consideration the degree of 

visibility improvement for some BART 

NOX control options for the PacifiCorp 

EGUs, such as SCR, they did not do so 

for SNCR. The visibility improvement 

for SNCR was neither provided in the 

State’s SIP nor made available to EPA. 

Wyoming did not assess the visibility 

improvement of SNCR despite having 

found it to be a technically feasible 

control option, and having considered a 

number of the other statutory factors for 

SNCR, such as costs of compliance and 

energy impacts. Wyoming did not 

consider the visibility improvement 

associated with SNCR, which is clearly 

in conflict with the requirements set 

forth in section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA, 

as well as in the implementing 

regulations,26 which require that states 

take into consideration ‘‘the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology.’’ Because 

Wyoming did not do so, and in order to 

be consistent with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements, EPA conducted 

additional CALPUFF modeling to fill 

this gap in the State’s visibility analysis 

(that is, to assess the visibility 

improvement associated with SNCR). 

Second, it was not possible for EPA, 

or any other party, to ascertain the 

visibility improvement that would 

result from the installation of the 

various NOX control options because 

Wyoming modeled the emission 

reductions for multiple pollutants 

together in its SIP. In other words, 

because the visibility improvement 

associated with each of the State’s 

control scenarios was due to the 

combined emission reductions 

associated with SO2, NOX, and PM 

controls, it was not possible to isolate 

what portion of the improvement was 

attributable to the NOX controls alone. 

In addition, because Wyoming varied 

SO2 and PM emission rates along with 

NOX emission rates, it was not possible 

to assess the incremental visibility 

improvement between the various NOX

controls options. For these reasons, EPA 

conducted additional modeling for the 

EGUs in which we held SO2 and PM 

emission rates constant (reflecting the 

‘‘committed controls’’ identified by 

Wyoming), and varied only the NOX

emission rate. This allowed us to isolate 

the degree of visibility improvement 

attributable to the NOX control 

technologies. The modeling which EPA 

performed to support our original 

proposed rule addressed these two 

deficiencies in the State’s analysis. 

To support today’s proposal, EPA has 

found it necessary to revise the 

CALPUFF modeling we performed in 

association with our original proposed 

rule. The revised modeling to support 

today’s proposed rule is intended to 

address two additional issues that were 

raised by commenters during the 

comment period for the original 

proposed rule. First, as discussed above 

in section V.II, we have revised the costs 

of control submitted by the State. In the 

process of revising these costs, we have 

calculated a new removal efficiency for 

the control options under consideration 

to reflect updated assumptions about 

baseline emissions and control 

effectiveness.27

In order to align our cost and 

modeling analyses, these removal 

efficiencies have been incorporated into 

our revised modeling. Second, the 

emission rates we relied on in our 

original proposed rule for both the 

baseline (i.e., pre-control) and postcontrol modeling scenarios were not 

consistent with the BART Guidelines. 

For pre-control emission rates, the 

BART Guidelines recommend that 

States use the 24-hour average actual 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34750 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

28The BART Guidelines, Section IV. (70 FR 

39170) specify that the modeling should ‘‘[u]se the 

24-hour average actual emission rate from the 

highest emitting day of the meteorological period 

modeled (for the pre-control scenario)’’. 

29The BART Guidelines, Section IV. (70 FR 

39170) specify that ‘‘[p]ost-control emission rates 

are calculated as a percentage of pre-control 

emission rates’’. 

30EPA’s modeling results and a summary of 

EPA’s modeling methodology can be found in the 

docket under Summary of EPA’s Revised 

Modeling—Including Revisions from Previous 

Version Posted on 1/18/2013 and Results for Jim 

Bridger Units 1–4 and EPA’s Revised Modeling 

Results; posted to the docket on February 11, 2013. 

31FMC Westvaco and General Chemical Green 

River are not EGUs and EPA did not identify the 

same cost and visibility improvement modeling 

issues as it did for the EGUs and are thus proposing 

to approve the State’s BART analyses and 

determinations for these units. 

emission rate from the highest emitting 

day of the meteorological period 

modeled.28 By contrast, the visibility 

modeling performed by PacifiCorp, and 

subsequently submitted by the State and 

utilized by EPA in our original proposal, 

deviates from the BART Guidelines by 

using permit limits and the maximum 

rated heat input to derive the modeled 

emission rates. Similarly, the visibility 

modeling performed by Basin Electric, 

and subsequently submitted by the State 

and utilized by EPA in our original 

proposal, deviates from the BART 

Guidelines by using actual annual 

average heat input and actual annual 

average emission rates (on a lb/MMBtu 

basis) from 2001–2003 continuous 

emissions monitoring data to derive 

modeled emission rates. Furthermore, 

the BART Guidelines recommend that 

post-control emission rates be 

calculated as a percentage of pre-control 

emission rates.29 The visibility 

modeling performed by PacifiCorp and 

Basin Electric, and subsequently 

submitted by the State and utilized by 

EPA in our original proposal, deviates 

from the BART Guidelines by using 

post-control emission rates calculated in 

a similar manner to the pre-control 

emission rates. Our revised modeling 

remedies both of the issues identified by 

the commenters and is consistent with 

the requirements of the BART 

Guidelines. We have otherwise followed 

the procedures contained in the 

Wyoming BART Air Modeling Protocol. 

A summary of EPA’s revised modeling 

methodology and results can be found 

in the docket.30

Because Wyoming relied on visibility 

modeling methodologies that are 

inconsistent with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements, we do not 

consider Wyoming’s analyses of 

visibility improvement for NOX BART 

to be reasonable. We propose to find 

that Wyoming’s analyses are 

inconsistent with the statutory and 

regulatory requirement that Wyoming 

reasonably take into consideration ‘‘the 

degree of improvement in visibility 

which may reasonably be anticipated to 

result from the use of such technology.’’ 

Therefore, as discussed in more detail 

below, we are proposing to disapprove 

several of the State’s NOX BART 

determinations that do not meet the 

requirements of the CAA and regional 

haze regulations because they are 

inconsistent with the visibility 

requirements. 

c. Summary of BART Determinations 

and Federally Enforceable Limits 

For the subject-to-BART sources, the 

State provided BART analyses, as well 

as additional technical information and 

materials, in Attachment A to the SIP. 

Chapter 6 of the SIP provides a 

summary of the five-factor analyses. As 

noted above, for this proposed 

rulemaking, EPA performed cost 

analyses and NOX visibility 

improvement modeling for the control 

technology options analyzed for the 

subject-to-BART EGU sources. We are 

presenting the BART analyses that we 

based our June 4, 2012 proposed 

rulemaking on, as well as EPA’s revised 

BART analyses, reflecting our revised 

cost and visibility improvement 

modeling for the EGUs. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s BART determinations for the 

following units because we have 

determined that the State’s conclusions 

were reasonable despite the cost and 

visibility errors for the EGUs discussed 

earlier: NOX and PM BART for FMC 

Westvaco Unit NS–1A and NS–1B; NOX

and PM BART for General Chemical 

Green River Boiler C and Boiler D; 31 PM 

BART for Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3; PM BART for 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3; PM 

BART for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 

4; NOX and PM BART (including 

reasonable progress controls) for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1–4; PM 

BART for PacifiCorp Naughton Units 

1and 2; NOX and PM BART for 

Naughton Unit 3; and PM BART for 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1. A summary 

of the State’s and EPA’s BART 

determination for each source is 

provided below. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

State’s NOX BART determinations and 

promulgate a FIP for the following units: 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 3 and 4; 

PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 2; 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1; and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

After re-analyzing the costs of control 

and visibility improvement associated 

with these units, we determined that the 

State’s selection of NOX BART controls 

could not be supported, warranting a 

FIP. EPA’s reasoning behind its own 

NOX BART determinations and 

emission limitations for these units can 

be found in section VIII.A of this notice. 

i. FMC Westvaco—Units NS–1A and 

NS–1B 

Background 

FMC’s Westvaco facility is a trona 

mine and sodium products plant located 

in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. FMC 

Westvaco has two existing coal-fired 

boilers, Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B, 

that are subject to BART. Unit NS–1A 

and Unit NS–1B each have a design heat 

input rate of 887 MMBtu/hr and were 

constructed in 1975. They are both wallfired, wet-bottom boilers burning 

subbituminous coal. The State’s BART 

determinations for these units can be 

found in Chapter 6.5.2 and Attachment 

A of the SIP. 

NOX BART Determination 

Units NS–1A and NS–1B are currently 

controlled with combustion air control 

with a permit limit of 0.7 lb/MMBtu (3- 

hour rolling average). The State 

determined that low NOX burners 

(LNBs) and overfired air (OFA), LNBs 

and OFA with SNCR, and LNBs and 

OFA with SCR were all technically 

feasible for reducing NOX emissions at 

Unit NS–1A and NS–1B. The State did 

not identify any technically infeasible 

options. The State did not identify any 

energy or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analyses and the visibility impacts is 

provided in Table 3. Baseline NOX

emissions are 2,719.5 tpy for each unit 

based on a heat input rate of 887 

MMBtu/hr and 8,760 hours of operation 

per year. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34751 

TABLE 3—SUMMARY OF FMC WESTVACO UNIT NS–1A AND UNIT NS–1B NOX BART ANALYSIS* 

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

LNB + OFA ...................... 0.35 $1,359.7 $413,145 $304 ............................ 0.13 

LNB + OFA + SNCR ........ 0.21 1,903.6 1,281,851 673 $1,597 0.19 

LNB + OFA + SCR .......... 0.10 2,331.0 8,141,177 3,493 16,051 0.24 

*This table reflects the costs and visibility improvements per boiler. 

The visibility modeling in the State’s 

SIP only includes the visibility 

improvement at the two most impacted 

Class I areas: Bridger Wilderness Area 

and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area. The 

visibility improvement at Bridger is 

listed in the Table above. For 

Fitzpatrick, the visibility improvement 

is .09 dv for LNBs with OFA, 0.11 dv 

for LNBs with SNCR, and 0.13 dv for 

LNBs with SCR. Given the limited 

visibility improvement at the two most 

impacted areas, we propose to find that 

it was reasonable for the State to model 

only those two receptors. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that LNBs 

plus OFA are reasonable for BART. The 

State determined that the other control 

options were not reasonable based on 

the cost effectiveness and associated 

visibility improvement. The State has 

determined that NOX BART emission 

limit for FMC Westvaco Unit NS–1A 

and Unit MS–1B is 0.35 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average). 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its 

NOX BART determinations for FMC 

Westvaco Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B. 

Although the cost-effectiveness for 

SNCR is reasonable, we find it 

reasonable for the State not to select this 

control technology based on the 

incremental visibility improvement for 

this control technology. 

PM BART Determination 

Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B are 

currently controlled for PM emissions 

by electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). The 

units each currently have a PM emission 

limit of 0.05 lb/MMBtu. The State 

determined that fabric filters on the wet 

scrubber, addition of an ESP 

downstream of the wet scrubber, and 

replacement of the ESPs with fabric 

filters were technically feasible control 

options. The State did not identify any 

energy or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s PM BART 

analysis is provided in Table 4 below. 

Baseline PM emissions are 197 tpy for 

each unit based on a heat input rate of 

887 MMBtu/hr and 8,760 hours of 

operation per year. 

TABLE 4—SUMMARY OF FMC WESTVACO UNIT NS–1A AND UNIT NS–1B PM BART ANALYSIS* 

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/mmbtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter on Wet Scrubber ....................... 21.4 0 .04 41.7 $1,791,364 $42,948 

ESP after Wet Scrubber ................................ 63.3 0 .019 123.3 3,507,617 28,448 

Replace ESP with Fabric Filter ...................... 71.3 0 .015 138.8 4,116,036 29,654 

*This table reflects the costs and visibility improvements per boiler. 

Given the high cost of controls, which 

are higher than what EPA, or other 

states have considered reasonable for 

PM, FMC did not evaluate the visibility 

improvement that would result from the 

PM controls evaluated. Previous 

visibility modeling analyses from the 

source indicate that the contribution in 

visibility degradation from PM is minor 

when compared to the effects of NOX

and SO2. Results from FMC’s visibility 

modeling screening and analysis 

confirm this conclusion and are 

discussed in further detail within the 

comprehensive visibility analysis 

included as part of FMC’s BART 

application (see Attachment A to the 

SIP). The State agreed with FMC’s 

conclusions and did not require FMC to 

perform additional visibility analyses 

for the PM control options. 

The State determined that the current 

ESP control was reasonable for PM 

BART. The State rejected other controls 

because of their high cost-effectiveness 

values. The State has determined that 

the PM BART emission limits for FMC 

Westvaco Unit NS–1A and NS–1B are 

0.05 lb/MMBtu, 45.0 lb/hr, and 197 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determinations for FMC 

Westvaco Unit NS–1A and Unit NS–1B. 

ii. General Chemical Green River— 

Boilers C and D 

General Chemical Green River is a 

trona mine and sodium products plant. 

General Chemical’s two existing coalfired boilers, C and D, are co-located at 

the facility power plant. Both boilers 

burn low sulfur bituminous coal, and 

they supply power and process steam to 

mining and ore processing operations. 

Both boilers are tangentially fired using 

in-line coal pulverizers. The firing rate 

is 534 MMBtu/hr for Boiler C and 880 

MMBtu/hr for Boiler D. The State’s 

BART determinations can be found in 

Chapter 6.5.3 and Attachment A of the 

SIP. 

NOX BART Determination 

Boiler C and Boiler D are currently 

controlled with LNBs plus OFA with a 

permit limit of 0.7 lb/MMBtu (3-hour 

rolling average). On August 7, 2009, the 

State issued a BART permit to General 

Chemical that required the source to 

meet a NOX emission limit of 0.32 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average) for 

Boiler C and Boiler D. The State 

assumed the source could meet this 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34752 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

emission limit with the installation and 

operation of new LNBs with the existing 

OFA. Upon further investigation, the 

source determined it could not meet a 

limit of 0.32 lbs/MMBtu with new LNBs 

and the existing OFA. In response to the additional 

information provided by the source, the 

State reexamined its BART 

determination for Boiler C and D. The 

State determined that installing SOFA 

in addition to the existing LNBs and 

OFA could achieve an emission limit of 

0.28 lb/MMBtu. Because SOFA in 

conjunction with the existing NOX

controls could achieve better emission 

reductions than new LNBs plus OFA, 

the State eliminated the latter from 

further consideration in the BART 

analysis. The State determined that 

SNCR and SCR were also technically 

feasible. The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible options. The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analysis and visibility impacts is 

provided in Tables 5 and 6 below. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 1,167 tpy 

for Boiler C and 1,816 tpy for Boiler D 

based on an average of 2001–2003 actual 

emissions. 

TABLE 5—SUMMARY OF GENERAL CHEMICAL—GREEN RIVER BOILER C NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

Existing LNBs with SOFA 0.28 512 $757,711 $1,480 — 0.05 

SNCR ............................... 0.35 584 1,433,720 2,455 $4,782 0.08 

SCR .................................. 0.14 934 2,434,809 2,607 3,156 0.14 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF GENERAL CHEMICAL—GREEN RIVER BOILER D NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

Existing LNBs with SOFA 028 737 $943,549 $1,280 — 0.07 

SNCR ............................... 0.35 908 1,486,581 3,176 $2,913 0.12 

SCR .................................. 0.14 1,453 3,399,266 3,510 4,342 0.17 

The visibility modeling in the State’s 

SIP only includes the visibility 

improvement at the two most impacted 

Class I areas: Bridger Wilderness Area 

and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area. The 

visibility improvement at Bridger is 

listed in the Table above. For 

Fitzpatrick, the visibility improvement 

is 0.10 dv for LNBs with SOFA, 0.09 for 

SNCR, and 0.12 dv for SCR for each 

unit. Given the limited visibility 

improvement at the two most impacted 

areas, we propose to find that it was 

reasonable for the State to model only 

those two receptors. Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that NOX

BART is the existing LNBs with new 

SOFA, or a comparable performing 

technology. The State determined that 

SNCR and SCR were not reasonable 

based on the high cost effectiveness and 

low visibility improvement. The State 

determined the NOX BART emission 

limit for General Chemical Green River 

Boiler C is 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average) and that the NOX BART 

emission limit for Boiler D is 0.28 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its 

NOX BART determinations for General 

Chemical Green River—Boiler C and D. 

Although the cost-effectiveness for 

SNCR and SCR is reasonable, we find it 

reasonable for the State not to select this 

control technology based on the low 

visibility improvement for these control 

technologies. 

PM BART Determination 

Boilers C and D are currently 

controlled by ESPs with permit limits of 

50 lb/hr and 80 lb/hr, respectively. 

General Chemical addressed PM 

emissions through an abbreviated 

analysis by using PM BART information 

from FMC Westvaco, as discussed 

above. The facilities are similar in size 

and located about ten miles apart. 

Baseline PM emissions are 98 tpy for 

Boiler C and 161 tpy for Boiler D based 

on the average of 2001–2003 actual 

emissions. As discussed above, 

visibility modeling screening and 

analyses for FMC Westvaco indicate that 

the contribution in visibility 

degradation from PM for a source 

comparable to Boiler C and Boiler D is 

minor. Additionally, costs for 

controlling PM from similar boilers are 

high as indicated by the FMC analysis 

for Westvaco. 

The State accepted General 

Chemical’s abbreviated PM BART 

analysis. The State determined that the 

current ESP control was reasonable for 

PM BART. The State rejected other 

controls because of their high costeffectiveness values. The State 

determined that the PM BART emission 

limits for Boiler C are 0.09 lb/MMBtu, 

50 lb/hr, and 219 tpy, and that the PM 

BART emissions limits for Boiler D are 

0.09 lb/MMBtu, 80 lb/hr, and 350.4 tpy. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for General 

Chemical Green River Boiler C and D. 

iii. Basin Electric Laramie River 

Station—Units 1–3 

Basin Electric Laramie River Station is 

located in Platte County, Wyoming. 

Laramie River Station is comprised of 

three 550 MW dry-bottom, wall-fired 

boilers (Units 1, 2, and 3) burning 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34753 

32We are assuming the same costs for Unit 2 as 

the other Jim Bridger Units. The State analyzed Unit 

2 using post installation of LNBs/OFA costs so the cost information provided in their analysis is not 

consistent with an uncontrolled baseline. 

subbituminous coal for a total net 

generating capacity of 1,650 MW. All 

three units are subject-to-BART. The 

State’s BART determination can be 

found in Chapter 6.5.8 and Attachment 

A of the SIP (The NOX BART analysis 

is discussed in section VIII.A of this 

notice). 

PM BART Determination 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 are 

currently controlled with ESPs, each 

with a permit limit of 0.03 lb/MMBtu. 

The State determined that fabric filters 

were technically feasible for Unit 3 but 

not Units 1 and 2. Units 1 and 2 are 

controlled with wet flue gas 

desulfurization and fabric filters cannot 

be used downstream of such a system. 

The State determined that flue gas 

treatment and GE Max-9 hybrid were 

technically infeasible for all three units. 

Thus, the only technically feasible 

control option for PM is fabric filters on 

Unit 3. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s PM BART 

analysis for Unit 3 is provided in Table 

7 below. Baseline PM emissions are 716 

tpy for the unit based on 2001–2003 

actual emissions. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 3 PM BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate (lb/ 

MMBtu) (30-day 

rolling average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter—Peak Rate for Lost Generating 

Costs ............................................................ 50 0.015 358 $194,809,000 $54,707 

Fabric Filter Non-Peak Rate for Lost Generating Costs ................................................... 50 0.015 358 134,934,000 40,156 

The State did not provide visibility 

improvement modeling for fabric filters, 

but EPA is proposing to conclude this 

is reasonable based on the high costeffectiveness of fabric filters at each of 

the units, which is higher than EPA or 

other state have considered reasonable 

for PM BART. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that the 

current ESPs are reasonable for PM 

BART, as fabric filters on Unit 3 are not 

cost-effective and there are no other 

technically feasible controls for Units 1 

and 2. The State determined that the PM 

BART emission limit for each of the 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 is 0.03 

lb/MMBtu. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

iv. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 3 

and 4 

Background 

PacifiCorp’s Dave Johnston power 

plant is located in Converse County, 

Wyoming. Dave Johnston Power Plant is 

comprised of four units burning 

pulverized subbituminous Powder River 

Basin coal. Units 3 and 4 are the only 

units subject-to-BART. Dave Johnston 

Unit 3 is a nominal 230 MW pulverized 

coal-fired boiler that commenced 

service in 1964. It was equipped with 

burners in a cell configuration until 

2010, but was then converted to a dry 

bottom wall-fired boiler. Dave Johnston 

Unit 4 is a nominal 330 MW pulverized 

coal-fired boiler that commenced 

service in 1972. It is a tangential-fired 

boiler. The State’s BART analysis can be 

found in Chapter 6.5.5 and Appendix A 

of the SIP (the NOX BART 

determination for Dave Johnston Unit 3 

and Unit 4 is discussed in section VIII.A 

of this notice). 

PM BART Determination 

Units 3 and 4 are currently controlled 

with fabric filters installed in 2008 with 

an emission limit of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. 

The State determined that fabric filters 

represent the most stringent PM control 

technology and that 0.015 lb/MMBtu is 

the most stringent emission limit. 

Consistent with the BART Guidelines, 

the State did not provide a five-factor 

analysis because the State determined 

BART to be the most stringent control 

technology and limit available (70 FR 

39165). The State determined that the 

PM BART emission limits for Unit 3 and 

4 are both 0.015 lb/MMBtu. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for Dave Johnston 

Units 3 and 4. 

v. PacifiCorp Jim Bridger—Units 1–4 

Background 

PacifiCorp’s Jim Bridger Power Plant 

is located in Sweetwater County, 

Wyoming. Jim Bridger is comprised of 

four identically sized nominal 530 MW 

tangentially fired boilers burning 

pulverized coal for a total net generating 

capacity of 2,120 MW. Jim Bridger Unit 

1 was placed in service in 1974, Unit 2 

in 1975, Unit 3 in 1976, and Unit 4 in 

1979. The State’s BART determination 

can be found in Chapter 6.5.4 and 

Appendix A of the SIP. 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

for Jim Bridger Unit 1 and Unit 2 

During the baseline period of 2001– 

2003, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2 were equipped with early 

generation LNBs with permit limits of 

0.70 lb/MMBtu (3-hour fixed) and 0.42 

lb/MMBtu and 0.40 lb/MMBtu (annual 

limit), respectively. The State 

determined that new LNBs with SOFA, 

new LNBs with SOFA plus SNCR, and 

new LNBs with SOFA plus SCR were all 

technically feasible for controlling NOX

emissions. The State did not identify 

any technically infeasible options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, nor are there any remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 10,643 tpy 

for each unit based on unit heat input 

rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours 

of operation. A summary of the State’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Table 8 below.32

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34754 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1 AND 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS—COSTS PER BOILER

Control technology 

Emission rate (lb/ 

MMBtu) (30-day 

rolling average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement (delta 

deciview for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Mt. Zirkel 

wilderness) 

New LNB with SOFA ....... 0.26 4,493 $1,144,969 $255 — 0.41/0.47 

New LNB with SOFA and 

SNCR ........................... 0.20 5,913 2,710.801 459 $1,103 0.52/0.62 

New LNB with SOFA and 

SCR .............................. 0.07 8,987 20,296,400 2,258 5,721 0.76/0.82 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined new LNBs 

with SOFA was reasonable for NOX

BART. The State determined the NOX

BART emission limit for Jim Bridger 

Units 1and 2 is 0.28 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). 

PacifiCorp is required to install 

additional controls under the State’s 

LTS. The State determined that based 

on the cost of compliance and visibility 

improvement presented by PacifiCorp in 

the BART applications for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2 and taking into 

consideration the logistical challenge of 

managing multiple pollution control 

installations within the regulatory time 

allotted for installation of BART by the 

RHR, additional controls would be 

required under the LTS in order to 

achieve reasonable progress but would 

not be requires as BART. With respect 

to Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, the State 

has required PacifiCorp to install SCR, 

or other NOX control systems, to achieve 

an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu on 

a 30-day rolling average. As part of 

Wyoming’s Regional Haze plan, 

PacifiCorp is required to meet the 0.07 

lb/MMBtu emission rate on Unit 1 prior 

to December 31, 2021 and on Unit 2 

prior to December 31, 2022. 

EPA’s PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2 NOX BART Determination 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 8,426 tpy 

for Unit 1 and 7,577 for Unit 2 based on 

the actual annual average for the years 

2001–2003. A summary of the EPA’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Tables 9–12 

below. The cost effectiveness values for 

the Jim Bridger units vary considerably 

for the same control option. This is 

largely due to differences in the (actual) 

baseline emissions. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF EPA’S JIM BRIDGER UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Mt. 

Zirkel) 

New LNBs with OFA ........ 0.18 4,558 $1,167,297 $256 — 0.59 

New LNBs with OFA and 

SNCR ........................... 0.14 5,332 4,402,757 826 $4,182 0.69 

New LNBs with OFA and 

SCR .............................. 0.05 7,352 17,592,636 2,393 6,530 0.96 

Jim Bridger Unit 1 also impacts other 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 10 

below. 

TABLE 10—JIM BRIDGER UNIT 1: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – New 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – New 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – New 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Bridger ............................................................................................................................. 0.53 0.62 0.91 

Fitzpatrick ......................................................................................................................... 0.22 0.26 0.36 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.59 0.70 0.96 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.50 0.58 0.79 

Grand Teton ..................................................................................................................... 0.17 0.19 0.27 

Teton ................................................................................................................................ 0.16 0.19 0.26 

Washakie ......................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.21 0.27 

Yellowstone ...................................................................................................................... 0.23 0.15 0.26 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34755 

33See July 12, 2012 letter from PacifiCorp to EPA 

Region 8 located in the docket for this notice. 

34For a listing of PacifiCorp’s retrofit actions, see 

Table 1 of Exhibit A—PacifiCorp’s Emissions 

Reductions Plan in Chapter 6 of the State’s TSD. 

35See Exhibit A—PacifiCorp’s Emissions 

Reductions Plan in Chapter 6 of the State’s TSD. 

TABLE 11—SUMMARY OF EPA’S JIM BRIDGER UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Mt. Zirkel) 

New LNBs with OFA ........ 0.19 3,787 $1,167,297 $308 — 0.55 

New LNBs with OFA and 

SNCR ........................... 0.15 4,545 4,360,958 959 $4,214 0.65 

New LNBs with OFA and 

SCR .............................. 0.05 6,554 19,757,979 3,015 7,664 0.95 

Jim Bridger Unit 2 also impacts other 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 12 

below. 

TABLE 12—JIM BRIDGER UNIT 2: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Bridger ............................................................................................................................. 0.48 0.58 0.89 

Fitzpatrick ......................................................................................................................... 0.21 0.25 0.36 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.46 0.48 0.78 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.38 0.46 0.68 

Grand Teton ..................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.18 0.26 

Teton ................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.18 0.25 

Washakie ......................................................................................................................... 0.17 0.20 0.27 

Yellowstone ...................................................................................................................... 0.15 0.18 0.26 

As discussed in detail above, because 

Wyoming relied on visibility modeling 

methodologies that are inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, we do not consider 

Wyoming’s analysis of visibility 

improvement for the NOX BART to be 

reasonable for Wyodak Unit 1. We 

propose to find that Wyoming’s analysis 

for this Unit is inconsistent with the 

statutory and regulatory requirement 

that ‘‘the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology.’’ 

Also, we are not relying on the State’s 

costs due to reasons stated in section 

VII.C.3.b of this notice. We propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably ‘‘take into consideration the 

costs of compliance.’’ 

Our analysis follows our BART 

Guidelines. With the exception of the 

NOX emission limits, the visibility 

improvement analyses, and the cost 

effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing 

to find that the Wyoming RH BART 

analysis NOX for Dave Johnson Units 4 

fulfills all the relevant requirements of 

CAA Section 169A and the RHR. 

PacifiCorp asserted to the State during 

formulation of the SIP proposal, and has 

since asserted directly to EPA 33, that a 

number of factors, when considered 

together, suggest that requiring 

installation of SCR at Jim Bridger Units 

1 and 2 earlier than 2021–2022 is not 

reasonable. First, PacifiCorp points to 

the large number of retrofit actions it is 

taking at 20 coal-fired electric 

generating units in Wyoming, Utah, 

Colorado, and Arizona in order to 

reduce their emissions.34 These retrofits 

are intended to comply with the 

requirements in the regional haze SIPs 

that these states have submitted to EPA 

and with other regulatory requirements, 

including required controls for mercury 

and acid gases under the recent Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards rule. The 

company asserts that there are high 

capital costs for the measures required 

for these air quality-improving retrofits. 

Moreover, PacifiCorp states that 

accelerating the required installation of 

SCR at Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 to late 

2017, rather than the 2021 and 2022 

dates established by the State, would 

significantly increase the costs to the 

utility and to its customers. 

In addition, the company asserts that 

it has designed the installation schedule 

in order to minimize the number of 

units that are out of service system wide 

for installation of emissions controls at 

any one time. Its goal, it asserts, is to be 

able to maintain service to its customers 

with an adequate capacity margin. The 

company asserts that accelerating the 

timeline for installation of SCR would 

upset the orderly shut-down schedule 

they have devised and would threaten 

both service interruptions and an 

increased risk of spot-purchases of more 

expensive electrical energy, if it is 

available, to serve customers, but that 

either eventuality would significantly 

increase costs to its customers.35

EPA notes that PacifiCorp has offered 

these assertions taking into account only 

the requirements in the SIPs that have 

been submitted to EPA by Wyoming, 

Utah, Colorado, and Arizona. Today’s 

proposal includes requirements that 

would likely require the additional 

installation of SCRs at three units and 

SNCR at two units owned by PacifiCorp 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34756 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

36Unit 4 has different modeling results as the 

stack parameters used in the modeling are different 

enough from Units 1–3 to yield different modeled 

results. 

in Wyoming. In addition, we have since 

finalized action on the SIP for Arizona, 

and are requiring LNBs plus SCR on 

three units under a FIP. 

As stated in the BART Guidelines 

pertaining to affordability: ‘‘1. Even if 

the control technology is cost effective, 

there may be cases where the 

installation of controls would affect the 

viability of continued plant operations. 

2. There may be unusual circumstances 

that justify taking into consideration the 

conditions of the plant and the 

economic effects of requiring the use of 

a given control technology. These effects 

would include effects on product prices, 

the market share, and profitability of the 

source. Where there are such unusual 

circumstances that are judged to affect 

plant operations, you may take into 

consideration the conditions of the 

plant and the economic effects of 

requiring the use of a control 

technology. Where these effects are 

judged to have a severe impact on plant 

operations you may consider them in 

the selection process, but you may wish 

to provide an economic analysis that 

demonstrates, in sufficient detail for 

public review, the specific economic 

effects, parameters, and reasoning. (We 

recognize that this review process must 

preserve the confidentiality of sensitive 

business information). Any analysis 

may also consider whether other 

competing plants in the same industry 

have been required to install BART 

controls if this information is available.’’ 

40 CFR part 50, Appendix Y, IV.E.3. 

Based on the points made by 

PacifiCorp and noting the additional 

requirements in the proposed FIP for 

Wyoming, the finalized FIP for Arizona, 

and the possibility of additional 

requirements in a future FIP or SIP for 

Utah, EPA is proposing that the 

additional time to install controls under 

the State’s LTS on Jim Bridger Unit 1 

and Unit 2 is warranted under the 

affordability provisions in the BART 

Guidelines discussed above. Although 

neither the CAA nor the RHR require 

states or EPA to consider the 

affordability of controls or ratepayer 

impacts as part of a BART analysis, the 

BART guidelines allow (but do not 

require) consideration of ‘‘affordability’’ 

in the BART analysis. 

EPA is proposing to determine that 

BART for all units at Jim Bridger would 

be SCR if the units were considered 

individually, based on the five factors, 

without regard for the controls being 

required at other units in the PacifiCorp 

system. However, when the cost of 

BART controls at other PacifiCorpowned EGUs is considered as part of the 

cost factor for the Jim Bridger Units, 

EPA is proposing that Wyoming’s 

determination that NOX BART for these 

units is new LNB plus OFA for is 

reasonable. Considering costs broadly, it 

would be unreasonable to require any 

further retrofits at this source within 

five years of our final action. We note 

that the CAA establishes five years at 

the longest period that can be allowed 

for compliance with BART emission 

limits. 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

with regard to the State’s determination 

that the appropriate level of NOX

control for Units 1 and 2 at Jim Bridger 

for purposes of reasonable progress is 

the SCR-based emission limit in the SIP, 

with compliance dates of December 31, 

2021 for Unit 2 and December 31, 2022 

for Unit 1. In the context of reasonable 

progress in the second planning period 

of the regional haze program, we have 

determined it is appropriate to give 

considerable deference to the State’s 

conclusions about what controls are 

reasonable and when they should be 

implemented. Thus, we do not find it 

appropriate to disapprove the State’s 

preferred compliance deadlines for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2. As discussed 

below, we are seeking comment on an 

alternative proposal to promulgate a FIP 

for PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 

2. 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 

During the 2001–2003 baseline 

period, PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 3 

and 4 were equipped with early 

generation LNBs with permit limits of 

0.70 lb/MMBtu (3-hour fixed) and 0.41 

lb/MMBtu and 0.45 lb/MMBtu (annual), 

respectively. The State determined that 

new LNBs with SOFA, new LNBs with 

SOFA plus SNCR, and new LNBs with 

SOFA plus SCR were technically 

feasible for controlling NOX emissions. 

The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 10,643 tpy 

for each unit based on unit heat input 

rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours 

of operation. 

A summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analysis and the visibility impacts is 

provided in Table 13 below. 

TABLE 13—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S JIM BRIDGER UNITS 3 AND 4 NOX BART ANALYSIS—COSTS PER BOILER

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement (delta 

deciview for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact 

at Mt. Zirkel 

Wilderness) 36

New LNB with SOFA ....... 0.26 4,493 $1,144,969 $255 — 0.41/0.47 

New LNB with SOFA and 

SNCR ........................... 0.20 5,913 2,710.801 459 $1,103 0.53/0.62 

New LNB with SOFA and 

SCR .............................. 0.07 8,987 20,296,400 2,258 5,721 0.80/0.82 

The State determined that new LNBs 

with SOFA were reasonable for NOX

BART for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4. The 

State determined that the NOX BART 

emission limits for Jim Bridger Units 3 

and 4 are both 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). As explained below, 

the State determined SCR was not 

reasonable for BART. 

The State is requiring PacifiCorp to 

install SCR controls under its LTS. The 

State determined that based on the cost 

of compliance and visibility 

improvement presented by PacifiCorp in 

the BART applications for Jim Bridger 

Units 3 and 4 and taking into 

consideration the logistical challenge of 

managing multiple pollution control 

installations within the regulatory time 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34757 

allotted for installation of BART by the 

RHR, SCR controls would be required 

under the LTS but not BART (see 

Chapter 8.3.3 of the SIP). With respect 

to Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4, the State 

has required PacifiCorp to install SCR, 

or other NOX control systems, to achieve 

an emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average). PacifiCorp is 

required to meet the 0.07 lb/MMBtu 

emission rate on Unit 3 prior to 

December 31, 2015 and on Unit 4 prior 

to December 31, 2016. 

EPA’s NOX BART Determination for Jim 

Bridger Unit 3 and Unit 4 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy and nonair quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. 

EPA determined that baseline NOX

emissions are 7,853 tpy for Unit 3 and 

8,133 tpy for Unit 4 based on the actual 

annual average for the years 2001–2003 

(compared to 10,643 tpy that Wyoming 

relied on as noted above). As explained 

above, Wyoming determined that taking 

into consideration the logistical 

challenge of managing multiple 

pollution control installations within 

the regulatory time allotted for 

installation of BART by the RHR, SCR 

controls would be required under the 

LTS but not BART. A summary of the 

EPA’s NOX BART analysis and the 

visibility impacts is provided in Tables 

14–17 below. 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF EPA’S JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Mt. 

Zirkel) 

New LNBs with SOFA ..... 0.20 3,710 $1,167,297 $315 — 0.50 

New LNBs with SOFA 

and SNCR .................... 0.16 4,539 4,530,069 998 $4,058 0.61 

New LNBs with SOFA 

and SCR ....................... 0.05 6,799 20,135,420 2,961 6,905 0.92 

Jim Bridger Unit 3 also impacts other 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 15 

below. 

TABLE 15—JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + SOFA 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + SOFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + SOFA/ 

SCR 

Bridger ............................................................................................................................. 0.43 0.54 0.87 

Fitzpatrick ......................................................................................................................... 0.19 0.23 0.34 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.41 0.51 0.75 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.34 0.42 0.65 

Grand Teton ..................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.17 0.25 

Teton ................................................................................................................................ 0.14 0.17 0.24 

Washakie ......................................................................................................................... 0.22 0.19 0.26 

Yellowstone ...................................................................................................................... 0.24 0.16 0.25 

TABLE 16—SUMMARY OF EPA’S JIM BRIDGER UNIT 4 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(Annual Average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Mt. 

Zirkel) 

New LNBs with SOFA ..... 0.19 4,161 $1,167,297 $281 — 0.63 

New LNBs with SOFA 

and SNCR .................... 0.15 4,956 4,445,990 897 $4,127 0.75 

New LNBs with SOFA 

and SCR ....................... 0.05 7,108 17,712,336 2,492 6,165 1.01 

Jim Bridger Unit 4 also impacts other 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other Class I areas is shown in Table 17 

below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34758 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 17—JIM BRIDGER UNIT 3: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + SOFA 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + SOFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + SOFA/ 

SCR 

Bridger ............................................................................................................................. 0.56 0.68 1.00 

Fitzpatrick ......................................................................................................................... 0.23 0.27 0.39 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.45 0.53 0.71 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.42 0.50 0.75 

Grand Teton ..................................................................................................................... 0.18 0.21 0.30 

Teton ................................................................................................................................ 0.15 0.18 0.27 

Washakie ......................................................................................................................... 0.19 0.23 0.29 

Yellowstone ...................................................................................................................... 0.17 0.20 0.29 

As discussed in detail above, because 

Wyoming relied on visibility modeling 

methodologies that are inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, we do not consider 

Wyoming’s analysis of visibility 

improvement for the NOX BART to be 

reasonable for Jim Bridger Unit 3 and 4. 

We propose to find that Wyoming’s 

analysis for this Unit is inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirement that ‘‘the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology.’’ 

Also, we are not relying on the State’s 

costs due to reasons stated in section 

VII.C.3.b of this notice. We propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably ‘‘take into consideration the 

costs of compliance.’’ 

Our analysis follows our BART 

Guidelines. With the exception of the 

NOX emission limits, the visibility 

improvement analyses, and the cost 

effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing 

to find that the Wyoming regional haze 

BART analysis NOX for Jim Bridger 

Units 3 and 4 fulfills all the relevant 

requirements of CAA Section 169A and 

the RHR. 

As stated above for Jim Bridger Units 

1 and 2, EPA is proposing to determine 

that the facts indicate that BART for the 

all units at Jim Bridger is SCR when the 

units are considered individually based 

on the five factors without regard to the 

status of those factors for other units in 

the PacifiCorp system. However, when 

the five factors are considered across all 

the units, EPA is proposing that BART 

for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 is new 

LNB plus OFA. 

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP 

with regard to the State’s determination 

that the appropriate level of NOX

control for Units 3 and 4 at Jim Bridger 

for purposes of reasonable progress is 

the SCR-based emission limit in the SIP 

of 0.07 lb/MMBtu, with compliance 

dates of December 31, 2015 for Unit 3 

and December 31, 2016 for Unit 4. As 

discussed above for Jim Bridger Units 1 

and 2, in the context of reasonable 

progress in the second planning period 

of the regional haze program, we have 

determined it is appropriate to give 

considerable deference to the State’s 

conclusions about what controls are 

reasonable and when they should be 

implemented. Thus, we do not find it 

appropriate to disapprove the State’s 

preferred compliance deadlines for Jim 

Bridger Units 3 and 4. In addition, the 

State is requiring PacifiCorp to install 

the LTS controls within the timeline 

that BART controls would have to be 

installed pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). Thus, we are proposing to 

approve the State’s compliance 

schedule and emission limit of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu for Jim Bridger Units 3 and 4 as 

meeting the BART requirements. 

PM BART Determination for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 are currently 

controlled for PM with ESPs and flue 

gas conditioning (FGC). The current 

permit limit for all four units is 0.03 lb/ 

MMBtu. The State determined that 

fabric filters were technically feasible 

for controlling PM emissions. The State 

did not identify any technically 

infeasible controls or any energy or nonair quality environmental impacts that 

would preclude the selection of any of 

the controls evaluated. There are no 

remaining-useful-life issues for this 

source. A summary of the State’s PM 

BART analyses for Units 1–4 is 

provided in Table 18 below. Baseline 

PM emissions are 1,064 tpy for Unit 1, 

1,750 tpy for Unit 2, 1,348 tpy for Unit 

3, and 710 tpy for Unit 4 based on unit 

heat input rate of 6,000 MMBtu/hr and 

7,884 hours of operation per year. 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S PACIFICORP JIM BRIDGER UNITS 1–4 PM BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter—Unit 1 ......................................... 66.6 0.015 709 $6,367,118 $8,980 

Fabric Filter—Unit 2 ......................................... 79.7 0.015 1,395 6,357,658 4,557 

Fabric Filter—Unit 3 ......................................... 73.7 0.015 993 6,337,434 6,382 

Fabric Filter—Unit 4 ......................................... 50 0.015 355 6,367,118 17,936 

The State did not provide visibility 

improvement modeling for fabric filters, 

but EPA is proposing to conclude this 

is reasonable based on the high cost for 

fabric filters at each of the units. In 

addition, we anticipate that the 

visibility improvement that would 

result from lowering the limit from 0.03 

lb/MMBtu to 0.015 lb/MMBtu would be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34759 

37The cumulative 3-year averaged visibility 

improvement from new LNB with separated OFA, 

upgraded wet FGD, and FGC for enhanced ESP with 

FGC (Post-Control Scenario 1) across the three Class 

I areas achieved with LNB and separated OFA, 

upgraded wet FGD, and adding a polishing fabric 

filter (Post-Control Scenario 2) was 0.095 delta dv 

from Unit 1, 0.090 delta dv from Unit 2, 0.089 delta 

dv from Unit 3 and 0.025 delta dv from Unit 4. 

insignificant based on the State’s 

analysis.37

Based on its consideration of the fivefactors, the State determined the current 

ESPs with FGC are reasonable for BART. 

The State determined that fabric filters 

were not reasonable based on the high 

cost-effectiveness values. The State 

determined that the PM BART emission 

limit for Jim Bridger Units 1 through 4 

is 0.03 lb/MMBtu. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing approve its PM 

BART determination for Jim Bridger 

Units 1–4. 

vi. PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1–3 

PacifiCorp Naughton is located in 

Lincoln County, Wyoming. Naughton is 

comprised of three pulverized coal-fired 

units with a total net generating 

capacity of 700 MW. Naughton Unit 1 

generates a nominal 160 MW and 

commenced operation in 1963. 

Naughton Unit 2 generates a nominal 

210 MW and commenced operation in 

1968. Naughton Unit 3 generates a 

nominal 330 MW and commenced 

operation in 1971. All three boilers are 

tangentially fired boilers. The State’s 

BART determinations can be found in 

Chapter 6.5.6 and Appendix A of the 

SIP. The NOX BART analysis for Unit 1 

and Unit 2 is discussed in section VIII.A 

of this notice. 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

for Naughton Unit 3 

Naughton Unit 3 is currently 

controlled with LNBs with OFA with 

permit limits of 0.75 lb/MMBtu (93-hour 

block) and 0.49 lb/MMBtu (annual). The 

State determined that tuning the 

existing LNBs, existing LNBs with OFA 

and SNCR, and existing LNBs with OFA 

and SCR were all technically feasible for 

controlling NOX emissions from Unit 3. 

The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible options. 

Wyoming treated Naughton Unit 3 

differently than most other units in that 

it did not assume that Unit 3 would first 

upgrade the combustion controls. The 

State did not identify any energy or nonair quality environmental impacts that 

would preclude the selection of any of 

the controls evaluated, and there no 

remaining-useful-life issues for this 

source. A summary of the State’s NOX

BART analyses for Unit 3 is provided in 

Table 19 below. Baseline NOX emissions 

are 6,563 tpy for Unit 3 based on the 

unit heat input rate of 3,700 MMBtu/hr 

and 7,884 hours of operation per year. 

TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S NAUGHTON UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Bridger 

Wilderness Area) 

Tuning Existing LNBs ...... 0.37 1,167 $95,130 $82 — 0.25 

Existing LNBs with OFA 

and SNCR .................... 0.30 2,188 1,916,039 876 $1,783 0.46 

Existing LNB with OFA 

and SCR ....................... 0.07 5,542 15,682,702 2,830 4,105 1.00 

Based on its consideration of the fivefactors, the State determined that the 

existing LNBs with OFA plus SCR were 

NOX BART for Unit 3. The State 

determined the NOX BART emission 

limit for Naughton Unit 3 is 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

EPA’s NOX BART Determination for 

Naughton Unit 3 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 4,544 tpy 

for Unit 3 based on the actual annual 

average for the years 2001–2003. A 

summary of the EPA’s NOX BART 

analysis and the visibility impacts is 

provided in Tables 20 and 21 below. 

TABLE 20—SUMMARY OF EPA’S NAUGHTON UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

Existing LNBs with OFA .. 0.33 442 $106,393 $240 — 0.17 

Existing LNBs with OFA 

and SNCR .................... 0.23 1,673 3,896,839 2,329 $3,081 0.70 

Existing LNBs with OFA 

and SCR ....................... 0.05 3,922 12,718,731 3,243 3,922 1.51 

Naughton Unit 3 also impacts other 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 21 

below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34760 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

38At PacifiCorp’s request, on December 11, 2013, 

EPA Region 8 met with PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp 

discussed the option of Naughton Unit 3 being 

converted to natural gas and stated that they were 

working on the analysis. In subsequent 

conversations with the State, EPA learned that 

PacifiCorp had submitted its analysis to the State, 

which the State then provided to EPA. We have 

included this information in the docket (see 

document titled 2/19/2013 Email from Cole 

Anderson, Wyoming DEQ, to Laurel Dygowski, EPA 

Region 8). 

TABLE 21—VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact)¥existing 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact)¥existing 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact)¥existing 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Fitzpatrick ......................................................................................................................... 0.09 0.33 0.74 

N. Absaroka ..................................................................................................................... 0.04 0.16 0.36 

Washakie ......................................................................................................................... 0.06 0.23 0.51 

Teton ................................................................................................................................ 0.08 0.30 0.66 

Grand Teton ..................................................................................................................... 0.09 0.33 0.73 

Yellowstone ...................................................................................................................... 0.07 0.26 0.57 

As stated above, the State determined 

that NOX BART for Naughton Unit 3 

was existing LNBs plus OFA with SCR 

with an emission limit of 0.07 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average). We 

find this determination reasonable given 

that the average cost effectiveness is 

reasonable at $3,243/ton with 

significant visibility improvement at the 

most impacted Class I area of 1.51 dv, 

as well as improvements ranging from 

0.36 dv to 0.74 dv at six other Class I 

areas. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its 

NOX BART determination for Naughton 

Unit 3. 

We are also asking if interested parties 

have additional information regarding 

the possible conversion of Naughton 

Unit 3 from a coal fired unit to a natural 

gas fired unit as part of a better-thanBART demonstration to the proposed 

requirement for the installation of 

combustion controls and SCR.38

PacifiCorp has indicated that converting 

the unit to natural gas would reduce 

NOX emissions to 0.10 lb/MMbtu, and 

nearly eliminate all SO2 emissions. If 

PacifiCorp proceeds with their planned 

conversion to natural gas, we seek 

comment on whether the interested 

parties think the Agency should 

consider the conversion of Naughton 

Unit 3 to natural gas as a BART control 

technology option that could be 

finalized as either a FIP, or a SIP (if the 

Agency were to receive a SIP revision 

from the State) instead of BART as 

proposed, with associated changes to 

the proposed regulatory text as 

necessary. 

PM BART Determination 

Naughton Units 1 and 2 are currently 

controlled for PM with ESPs and FGC. 

The current permit limit for Units 1 and 

2 is 0.04 lb/MMBtu. Unit 3 is required 

by permit to install fabric filters for both 

Units by 2014 with a permit limit of 

0.015 lb/MMBtu. The State determined 

that fabric filters were technically 

feasible for controlling PM emissions for 

Units 1 and 2. The State did not identify 

any technically infeasible controls. The 

State determined that a fabric filter on 

Unit 3 represents the most stringent PM 

control technology and that 0.015 lb/ 

MMBtu represents the most stringent 

emission limit. Consistent with the 

BART Guidelines, the State did not 

provide a full five-factor analysis 

because the State determined BART to 

be the most stringent control technology 

and limit. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s PM BART 

analyses for Units 1 and 2 is provided 

in Table 22 below. Baseline emissions 

for Unit 1 are 409 tpy and 605 tpy for 

Unit 2 based on unit heat input rate of 

1,850 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of 

operation per year. 

TABLE 22—SUMMARY OF PACIFICORP NAUGHTON UNIT 1 AND UNIT 2 PM BART ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Fabric Filter—Unit 1 ......................................... 73.2 0.015 299 $3,436,594 $11,494 

Fabric Filter—Unit 2 ......................................... 76.6 0.015 464 4,101,705 8,848 

The State did not provide visibility 

improvement modeling for fabric filters, 

but EPA is proposing to conclude this 

is reasonable based on the high costeffectiveness values of fabric filters at 

each of the units, which are higher than 

EPA or other state have considered 

reasonable for PM BART. 

Based on its consideration of the fivefactors, the State determined that the 

existing ESPs with FGC were reasonable 

for PM BART for Units 1 and 2. The 

State determined that fabric filters were 

not reasonable based on the high costeffectiveness values. The State 

determined that the PM BART emission 

limit for Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2 is 

0.04 lb/MMBtu. The State determined 

the PM BART emission limit for 

Naughton Unit 3 is 0.015 lb/MMBtu. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for Naughton Units 

1, 2, and 3. 

vii. PacifiCorp Wyodak—Unit 1 

Background 

PacifiCorp Wyodak power plant is 

located in Campbell County, Wyoming. 

Wyodak is comprised of one coal-fired 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34761 

39Extinction and species contribution to total 

particulate extinction taken from IMPROVE data 

(http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/dev/web/Annual

SummaryDev/Composition.aspx). IMPROVE data 

for NOABI based on available data for 2002–2004. 

Contribution of sulfate and nitrate based on PSAT; 

OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10 contribution based on 

WEP as taken from the WRAP TSS (http://vista.cira.

colostate.edu/tss/). 

boiler, Unit 1, burning pulverized subbituminous Powder River Basin coal for 

a total net generating capacity of a 

nominal 335MW. Wyodak’s boiler 

commenced service in 1978. The State’s 

BART determination can be found in 

Chapter 6.5.7 and Appendix A of the 

SIP. The NOX BART analysis for 

Wyodak Unit 1 is discussed in Section 

VII.A of this notice. 

Wyodak Unit 1 PM BART 

Determination 

Wyodak Unit 1 is currently controlled 

with fabric filters with an emission limit 

of 0.015 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). The State determined that 

fabric filters on Wyodak Unit 1 

represent the most stringent PM control 

technology and that 0.015 lb/MMBtu 

represents the most stringent emission 

limit. Consistent with the BART 

Guidelines, the State did not provide a 

full five-factor analysis because the 

State determined BART to be the most 

stringent control technology and limit. 

The State determined the PM BART 

emission limit for Wyodak Unit 1 is 

0.015 lb/MMBtu. 

We agree with the State’s conclusions, 

and we are proposing to approve its PM 

BART determination for Wyodak Unit 1. 

D. Reasonable Progress Requirements 

In order to establish RPGs for it Class 

I areas, and to determine the controls 

needed for the LTS, Wyoming followed 

the process established in the RHR. 

Wyoming identified sources (other than 

BART sources) and source categories in 

Wyoming that are major contributors to 

visibility impairment and considered 

whether these sources should be 

controlled based on a consideration of 

the factors identified in the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations (see CAA 169A(g)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A)). 

Wyoming then identified the 

anticipated visibility improvement in 

2018 in all its Class I areas using the 

WRAP Community Multi-Scale Air 

Quality (CMAQ) modeling results. 

1. Visibility Impairing Pollutants and 

Sources 

In order to determine the significant 

sources contributing to haze in 

Wyoming’s Class I areas, Wyoming 

relied upon two source apportionment 

analysis techniques developed by the 

WRAP. The first technique was regional 

modeling using the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model (CAMx) and the PM 

Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT) tool, used for the attribution for 

sulfate and nitrate sources only. The 

second technique was the Weighted 

Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, used for 

attribution of sources of OC, EC, PM2.5, 

and PM10. The WEP tool is based on 

emissions and residence time, not 

dispersion modeling, and looks at all 

sources throughout the modeling 

domain. 

PSAT uses the CAMx air quality 

model to simulate nitrate-sulfateammonia chemistry and apply this 

chemistry to a system of tracers or 

‘‘tags’’ to track the chemical 

transformations, transport, and removal 

of NOX and SO2. These two pollutants 

are important because they tend to 

originate from anthropogenic sources. 

Therefore, the results from this analysis 

can be useful in determining 

contributing sources that may be 

controllable, both in-state and in 

neighboring states. 

WEP is a screening tool that helps to 

identify source regions that have the 

potential to contribute to haze formation 

at specific Class I areas. Unlike PSAT, 

this method does not account for 

chemistry or deposition. The WEP 

combines emissions inventories, wind 

patterns, and residence times of air 

masses over each area where emissions 

occur, to estimate the percent 

contribution of different pollutants. Like 

PSAT, the WEP tool compares baseline 

values (2000–2004) to 2018 values, to 

show the improvement expected by 

2018 for OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10. More 

information on the WRAP modeling 

methodologies is available in the 

document Technical Support Document 

for Technical Products Prepared by the 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) in Support of Western Regional 

Haze Plans in the Supporting and 

Related Materials section of the docket. 

Table 23 shows Wyoming’s contribution 

to extinction at its own Class I areas. 

TABLE 23—WYOMING SOURCES EXTINCTION CONTRIBUTION 2000–2004 FOR 20% WORST DAYS 39

Class I area Pollutant 

species 

Extinction 

(Mm¥1) 

Species 

contribution to 

total particulate 

extinction 

(%) 

Wyoming 

sources 

contribution to 

species 

extinction 

(%) 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park, Teton Wilderness.Sulfate ............. 4 .3 16 .7 5 .9 

Nitrate ............. 1 .8 7 .0 4 .7 

OC ................... 13 .5 52 .4 72 .6 

EC ................... 2 .5 9 .7 66 .8 

Fine PM .......... 1 .0 3 .9 24 .0 

Coarse PM ...... 2 .6 10 .1 20 .0 

Sea Salt .......... 0 .02 0 .08 ............................

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .................................. Sulfate ............. 4 .9 20 .7 5 .6 

Nitrate ............. 1 .6 6 .8 8 .2 

OC ................... 11 .6 48 .9 44 .6 

EC ................... 1 .9 8 .0 39 .5 

Fine PM .......... 0 .8 3 .4 14 .0 

Coarse PM ...... 2 .9 12 .2 12 .1 

Sea Salt .......... .................... 0 .04 ............................

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ............................................... Sulfate ............. 5 .0 22 .2 15 .4 

Nitrate ............. 1 .4 6 .2 19 .4 

OC ................... 10 .5 46 .6 58 .5 

EC ................... 2 .0 8 .9 51 .0 

Fine PM .......... 1 .1 4 .9 30 .3 

Coarse PM ...... 2 .5 11 .1 27 .4 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34762 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

40OD denotes Outside Domain; ID denotes Idaho, 

MT denotes Montana, CAN denotes Canada, UT 

denotes Utah, WA denotes Washington, WY denotes Wyoming, CA denotes California, and OR 

denotes Oregon. 

TABLE 23—WYOMING SOURCES EXTINCTION CONTRIBUTION 2000–2004 FOR 20% WORST DAYS 39—Continued 

Class I area Pollutant 

species 

Extinction 

(Mm¥1) 

Species 

contribution to 

total particulate 

extinction 

(%) 

Wyoming 

sources 

contribution to 

species 

extinction 

(%) 

Sea Salt .......... 0 .04 0 .2 ............................

Table 24 shows influences from 

sources both inside and outside of 

Wyoming per the PSAT modeling for 

2018. As indicated, the outside domain 

(OD) region is the highest contributor to 

sulfate and nitrate at all Wyoming Class 

I areas. The outside domain region 

represents the concentration of 

pollutants at the boundaries of the 

modeling domain. Depending on 

meteorology and the type of pollutant 

(particularly sulfate), these emissions 

can be transported great distances from 

regions such as Canada, Mexico, and the 

Pacific Ocean. Wyoming is the second 

highest contributor of particulate sulfate 

and nitrate at Bridger and Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness areas, but is a lesser 

contributor at the other Class I areas. 

TABLE 24—PSAT SOURCE REGION APPORTIONMENT FOR 20% WORST DAYS 40

Class I area 2018 Sulfate PSAT 2018 Nitrate PSAT 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness.

Region ............ OD ID WY CAN OR OD ID WA UT OR 

% Contribution 46.5 8.1 5.8 5.4 4.6 31.3 28.2 9.4 7.4 7.0 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness ... Region ............ OD CAN MT ID WY OD ID MT CAN WY 

% Contribution 50.1 12.5 6.5 5.7 5.5 30.7 16.7 14.8 11.5 8.2 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................ Region ............ OD WY ID UT CAN OD WY UT ID CA 

% Contribution 31.1 15.3 7.6 5.9 5.1 21.8 19.3 15.6 10.6 6.8 

Table 25 shows the WEP contribution 

by source category for EC, OC, PM2.5, 

and PM10. 

TABLE 25—WEP SOURCE CATEGORY CONTRIBUTION FOR 20% WORST DAYS

Class I area Point Area Mobile Anthropogenic 

fires 

Natural fires 

and biogenic 

OC 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 0 .408 3.892 1 .636 8 .303 85 .764 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 0 .661 9.449 2 .844 11 .881 75 .159 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 0 .984 7.552 3 .28 7 .644 80 .543 

EC 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 0 .243 2.628 13 .659 5 .51 77 .958 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 0 .386 5.755 23 .253 7 .054 63 .55 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 0 .54 4.509 25 .65 4 .105 65 .195 

PM2.5

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 5 .565 70.463 0 .086 5 .469 18 .411 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 3 .491 86.311 0 .171 3 .334 6 .691 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 16 .311 69.195 0 .081 3 .618 10 .785 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34763 

41The State submitted a January 12, 2011 SIP 

submittal to address the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.309, with the exception of the 40 CFR 51.309(g) 

requirements addressed in this SIP action. 

TABLE 25—WEP SOURCE CATEGORY CONTRIBUTION FOR 20% WORST DAYS—Continued 

Class I area Point Area Mobile Anthropogenic 

fires 

Natural fires 

and biogenic 

PM10

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, Teton Wilderness ............................................ 2 .655 83.939 0 .363 0 .717 12 .316 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie Wilderness .... 2 .066 93.197 0 .213 0 .313 4 .206 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ................. 6 .775 84.157 0 .477 0 .353 8 .23 

Table 25 shows that EC, OC, PM2.5

and PM10 emissions come mainly from 

sources such as natural fire, windblown 

dust, and road dust. To select the 

sources that would undergo the required 

four-factor analysis, Wyoming looked at 

State emission inventory data in 

conjunction with the source 

apportionment information discussed 

above (a summary of the State’s 

emission inventory can be found in 

section VI.E.1 of this notice). After 

evaluating this information, the State 

determined that stationary source 

emissions of NOX and SO2 were 

reasonable to evaluate for purposes of 

reasonable progress controls. The State 

also determined that emissions of NOX

from oil and gas development should be 

analyzed for purposes of reasonable 

progress. Since emissions of OC, EC, 

PM2.5, and PM10 come from mainly 

uncontrollable sources, the State 

determined it was reasonable to not 

evaluate these pollutants for reasonable 

progress controls. The State submitted a 

January 12, 2011, SIP that addresses 

sources of SO2.41 Thus, the State 

evaluated emissions of the remaining 

pollutant, NOX, for reasonable progress 

in this SIP. 

2. Four-Factor Analysis 

In determining the measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress, 

States must take into account the 

following four factors and demonstrate 

how they were taken into consideration 

in selecting reasonable progress goals 

for each Class I area: 

• Costs of Compliance; 

• Time Necessary for Compliance; 

• Energy and Non-air Quality 

Environmental Impacts of Compliance; 

and 

• Remaining Useful Life of any 

Potentially Affected Sources. 

CAA § 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

The State performed a four factor 

analysis for each of the reasonable 

progress sources pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

a. Stationary Sources 

The State used a reasonable progress 

screening methodology termed ‘‘Q/d’’ to 

determine which stationary sources 

would be candidates for controls under 

reasonable progress. Q/d is a calculated 

ratio where Q represents (in this case) 

the NOX emission rate in tpy of the 

source divided by the distance in 

kilometers of the point source from the 

nearest Class I area, denoted by ‘‘d.’’ 

The State used the maximum permitted 

emission rate for each source to 

determine the tpy of NOX in the Q/d 

calculation. The State determined that a 

Q/d value of 10 is reasonable for 

determining which sources the State 

should consider for reasonable progress 

controls, since this value yielded 

sources of concern similar in magnitude 

to sources subject-to-BART. 

The State determined there were three 

units with a Q/d of greater than 10 that 

are not already being controlled under 

BART and the State completed a 

reasonable progress analysis for each of 

the sources. The sources are PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2 and 

Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant kiln. Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2 

are addressed as part of our FIP in 

section VII.B of this notice. In addition, 

as previously mentioned, the State 

considered reasonable controls on oil 

and gas development sources. 

b. Summary of Reasonable Progress 

Determinations and Limits 

For the subject-to-reasonable progress 

sources, the State provided analyses that 

took into consideration the four factors 

as required by section 169A(g)(1) of the 

CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). For 

the stationary sources, the State relied 

on the analysis found in Supplementary 

Information for Four-Factor Analyses 

for Selected Individual Facilities in 

Wyoming, May 6, 2009, Revised Draft 

Report Prepared by EC/R Incorporated. 

For oil and gas sources, the State relied 

on the analysis found in Supplementary 

Information for Four Factor Analyses by 

WRAP States, May 4, 2009 (Corrected 4/ 

20/10) Revised Draft Report Prepared by 

EC/R Incorporated (for a complete copy 

of the reports see Chapter 7 of the 

State’s TSD). The analyses considered 

EPA’s BART Guidelines as relevant to 

their reasonable progress evaluations, as 

well as EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals Under the 

Regional Haze Program. 

In this action, EPA is proposing to 

approve the reasonable progress NOX

determinations submitted by the State 

for oil and gas sources and for Mountain 

Cement Company Laramie Plant kiln. 

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

State’s reasonable progress 

determinations and proposing to issue a 

reasonable progress determination NOX

FIP for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 1 

and Unit 2. As with the BART EGUs, 

EPA is providing revised cost analyses 

and visibility improvement modeling 

for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 1 and 

2. We are also providing the original 

reasonable progress analyses EPA relied 

on in its June 4, 2012 proposed 

rulemaking. EPA’s rationale for 

disapproving the State’s reasonable 

progress determination for these units, 

as well as EPA’s reasonable progress FIP 

determination, can be found in section 

VIII.B of this notice. 

A summary of the reasonable progress 

analysis and determination for each 

source/source category that we are 

proposing to approve is provided below. 

i. Oil and Gas Sources 

Background 

Oil and gas exploration and 

production is occurring in numerous 

areas in Wyoming. The sources 

associated with oil and gas production 

mainly emit NOX and VOCs; in this 

context, the State considered NOX. Oil 

and gas production and exploration 

includes operation, maintenance, and 

servicing of production properties, 

including transportation to and from 

sites. EC/R evaluated reasonable 

progress control technologies for 

common sources in the oil and gas 

industry including compressor engines, 

turbines, process heaters, and drilling 

rig engines. The State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for oil and gas 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34764 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

42For all reasonable progress sources, the time 

necessary to develop regulations is not a 

consideration under the time necessary for 

compliance factor. If regulations are needed to 

implement reasonable progress controls, the State 

must develop them as part of the regional haze SIP. 

sources can be found in Chapter 7.3.5 of 

the SIP. 

NOX Reasonable Progress Determination 

For compressor engines, potential 

control options identified by the State 

include air-fuel ratio controls (AFRC), 

ignition timing retard, low-emission 

combustion (LEC) retrofit, SCR, SNCR, 

and replacement with electric motors. 

The State evaluated several control 

technologies for drilling rig engines 

including ignition timing retard, 

exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), SCR, 

replacement of Tier 2 engines with Tier 

4 engines, and diesel oxidation catalyst. 

Potential controls for turbines identified 

by the State include water or steam 

injection, LNBs, SCR, and water or 

steam injection with SCR. NOX emission 

control technologies identified by the 

State for process heaters include LNBs, 

ultra-low NOX burners (ULNBs), LNBs 

with flue gas recirculation (FGR), SNCR, 

SCR, and LNBs installed in conjunction 

with SCR. 

NOX emissions vary based on the 

equipment and fuel source. Emissions 

from individual natural gas-fired 

turbines at production operations can be 

as high as 877 tpy of NOX, while 

emissions from individual natural gas 

turbines at exploration operations can 

reach 131 tpy of NOX. Individual gas 

reciprocating engines have comparable 

NOX emissions with up to 700 tpy at 

production operations and 210 tpy at 

exploration operations. Diesel engine 

emissions can approach 46 tpy for 

production operations and 10 tpy for 

exploration operations. 

Table 26 provides a summary of the 

reasonable progress NOX analysis for oil 

and gas sources. Both the capital and 

annual costs for each technology is 

dependent on the engine size or on the 

process throughput; therefore, for most 

of the control technologies listed in 

Table 26, the State has provided cost 

estimate ranges. The lower end of the 

cost/ton estimates represent the cost per 

unit for larger or higher production 

units, while the higher end of the cost/ 

ton estimates represent the cost per unit 

for the smaller or lower production 

units. The capital and annual cost 

figures are expressed in terms of the cost 

per unit of engine size or per unit of 

process throughput. 

TABLE 26—SUMMARY OF REASONABLE PROGRESS NOX ANALYSIS FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION

EQUIPMENT

Source type Control 

technology 

Estimated 

control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Pollutant 

controlled 

Estimated 

capital 

cost 

($/unit) 

Annual cost 

($/year/unit) Units 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Compressor Engines ....................... AFRC ................. 10–40 NOX ......... 5.3–42 0.9–6.8 hp ............ 68–2,500 

Ignition timing retard.15–30 NOX ......... N/A 1–3 hp ............ 42–1,200 

LEC retrofit ......... 80–90 NOX ......... 120–820 30–210 hp ............ 320–2,500 

SCR .................... 90 NOX ......... 100–450 40–270 hp ............ 870–31,000 

SNCR ................. 90–99 NOX ......... 17–35 3–6 hp ............ 16–36 

Replacement with 

electric motors.

100 NOX ......... 120–140 38–44 hp ............ 100–4,700 

Drilling Rig Engines and Other Engines.Ignition timing retard.15–30 NOX ......... 16–120 14–66 hp ............ 1,000–2,200 

EGR .................... 40 NOX ......... 100 26–67 hp ............ 780–2,000 

SCR .................... 80–95 NOX ......... 100–2,000 40–1,200 hp ............ 3,000–7,700 

Replacement of 

Tier 2 engines 

with Tier 4.

87 NOX ......... 125 20 hp ............. 900–2,400 

Turbines .......................................... Water or steam 

injection.

68–80 NOX ......... 4.4–16 2–5 1000 BTU 560–3,100 

LNB .................... 68–84 NOX ......... 8–22 2.7–8.5 1000 BTU 2,000–10,000 

SCR .................... 90 NOX ......... 13–34 5.1–13 1000 BTU 1,000–6,700 

Water or steam 

injection with 

SCR.

93–96 NOX ......... 13–34 5.1–13 1000 BTU 1,000–6,700 

Process Heaters .............................. LNB .................... 40 NOX ......... 3.8–7.6 0.41–0.81 1000 BTU 2,100–2,800 

ULNB .................. 75–85 NOX ......... 4.0–13 0.43–1.3 1000 BTU 1, 500–2,000 

LNB and FGR .... 48 NOX ......... 16 1.7 1000 BTU 2,600 

SNCR ................. 60 NOX ......... 10–22 1.1–2.4 1000 BTU 4,700–5,200 

SCR .................... 70–90 NOX ......... 33–48 3.7–5.6 1000 BTU 2,900–6,700 

LNB and SCR .... 70–90 NOX ......... 37–55 4–6.3 1000 BTU 2,900–6,300 

Wyoming states that it would need up 

to two years to develop the necessary 

regulations to control oil and gas 

sources.42 The State estimated that 

companies would require a year to 

procure the necessary capital to 

purchase the control equipment. The 

time required to design, fabricate, and 

install control technologies will vary 

based on the control technology selected 

and other factors. 

The State determined that no 

additional controls for oil and gas 

sources were reasonable at this time. 

The State concluded that emissions 

from large stationary sources processing 

oil and gas in the WRAP region have 

been well quantified over the years, 

while smaller exploration and 

production sources that the State is 

evaluating for reasonable progress have 

not had the same degree of emission 

inventory development. The State 

points out that understanding the 

sources and volume of emissions at oil 

and gas production sites is necessary to 

recognizing the impact that these 

emissions have on visibility. 

To better understand the emissions 

from stationary and mobile equipment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34765 

43Oil and gas sources are regulated by the State 

as part of its minor source BACT requirements in 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

Chapter 6, Section 2. 

48States must consider the four factors as listed 

above but can also take into account other relevant 

factors for the reasonable progress sources 

identified (see EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), 

p. 2–3, July 1, 2007). 

operated as part of oil and gas field 

operations, the WRAP has been working 

on developing an emission inventory to 

more fully characterize the oil and gas 

field operations emissions. The WRAP’s 

development of a more comprehensive 

emission inventory is still in process (as 

of the date of the State’s SIP submittal). 

The State determined it cannot 

complete the evaluation of oil and gas 

on visibility until the WRAP emission 

inventory study has been completed. 

The State points out that in the case 

of compressor engines, many facilities 

have already installed control 

equipment.43 For lean burn engines, 

oxidation catalysts are commonly 

installed, while SNCR with AFRC are 

commonly installed for rich burn 

engines. The State also points out that 

regulating drill rig engines can be 

problematic since drill rig engines are, 

for the most part, considered mobile 

sources and emission limits for mobile 

sources are set by the Federal 

government under section 202 of the 

CAA. 

We disagree with the State’s reasoning 

for not adopting reasonable progress 

controls for oil and gas sources. If the 

State determined that additional 

information was needed to potentially 

control oil and gas sources, the State 

should have developed the information. 

While we disagree with the State’s 

reasoning for not requiring any controls 

under reasonable progress, we are 

proposing to approve the State’s 

conclusion that no additional NOX

controls are warranted for this planning 

period. As shown by the four-factor 

analyses, the most reasonable controls 

are for compressor engines, which the 

State already controls through its minor 

source BACT requirements (see above). 

In addition, while the costs of some 

controls are within the range of costeffectiveness values Wyoming, other 

states, and we have considered as 

reasonable in the BART context, they 

are not so low that we are prepared to 

disapprove the State’s conclusion in the 

reasonable progress context. Therefore, 

we are proposing to approve the State’s 

reasonable progress determination for 

oil and gas sources. 

ii. Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant—Kiln 

Background 

The Mountain Cement Company 

Laramie Plant cement kiln is a long dry 

kiln with a capacity of 1,500 tons of 

clinker per day. Assuming the plant 

runs 365 days of the year, the result is 

547,500 tpy of clinker. 

NOX Reasonable Progress Determination 

The kiln is currently uncontrolled for 

NOX emissions. The State determined 

that indirect and direct firing of LNBs, 

biosolid injection, NOxOUTSM, 

CemSTARSM, LoTOxTM, SCR, SNCR 

(using urea), and SNCR (using 

ammonia) were technically feasible for 

controlling NOX emissions from the 

kiln. The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible controls. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX reasonable 

progress analyses for the kiln is 

provided in Table 27 below. Baseline 

NOX emissions for the kiln are 524 tpy 

based on 2002 actual emissions. 

TABLE 27—SUMMARY OF MOUNTAIN CEMENT COMPANY KILN NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control technology Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission reduction (tpy) Annualized costs Cost effectiveness 

($/ton) 

LNB (indirect) ........................................................................... 30–40 157–210 $205,000 $6,568–4,910 

LNB (direct) .............................................................................. 40 210 449,000 13,853 

Biosolid Injection 44 .................................................................. 50 262 ¥127,000 1,324 

NOxOUT SM ............................................................................. 35 183 507,000 8,023 

CemSTAR SM 45 ....................................................................... 20–60 105–314 Unknown Unknown 

LoTOxTM 46 .............................................................................. 80–90 419–472 Unknown Unknown 

SCR ......................................................................................... 80 419 7,553,000 82,535 

SNCR (urea) 47 ........................................................................ 35 183 Unknown 1,223 

SNCR (ammonia) .................................................................... 35 183 Unknown 1,223 

44A negative annual cost is given because cement kilns receive a credit for the biosolids tipping fee paid by facilities providing the biosolids to 

the cement plant. For the purposes of this analysis, the tipping fee is $5.00/ton. 45 Cost effectiveness figures for the CemStarSM process were not available for dry kilns. 46 Cost effectiveness figures for LoTOxTM were not available for dry kilns. 47 Capital and annual costs for SNCR have only been evaluated for preheater and precalcnier kilns. Only cost effectiveness figures were available for dry kilns. 

The State estimated that it could 

potentially take seven years to install 

control equipment on the kiln. This 

estimate includes the two years that will 

be necessary for the State to implement 

new regulations and the one-year 

Mountain Cement will likely need to 

obtain the necessary capital for the 

purchase of new emission control 

technology. The State estimates the total 

time necessary for compliance will vary 

based on the control technology 

selected. For example, the State predicts 

that one and a half years will be 

required to design, fabricate, and install 

SCR or SNCR technology, while over 

two and a half years will be required to 

design, fabricate, and install LoTOxTM

technology. 

The State determined no controls 

were reasonable for reasonable progress 

for Mountain Cement Company Laramie 

Plant kiln. The State cited that the fourfactor analysis was limited, in that no 

guidance was provided by EPA for 

identifying significant sources and EPA 

did not establish contribution to 

visibility impairment thresholds (a 

potential fifth factor for reasonable 

progress determinations).48 The State 

further claims that the State cannot, per 

Wyoming Statute 35–11–202, establish 

emission control requirements except 

through State rule or regulation. 

Furthermore, the Wyoming statute 

requires the State to consider the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34766 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

character and degree of injury of the 

emissions involved. In this case, the 

State claims it would need to have 

visibility modeling that assessed the 

degree of injury caused by the 

emissions, which the State does not 

have. The State believes it has taken a 

strong and reasonable first step in 

identifying potential contributors to 

visibility impairment, and that the next 

step of creating an appropriate rule or 

regulation will be accomplished in the 

next SIP revision. 

We disagree with the State’s reasoning 

for not adopting reasonable progress 

controls for Mountain Cement Company 

Laramie Plant kiln. If the State 

determined that it needed to adopt a 

rule or perform modeling to adequately 

assess and, if warranted, require 

reasonable progress controls, the State 

should have completed these steps 

before it submitted its regional haze SIP. 

The RHR does not allow for 

commitments to potentially implement 

strategies at some later date that are 

identified under reasonable progress or 

for the State to take credit for such 

commitments. Nor does it allow the 

State to consider the time to promulgate 

regulations as part of the time for 

compliance. 

While we disagree with the State’s 

reasoning for not requiring any controls 

under reasonable progress, we are 

proposing to approve the State’s 

conclusion that no additional NOX

controls are warranted for this planning 

period. While the costs of some controls 

(i.e., biosolid injection and SNCR) are 

within the range of cost-effectiveness 

values that Wyoming, other states, and 

EPA have considered as reasonable in 

the BART context, the costs are not so 

low that we are prepared to disapprove 

the State’s conclusion in the reasonable 

progress context. In addition, these 

additional controls only afford relatively 

modest emission reductions. 

3. Reasonable Progress Goals 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1) requires states to 

‘‘establish goals’’ (in deciviews) that 

provide for reasonable progress towards 

achieving natural visibility conditions 

for each Class I area of the State. These 

RPGs are interim goals that must 

provide for incremental visibility 

improvement for the most impaired 

visibility days, and ensure no 

degradation for the least impaired 

visibility days. The RPGs for the first 

planning period are goals for the year 

2018. 

Wyoming relied on WRAP modeling 

to establish its RPGs for 2018. The 

primary tool WRAP relied upon for 

modeling regional haze improvements 

by 2018, and for estimating Wyoming’s 

RPGs, was the CMAQ model. The 

CMAQ model was used to estimate 2018 

visibility conditions in Wyoming and all 

western Class I areas, based on 

application of anticipated regional haze 

strategies in the various states’ regional 

haze plans, including assumed controls 

on BART sources. 

The Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 

at the University of California Riverside 

conducted the CMAQ modeling under 

the oversight of the WRAP Modeling 

Forum. The RMC developed air quality 

modeling inputs including annual 

meteorology and emissions inventories 

for: (1) A 2002 actual emissions base 

case; (2) a planning case to represent the 

2000–2004 regional haze baseline 

period using averages for key emissions 

categories; (3) a 2018 base case of 

projected emissions determined using 

factors known at the end of 2005; and 

(4) a 2018 reasonable progress case to 

represent anticipated BART controls. 

All emission inventories were spatially 

and temporally allocated using the 

Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel 

Emissions (SMOKE) modeling system. 

Each of these inventories underwent a 

number of revisions throughout the 

development process to arrive at the 

final versions used in CMAQ modeling. 

The photochemical modeling of 

regional haze for the WRAP states for 

2002 and 2018 was conducted on the 

36-km resolution national regional 

planning organization domain that 

covered the continental United States, 

portions of Canada and Mexico, and 

portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

The RMC examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

2002 modeling efforts were used to 

evaluate air quality/visibility modeling 

for a historical episode, in this case, for 

calendar year 2002, to demonstrate the 

suitability of the modeling systems for 

subsequent planning, sensitivity, and 

emissions control strategy modeling. 

Model performance evaluation 

compares output from model 

simulations with ambient air quality 

data for the same time period to 

determine whether model performance 

is sufficiently accurate to justify using 

the model to simulate future conditions. 

Once the RMC determined that model 

performance was acceptable, it used the 

model to determine the 2018 RPGs 

using the current and future year air 

quality modeling predictions, and 

compared the RPGs to the uniform rate 

of progress. A more detailed description 

of the CMAQ modeling performed for 

the WRAP can be found in the Chapter 

5 of the State’s TSD. 

The State determined that the WRAP 

2018 projections represent significant 

visibility improvement and reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility based 

upon the State’s consideration of the 

factors required for BART and 

reasonable progress. The State adopted 

the WRAPs 2018 projections as their 

RPG for each Class I area. Table 28 

shows the URP and the 2018 RPGs 

adopted by the State. 

TABLE 28—WYOMING’S URP AND RPGS FOR 2018 

Wyoming Class I Areas 

20% Worst days 20% Best days 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

2018 URP 

(deciview) 

Reduction 

needed to 

reach URP 

goal 

(delta 

deciview) 

2018 CMAQ 

modeling projection— 

State’s RPG 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(deciview) 

2018 CMAQ 

modeling projection 

(deciview) 

Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton 

National Park, Teton Wilderness ......... 11.8 10.5 0.7 11.2 2.6 2.4 

North Absaroka Wilderness, Washakie 

Wilderness ............................................ 11.5 10.4 0.6 11.0 2.0 2.0 

Bridger Wilderness, Fitzpatrick Wilderness ...................................................... 11.1 10.0 0.6 10.6 2.1 2.0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34767 

49The methods WRAP used to develop these 

emission inventories are described in more detail in 

Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western Regional 

Haze Plans in the Supporting and Related Materials 

section of the docket. 

Table 28 shows that the State’s 

regional haze SIP is providing for 

improvement in visibility for the mostimpaired days for the period ending in 

2018 and allows for no degradation in 

visibility for the least-impaired days. 

Table 28 also shows that Wyoming is 

not meeting the URP to meet natural 

visibility conditions by 2064. In this 

case, 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(ii) requires 

the State to demonstrate, based on the 

four factors in 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A), that 

the RPGs established in this SIP are 

reasonable for this planning period and 

that achieving the URP in this planning 

period is not reasonable. In its 

demonstration, the State cited many 

reasons why meeting the URP was not 

reasonable, including the following. 

First, emissions from natural sources 

greatly affect the State’s ability to meet 

the 2018 URP. As discussed earlier, 

WEP data shows that emissions of OC, 

EC, PM2.5, and PM10 come mainly from 

natural or non-anthropogenic sources, 

such as natural wildfire and windblown 

dust. The State has little or no control 

over OC, EC, PM2.5, and PM10 emissions 

associated with natural fire and 

windblown dust. Second, emissions 

from sources outside the WRAP 

modeling domain also affect the State’s 

ability to meet the 2018 URP. Sources 

outside of the modeling domain are the 

single largest source region contributor 

to sulfate and nitrate at the State’s Class 

I areas. These sources are not under the 

control of Wyoming or the surrounding 

states. 

Because the State is not meeting the 

URP, the State is required by 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(ii) to assess the number of 

years it would take to reach natural 

conditions if visibility improvement 

continues at the current rate of progress. 

The State has calculated the year and 

the length of time to reach natural 

visibility as follows: Yellowstone 

National Park, Grand Teton National 

Park, and Teton Wilderness: 2130 (126 

years); North Absaroka Wilderness and 

Washakie Wilderness: 2136 (132 years); 

and Bridger Wilderness and Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness: 2165 (161 years). 

EPA disagrees with the State’s 

assessment that, based on the factors in 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(a), all reasonable 

controls were implemented by the State 

for this first planning period of the 

regional haze program. In particular, as 

discussed in sections VIII.A and VIII.B. 

below, we find unreasonable the State’s 

determination to not impose more 

stringent NOX BART controls on certain 

sources or not to impose any reasonable 

progress controls at PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Units 1 and 2. As a result, EPA 

is proposing to disapprove the State’s 

RPGs, and because we are proposing to 

disapprove Wyoming’s RPGs, we are 

also proposing a FIP to replace them. 

See discussion in section VIII.C below. 

E. Long Term Strategy 

1. Emission Inventories 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that 

Wyoming document the technical basis, 

including modeling, monitoring, and 

emissions information, on which it 

relied to determine its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations 

necessary for achieving reasonable 

progress in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area it affects. Wyoming must 

identify the baseline emissions 

inventory on which its strategies are 

based. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires 

that Wyoming identify all 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment it considered in developing 

its LTS. This includes major and minor 

stationary sources, mobile sources, and 

area sources. 

In order to meet these requirements, 

Wyoming relied on the emission 

inventory developed by the WRAP. The 

State has provided an emission 

inventory for SO2, NOX, VOC, OC, EC, 

PM2.5, PM10, and NH3. The inventory 

provides the baseline year 2002 

emissions and provides projections of 

future emissions in 2018 based on 

expected controls, growth, and other 

factors. The following are the inventory 

source categories identified by the State: 

point, area, on-road mobile, off-road 

mobile, anthropogenic fire, natural fire, 

road dust, fugitive dust, area source oil 

and gas, and biogenic emissions. The 

emission inventories developed by the 

WRAP were calculated using best 

available data and approved EPA 

methods.49 Following is a summary of 

the emission inventory for each 

pollutant by source. 

SO2

Sulfur dioxide emissions come 

primarily from coal combustion at 

EGUs, but smaller amounts come from 

natural gas combustion, mobile sources, 

and wood combustion. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34768 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 29—WYOMING SO2 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 119,717 96,809 ¥19 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 16,689 23,093 38 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 959 81 ¥92 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 5,866 65 ¥99 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 150 3 ¥98 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 173 109 ¥37 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 2,286 2,286 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 145,840 122,446 ¥16 

The State expects a 16% reduction in 

SO2 emissions by 2018 due to planned 

controls on existing sources, even with 

expected growth in generating capacity 

for the State. 

NOX

NOX emissions in Wyoming come 

mostly from point sources and from onroad and off-road mobile sources. 

TABLE 30—WYOMING NOX EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 117,806 110,109 ¥7 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 15,192 19,663 29 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 38,535 9,728 ¥75 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 76,637 49,677 ¥35 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 14,725 34,142 132 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 782 484 ¥38 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 8,372 8,372 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 15,925 15,925 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 287,974 248,100 ¥14 

The State expects NOX emissions to 

decrease by 14% by 2018, primarily due 

to significant reductions in mobile 

source emissions. The State projects that 

off-road and on-road vehicles emissions 

will decline by more than 55,760 tpy 

from the baseline 2002 emissions of 

115,172 tpy. 

OC 

A wide variety of sources contribute 

emissions to this pollutant, including 

diesel emissions and combustion 

byproducts from wood and agricultural 

burning. 

TABLE 31—WYOMING OC EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 646 990 53 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 2,000 1,975 ¥1 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 304 249 ¥18 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 625 411 ¥34 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 20 26 30 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 96 133 39 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 1,709 886 ¥48 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 23,793 23,793 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 29,193 28,463 ¥3 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34769 

OC emissions from all sources are 

expected to show a 3% decline. Natural 

fire is the largest source contributing to 

OC emissions. The State does not have 

the ability to predict future emissions 

from natural fires and thus, the State 

held this category constant in the 

inventory. 

EC 

EC is a byproduct of incomplete 

combustion. EC emissions mainly come 

from mobile sources and natural fires. 

TABLE 32—WYOMING EC EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 104 180 73 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 304 335 10 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 443 86 ¥81 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 1,986 1,161 ¥42 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 7 9 29 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 298 153 ¥49 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 4,922 4,922 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 8,066 6,848 ¥15 

The State predicts EC emissions to 

decrease approximately 15% by 2018. 

Reductions in manmade emissions of 

EC are largely due to mobile sources 

emission reductions resulting from new 

federal emission standards for mobile 

sources, especially for diesel engines. 

PM2.5

PM2.5 emissions come mainly from 

agricultural and mining activities, 

windblown dust from construction 

areas, and emissions from unpaved and 

paved roads. 

TABLE 33—WYOMING PM2.5 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 11,375 15,709 38 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 1,601 1,756 10 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 160 206 29 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 2,082 2,882 38 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 5,838 5,838 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 242 129 ¥47 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 1,535 1,535 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 22,833 28,055 23 

The State predicts emissions of PM2.5

to increase 23% by 2018. Emission 

increases are related to population 

growth and an increase in vehicle miles 

traveled. 

PM10

PM10 emissions come from many of 

the same sources as PM2.5 emissions but 

other activities like rock crushing and 

processing, material transfer, open pit 

mining, and unpaved road emissions 

also can be prominent sources. 

TABLE 34—WYOMING PM10 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 24,751 30,619 24 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 409 653 60 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 171 165 ¥4 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 1,125 1,449 29 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 18,030 25,144 39 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 52,546 52,546 0 

Anthro Fire ............................................................................................................................................... 259 109 ¥58 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 5,369 5,369 0 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34770 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 34—WYOMING PM10 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018—Continued 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 102,660 116,054 13 

Overall, PM10 emissions are expected 

to increase by 13%. increases in coarse 

PM emissions are linked to population 

growth and vehicle miles traveled. 

NH3

NH3 emissions come from a variety of 

sources including wastewater treatment 

facilities, livestock operations, fertilizer 

application, mobile sources, and point 

sources. 

TABLE 35—WYOMING NH3 EMISSIONS—2002 AND 2018 

Source category Baseline 

2002 Future 2018 Percent change 

Point ......................................................................................................................................................... 685 1,398 104 

Area ......................................................................................................................................................... 29,776 29,901 0 

On-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 538 724 35 

Off-Road Mobile ....................................................................................................................................... 41 57 39 

Oil & Gas ................................................................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

Road Dust ................................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust ............................................................................................................................................ 0 0 0 

Windblown Dust ....................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Anthropogenic Fire .................................................................................................................................. 218 119 ¥45 

Natural Fire .............................................................................................................................................. 1,775 1,775 0 

Biogenic ................................................................................................................................................... 0 0 0 

Total .................................................................................................................................................. 33,033 33,974 3 

NH3 emissions are expected to 

increase by 3% by 2018. Increases in 

NH3 emissions are linked to population 

growth and increased vehicular traffic. 

2. Consultation and Emissions 

Reductions for Other States’ Class I 

Areas 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that 

Wyoming consult with another state if 

its emissions are reasonably anticipated 

to contribute to visibility impairment at 

that state’s Class I area(s), and that 

Wyoming consult with other states if 

those other states’ emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to contribute to 

visibility impairment at its Class I areas. 

The State participated in regional 

planning, coordination, and 

consultation with other states in 

developing emission management 

strategies through the WRAP. Through 

the WRAP consultation process, 

Wyoming has reviewed and analyzed 

contributions from other states that 

reasonably may cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in Wyoming’s 

Class I areas and analyzed Wyoming’s 

impact on other states’ Class I areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if 

Wyoming emissions cause or contribute 

to impairment in another state’s Class I 

area, Wyoming must demonstrate that it 

has included in its regional haze SIP all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emission reductions needed to meet 

the RPG for that Class I area. Section 

51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires that, since 

Wyoming participated in a regional 

planning process, it must ensure it has 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process. As we state in the RHR, 

Wyoming’s commitments to participate 

in WRAP bind it to secure emission 

reductions agreed to as a result of that 

process. 

The State determined it did 

potentially impact Class I areas in South 

Dakota, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, 

Montana, and North Dakota (see Table 

8.1.2.1–1 in the SIP). Wyoming accepted 

and incorporated the WRAP-developed 

visibility modeling into its regional haze 

SIP and the SIP includes the controls 

assumed in the modeling. Wyoming has 

satisfied the RHR requirements for 

consultation and included controls in 

the SIP sufficient to address the relevant 

requirements related to impacts on Class 

I areas in other states. 

We are proposing to find that the 

State has met the requirements for 

consultation under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i) and 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(ii). 

3. Mandatory Long-Term Strategy 

Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that 

Wyoming, at a minimum, consider 

certain factors in developing its LTS. 

These are: (a) Emission reductions due 

to ongoing air pollution control 

programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (b) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(c) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals; (d) source 

retirement and replacement schedules; 

(e) smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans that currently 

exist within the state for these purposes; 

(f) enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

(g) the anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, 

and mobile source emissions over the 

period addressed by the LTS. 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air 

Pollution Programs 

In addition to its BART and 

reasonable progress determinations, the 

State’s LTS contains other reductions 

due to ongoing air pollution programs. 

The State’s LTS contains numerous 

ongoing air pollution programs, 

including: (1) New Source Review 

Program, which is a permit program for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34771 

the construction of new sources and the 

modification of existing sources; (2) 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Program, which protects visibility from 

proposed major stationary sources or 

major modifications to existing 

facilities; and (3) New Source 

Performance Standards, which the State 

incorporates by reference on an annual 

basis. For a complete listing of ongoing 

air pollution programs in Wyoming, see 

Chapter 8.2.1 of the SIP. 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

Chapter 3 of the Wyoming Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations (WAQSR) 

establishes limits on the quantity or 

concentration of emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources, 

including construction activities. 

Specifically, WAQSR Chapter 3, Section 

2(f), prescribes measures to ensure the 

control of fugitive dust emissions during 

construction or demolition activities. 

WAQSR Chapter 3, Section 2(f) requires 

any person engaged in clearing or 

leveling of land, earthmoving, 

excavation, or movement of trucks or 

construction equipment over access 

haul roads or cleared land to take steps 

to minimize fugitive dust from such 

activities. Such control measures may 

include frequent watering and/or 

chemical stabilization. EPA approved 

WAQSR Chapter 3 into the SIP on July 

28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). 

c. Smoke Management 

WAQSR Chapter 10 establishes 

restrictions and requirements on 

different types of burning in Wyoming. 

WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 2 regulates 

open burning, including refuse burning, 

open burning of trade wastes, open 

burning at salvage operations, open 

burning for firefighting training, and 

small vegetative material open burning 

(not exceeding 0.25 tons per day of PM). 

WAQSR Chapter 10, Section 3 regulates 

emissions from wood waste burners. 

EPA approved WAQSR Chapter 10, 

Section 2 and 3 into the SIP on July 28, 

2004 (69 FR 44965). WAQSR Chapter 

10, Section 4 was adopted by the State 

and submitted to EPA to meet the 

requirements for programs related to fire 

under 40 CFR 51.309(d)(6). Chapter 10, 

Section 4 seeks to minimize the impacts 

from private and prescribed burning on 

visibility in Class I areas and potentially 

affected populations. EPA is proposing 

approval of Chapter 10, Section 4 in a 

separate action. 

d. Emission Limitations and Schedules 

for Compliance 

Chapter 6.5 of the State’s SIP contains 

the emission limitations and schedules 

for compliance for BART sources. 

Chapter 6.5 of the SIP requires the 

BART sources to install and 

demonstrate compliance with the State’s 

BART determination as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after EPA approval of the SIP. For some 

sources where controls have already 

been installed, the State specifies an 

earlier compliance deadline in Chapter 

6.5 of the SIP. In addition, Chapter 8.3.3 

of the SIP contains the emission limits 

and compliance schedule for LTS 

controls on Jim Bridger Units 1–4. 

e. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

The State is not currently aware of 

any specific scheduled shutdowns, 

retirements in upcoming years, or 

replacement schedules, such as planned 

installation of new control equipment to 

meet other regulations. If such actions 

occur, the State will factor them into 

upcoming reviews. 

f. Enforceability of Wyoming’s Measures 

As discussed in section VII.D of this 

notice, EPA is proposing to disapprove 

the State’s SIP because it contains 

inadequate monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements, and we are 

proposing a FIP to address the 

enforceability of BART and reasonable 

progress controls. 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility 

Due to Projected Changes 

The anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, 

and mobile source emissions during this 

planning period is addressed in section 

VI.D.3 of this notice. 

4. Our Conclusions on Wyoming’s LongTerm Strategy 

We propose to partially approve and 

partially disapprove Wyoming’s LTS. 

Because we are proposing to disapprove 

the NOX BART determinations for 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and 

Unit 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 

2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3, 

we are also proposing to disapprove the 

corresponding emission limits and 

compliance schedules that Wyoming 

relied on as part of its LTS. Because we 

are proposing to disapprove the 

reasonable progress determination for 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2, 

we are also proposing to disapprove the 

LTS because it does not include 

appropriate NOX reasonable progress 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for Dave Johnston Units 1 and 

2. We are also proposing to disapprove 

the State’s LTS because it does not 

contain the necessary monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements to make the BART and 

reasonable progress limits practically 

enforceable. Except for these elements, 

the State’s LTS satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), 

and we are proposing to approve it. 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Rule Requirements 

Per 40 CFR 51.306(c), the State must 

provide for review and revision of a 

coordinated LTS for addressing RAVI 

and regional haze, and the State must 

submit the first such coordinated LTS 

with its first regional haze SIP. The 

State did not provide for the 

coordination of their RAVI and regional 

haze LTS. We are proposing to 

disapprove the State’s SIP as not 

meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.306(c). We are proposing a FIP as 

explained in section VIII.F of this notice 

to meet the coordination requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.306(c). 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the 

SIP contain a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

regional haze visibility impairment that 

is representative of all mandatory Class 

I Federal areas within the state. This 

monitoring strategy must be coordinated 

with the monitoring strategy required in 

40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires 

the establishment of any additional 

monitoring sites or equipment needed to 

assess whether the RPGs for all 

mandatory Class I Federal areas within 

the state are being achieved. 

Consistent with EPA’s monitoring 

regulations for RAVI and regional haze, 

Wyoming states in Chapter 9 of the 

regional haze SIP that it will rely on the 

IMPROVE network for compliance 

purposes, in addition to any additional 

visibility impairment monitoring that 

may be needed in the future. 

Section 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that 

states establish procedures by which 

monitoring data and other information 

are used in determining the contribution 

of emissions from within Wyoming to 

regional haze visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I Federal areas both 

within and outside the state. The 

IMPROVE monitoring program is 

national in scope, and other states have 

similar monitoring and data reporting 

procedures, ensuring a consistent and 

robust monitoring data collection 

system. As 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) 

indicates, Wyoming’s participation in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34772 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the IMPROVE program constitutes 

compliance with this requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that 

the SIP provide for the reporting of all 

visibility monitoring data to the 

Administrator, at least annually, for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area in 

the state. To the extent possible, 

Wyoming should report visibility 

monitoring data electronically. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the 

SIP provide for other elements, 

including reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other measures, necessary to assess and 

report on visibility. We propose that 

Wyoming’s participation in the 

IMPROVE network ensures that the 

monitoring data is reported at least 

annually and is easily accessible; 

therefore, such participation complies 

with this requirement. IMPROVE data 

are centrally compiled and made 

available to EPA, states and the public 

via various electronic formats and Web 

sites including IMPROVE (http:// 

vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/) and 

VIEWS (http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

views/). 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that 

Wyoming maintain a statewide 

inventory of emissions of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal area. The 

inventory must include emissions for a 

baseline year, emissions for the most 

recent year for which data are available, 

and estimates of future projected 

emissions. The State must also include 

a commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. The State’s emission 

inventory is discussed in section VI.F.1 

of this notice. Wyoming states in 

Chapter 9 of the SIP that it intends to 

update the Wyoming statewide 

emissions inventories periodically and 

review periodic emissions information 

from other states and future emissions 

projections. We propose that this 

satisfies the requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(vi) requires that 

states provide for any additional 

reporting, recordkeeping, and measures 

necessary to evaluate and report on 

visibility. The State of Wyoming, in 

accordance with provisions of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi), will track data related 

to regional haze for sources for which 

the State has regulatory authority, and 

will depend on the IMPROVE program 

and RPO sponsored collection and 

analysis efforts for monitoring and 

emissions inventory data, respectively. 

To ensure the availability of data and 

analyses to report on visibility 

conditions and progress toward Class I 

area visibility goals, the State of 

Wyoming will collaborate with 

members of a RPO to ensure the 

continued operation of the IMPROVE 

program and RPO sponsored technical 

support analysis tools and systems. 

We propose to find that the State’s SIP 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4). 

H. Consultation With FLMs 

Although the FLMs are very active in 

participating in the RPOs, the RHR 

grants the FLMs a special role in the 

review of the regional haze SIPs, 

summarized in section V.H above. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), states are 

obligated to provide the FLMs with an 

opportunity for consultation, in person, 

and at least 60 days prior to holding a 

public hearing on the regional haze SIP. 

The State provided an opportunity for 

FLM consultation, in person and at least 

60 days prior to holding any public 

hearing on the SIP. As required by 40 

CFR Section 51.308(i)(3), the State has 

included FLM comments and State 

responses in Chapter 11 of the Wyoming 

TSD. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that 

states provide in its regional haze SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. The 

FLMs formally commented on the 

Wyoming proposed SIP in November 

and December of 2010. The FLM 

comments provided support for the 

modeling approach used by the State in 

the BART determinations and 

complimented the State on thorough 

BART, reasonable progress, and area 

source analysis. The FLMs also 

recommended the State reevaluate costs 

and emission limits for some of the 

BART and reasonable progress sources. 

Chapter 11 of the State’s TSD provides 

detailed information on the State’s 

response to FLM comments. 

Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies 

the regional haze SIP must provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between a state and FLMs on the 

implementation of the visibility 

protection program required by 40 CFR 

51.308. This includes development and 

review of implementation plan revisions 

and five-year progress reports and the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. Pursuant to 

Chapter 11.2 of the SIP, the State will 

provide the FLMs an opportunity to 

review and comment on SIP revisions, 

the five-year progress reports, and other 

developing programs that may 

contribute to Class I visibility 

impairment. 

We are proposing that the State’s SIP 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(i). 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year 

Progress Reports 

40 CFR 51.308(f) requires a state to 

revise and submit its regional haze SIP 

to EPA by July 31, 2018, and every ten 

years thereafter. Pursuant to Chapter 10 

of the SIP, the State will provide this 

revision. In accordance with the 

requirements listed in 40 CFR 51.308(g), 

the State will submit a report on 

reasonable progress to EPA every five 

years following the initial submittal of 

the SIP. That report will be in the form 

of an implementation plan revision. The 

State’s report will evaluate the progress 

made towards the RPGs for each 

mandatory Class I area located within 

the State and in each mandatory Class 

I area located outside the State, which 

have been identified as being affected by 

emissions from the State. The State will 

also evaluate the monitoring strategy 

adequacy in assessing RPGs. 

Based on the findings of the five-year 

progress report, 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

requires a state to make a determination 

of adequacy of the current 

implementation plan. The State must 

take one or more of the actions listed in 

40 CFR 51. 308(h)(1) through (4) that are 

applicable at the same time as the state 

submits a five-year progress report. 

Chapter 12 of the SIP requires the State 

to make an adequacy determination of 

the current SIP pursuant to 40 CFR 

51.308(h)(1) through (4) at the same 

time a five-year progress report is due. 

We propose to find the State’s SIP 

satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)–(h). 

VIII. Federal Implementation Plan 

EPA is proposing a FIP to address the 

deficiencies indentified in our proposed 

partial disapproval of Wyoming’s 

regional haze SIP. In lieu of our 

proposed FIP, or a portion thereof, we 

will propose approval of a SIP revision 

as expeditiously as practicable if the 

State submits such a revision and the 

revision matches the terms of our 

proposed FIP. We will also review and 

take action on any regional haze SIP 

submitted by the state to determine 

whether such SIP is approvable, 

regardless of whether or not its terms 

match those of the FIP. We encourage 

the State to submit a SIP revision to 

replace the FIP, either before or after our 

final action. 

A. Disapproval of the State’s NOX BART 

Determinations and Federal 

Implementation Plan for NOX BART 

Determinations and Limits 

As noted above, the State provided 

five-factor analyses that considered all 

factors, but we find that its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34773 

50A hybrid SNCR/SCR system combines the 

lower costs and higher ammonia slip of SNCR with 

the higher NOx reduction potential and lower 

ammonia slip of SCR. During operation, the SNCR 

system is allowed to inject higher amounts of 

reagent into the flue gas. The increased reagent flow 

brings about increased NOx reduction, but also 

causes increased ammonia slip which is then 

consumed by the SCR system. The use of the 

ammonia slip by the SCR system can reduce the 

size of the required SCR catalyst. 

consideration of the costs of compliance 

and visibility improvement was 

inconsistent with regulatory and 

statutory requirements. In disapproving 

specific State BART determinations in 

our proposed rulemaking notice on June 

4, 2012, we based our analysis on 

information provided by the State in 

their BART analyses, with the exception 

of visibility improvement modeling, and 

thus accepted the cost information 

provided by the State. In this proposed 

rulemaking, in addition to the other 

BART information in the State SIP 

submittal, we are basing our proposed 

BART determinations on cost analyses 

and visibility improvement modeling 

developed by EPA, as explained in 

section VII.C of this notice. EPA is 

proposing to disapprove the State’s NOX

BART determinations, and we are 

proposing to issue a BART FIP, for the 

following units: PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp 

Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2, PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. EPA’s 

rationale for disapproving the State’s 

BART determinations for these units, as 

well as EPA’s BART FIP determinations 

and emission limits, are discussed 

below. 

We are also asking if interested parties 

have additional information or 

comments regarding the BART factors 

and EPA’s proposed determinations, for 

example our weighing of average costs, 

incremental costs, visibility 

improvement, and timing of installation 

of such controls, and in light of such 

information, whether the interested 

parties think the Agency should 

consider another BART control 

technology option that could be 

finalized either instead of, or in 

conjunction with, BART as proposed. 

The Agency is also asking if interested 

parties have additional information or 

comments on the proposed timing of 

compliance when the challenge of 

coordinating the work our proposed SIP 

and FIP will require is considered. 

The Agency will take the comments 

and testimony received, as well as any 

further SIP revisions submitted by the 

State, into consideration in our final 

promulgation. Supplemental 

information received may lead the 

Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP 

regulations that reflect a different BART 

control technology option, or impact 

other proposed regulatory provisions, 

which differ from this proposal. 

1. Disapproval of the State’s Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1–3 NOX

BART Determination and FIP to 

Address NOX BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

During the 2001–2003 baseline, Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1–3 were 

all controlled with LNBs with a permit 

limit of 0.5 lbs/MMBtu (3-hour rolling 

average). The State determined that new 

LNBs, OFA, new LNBs and OFA, new 

SNCR/SCR hybrid 50, new LNBs and 

OFA with SNCR, and SCR were 

technically feasible for reducing NOX

emissions at Units 1–3. The State 

determined that natural gas re-burn was 

technically infeasible. The State did not 

identify any energy or non-air quality 

environmental impacts that would 

preclude the selection of any of the 

controls evaluated, and there are no 

remaining-useful-life issues for this 

source. A summary of the State’s NOX

BART analysis is provided in Tables 

36–38 below. As discussed above, the 

visibility improvement modeling results 

in these tables were developed by EPA 

because Wyoming did not properly 

follow the BART Guidelines. Baseline 

NOX emissions are 6,320 tpy for Unit 1, 

6,285 tpy for Unit 2, and 6,448 tpy for 

Unit 3 based on annual average heat 

input for 2001–2003 and an emission 

rate of 0.27 lb/MMBtu. 

TABLE 36—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA analysis 

OFA .......................................................... 0.23 936 $625,000 $668 ........................ 0.08 

New LNBs ................................................ 0.23 936 1,360,000 1,453 ........................ 0.08 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.23 936 1,944,000 2,077 ........................ 0.08 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid ................................... 0.20 1,639 7,429,000 4,534 ........................ ........................

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.12 3,511 7,365,000 2,098 $2,105 0.32 

SCR .......................................................... 0.07 4,681 15,787,000 3,372 7,198 0.44 

TABLE 37—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA analysis 

OFA .......................................................... 0.23 931 $625,000 $671 ........................ 0.08 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34774 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 37—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS—Continued 

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA analysis 

New LNBs ................................................ 0.23 931 $1,360,000 $1,461 ........................ 0.08 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.23 931 1,944,000 2,088 ........................ 0.08 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid ................................... 0.20 1,630 7,429,000 4,559 ........................ ........................

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.12 3,492 7,365,000 2,109 $2,117 0.32 

SCR .......................................................... 0.07 4,656 15,787,000 3,391 7,242 0.44 

TABLE 38—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S BASIN ELECTRIC LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA analysis 

OFA .......................................................... 0.23 955 $625,000 $654 ........................ 0.08 

New LNBs ................................................ 0.23 955 1,360,000 1,424 ........................ 0.08 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.23 955 1,944,000 2,036 ........................ 0.08 

SNCR/SCR Hybrid ................................... 0.20 1,672 7,429,000 4,444 ........................ ........................

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.12 3,582 7,365,000 2,056 $2,064 0.33 

SCR .......................................................... 0.07 4,777 15,787,000 3,305 7,054 0.44 

The State eliminated the SNCR/SCR 

hybrid from further consideration 

because it has higher cost-effectiveness 

values and lower control efficiency 

compared to new LNBs plus OFA with 

SNCR. 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined that new 

LNBs with OFA were reasonable for 

NOX BART. The State determined that 

the NOX BART emission limit for 

Laramie River Unit 1 is 0.23 lb/MMBtu 

(30-day rolling average). The State 

determined that the NOX BART 

emission limit for Laramie River Unit 2 

is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). The State determined that the 

NOX BART emission limit for Laramie 

River Unit 3 is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). 

The State’s proposed SIP required 

additional NOX emission reductions for 

Laramie River under its LTS. Based on 

the costs and visibility improvement for 

Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3, 

the State proposed installation of two 

SCRs, or equivalent performing 

emission control systems, at any of the 

three units. The State proposed that the 

add-on NOX control achieve an 

emission rate, on an individual unit 

basis, at or below 0.07 lb/MMBtu on a 

30-day rolling average. The State 

proposed that the add-on controls be 

installed and operational on one of the 

Laramie River Station units by 

December 31, 2018 and on a second 

Laramie River Station unit by December 

31, 2023. 

On March 8, 2010, Basin Electric 

Power Cooperative appealed the 

additional controls proposed by the 

State under its LTS before the Wyoming 

Environmental Quality Council. The 

State entered into a settlement 

agreement on November 16, 2010 with 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative (a 

copy of the settlement agreement is 

included in the State’s revised NOX

BART Analysis for Laramie River dated 

January 3, 2011). As part of the 

settlement agreement, the State agreed 

to remove the requirement for Basin 

Electric to install additional controls 

under the LTS. In return, Basin Electric 

agreed to additional NOX emissions 

reductions under BART. Under the 

settlement agreement, Basin Electric 

agreed to a NOX emission limit of 0.21 

lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) on 

all three units. Basin Electric also agreed 

to a NOX emission limit for Unit 1 and 

Unit 2 of 4,780 tpy and a NOX emission 

limit for Unit 3 of 4,914 tpy, effectively 

capping emissions from all three units 

at 12,773 tpy. In the SIP adopted by the 

State, the State determined the emission 

limits in the settlement agreement were 

BART for Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3. 

EPA’s Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1–3 NOX BART Determination 

and FIP for NOX BART 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. 

However, EPA disagrees with the State’s 

baseline NOX emissions estimates, as 

listed above, because the State based its 

estimate on annual average heat input 

for 2001–2003 at an emission rate of 

0.07 lb/MMBtu and not actual annual 

averages. EPA’s revised baseline NOX

emissions are 6,051 tpy for Unit 1, 6,293 

tpy for Unit 2, and 6,375 tpy for Unit 3 

based on the actual annual average for 

the years 2001–2003. A summary of the 

EPA’s NOX BART analysis and the 

visibility impacts is provided in Tables 

39–44 below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34775 

TABLE 39—SUMMARY OF EPA’S LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost effectiveness 

Visibility improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at 

Badlands) 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.19 1,556 $2,268,806 $1,458 ........................ 0.29 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.15 2,445 5,880,822 2,395 $4,018 0.44 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.05 4,880 18,146,629 3,718 5,057 0.79 

Laramie River Unit 1 also impacts 

other Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 40 

below. 

TABLE 40—LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 1: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Wind Cave ....................................................................................................................... 0.20 0.30 0.64 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.10 0.16 0.32 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.12 0.19 0.37 

TABLE 41—SUMMARY OF EPA’S LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Badlands) 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.19 1823 $2,268,806 $1,244 ........................ 0.30 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.15 2,717 5,884,257 2,166 $4,044 0.42 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.05 5,129 20,017,988 3,903 5,860 0.73 

Laramie River Unit 2 also impacts 

other Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 42 

below. 

TABLE 42—LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 2: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Wind Cave ....................................................................................................................... 0.24 0.36 0.66 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.10 0.16 0.29 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.13 0.19 0.35 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34776 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

51 Detailed supporting information for our cost 

and visibility improvement analyses can be found 

in the Docket (see Staudt memos and EPA BART 

and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively). 

TABLE 43—SUMMARY OF EPA’S LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Badlands) 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.19 1789 $2,268,806 $1,268 ........................ 0.22 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.15 2,706 5,933,791 2,192 $3,996 0.33 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.05 5,181 18,597,027 3,589 5,117 0.67 

Laramie River Unit 3 also impacts 

other Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 44 

below. 

TABLE 44—LARAMIE RIVER UNIT 3: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Wind Cave ....................................................................................................................... 0.20 0.31 0.60 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.10 0.15 0.29 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.12 0.18 0.34 

As noted above, under the settlement 

agreement terms incorporated into the 

SIP, Basin Electric agreed to a NOX

emission limit of 0.21 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) on all three units, 

and thus eliminated other control 

options. We propose to find that 

Wyoming did not properly follow the 

requirements of the BART Guidelines in 

determining NOX BART for these units. 

Furthermore, as discussed in detail 

above, because Wyoming relied on 

visibility modeling methodologies that 

are inconsistent with the statutory and 

regulatory requirements, we do not 

consider Wyoming’s analyses of 

visibility improvement for the NOX

BART to be reasonable for the Laramie 

units. We propose to find that 

Wyoming’s analyses for these units are 

inconsistent with the statutory and 

regulatory requirement that ‘‘the degree 

of improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology.’’ 

Therefore, EPA does not agree with 

the State’s conclusion that a limit of 

0.21 lb/MMBtu is consistent with the 

BART Guidelines and reasonable for 

BART for Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 

3, which can be achieved with the 

installation and operation of new LNBs 

with OFA. Specifically, we propose to 

find that in negotiating the emission 

limit, Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably ‘‘take into consideration the 

costs of compliance.’’ Thus, the State’s 

BART analyses for Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 do not 

meet the requirements of the regional 

haze regulation, and we are proposing to 

disapprove those analyses and the 

State’s NOX BART determination. We 

are proposing a FIP for NOX BART to fill 

the gap left by our disapproval, as 

explained below. 

Our analysis follows our BART 

Guidelines. Because the Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3 are 

similar, we are proposing a single BART 

analysis and determination that applies 

to each unit. With the exception of the 

NOX emission limits, the visibility 

improvement analyses, and the costeffectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing 

to find that the Wyoming regional haze 

NOX BART analyses for Units 1, 2 and 

3, fulfills all the relevant requirements 

of CAA Section 169A and the RHR. As 

discussed above in section VII.C.3.b., 

Wyoming’s visibility improvement 

analyses for these units is inconsistent 

with the requirements found in the CAA 

and BART Guidelines. Furthermore, we 

are not relying on the State’s costs due 

to the reasons described in section 

VII.C.3.a above. 

In addition, the cost-effectiveness for 

new LNBs with OFA and SCR ranges 

from approximately $3,600/ton to 

$3,900/ton with significant visibility 

improvement at the most impacted 

Class I area of 0.79 dv for Unit 1, 0.73 

dv for Unit 2, and 0.67 dv for Unit 3. 

SCR provides significant visibility 

improvement at other impacted Class I 

areas, with cumulative visibility 

improvements of 2.12 dv for Unit 1, 1.97 

dv for Unit 2, and 2.29 dv for Unit 3. 

When considering the cost effectiveness 

and visibility improvement of new 

LNBs plus OFA and SCR, it is within 

the range of what EPA has found 

reasonable for BART in other SIP and 

FIP actions. We also propose to find that 

the incremental cost-effectiveness does 

not preclude the selection of new LNBs 

with OFA and SCR. 

EPA’s NOX BART analyses and the 

visibility impacts for Units 1, 2 and 3 is 

summarized in Tables 39–44 above and 

detailed information can be found in the 

docket.51 We propose to find that at an 

emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average), which can be 

achieved by the installation of new 

LNBs with OFA plus SCR, is reasonable 

and consistent with the CAA and BART 

Guideline requirements for NOX BART 

for Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 

2, and 3. Consequently, we are 

proposing that the FIP NOX BART 

emission limit for Basin Electric 

Laramie River Unit 1, Unit 2, and Unit 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34777 

3 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). 

We propose that Basin Electric meet 

our proposed emission limit at Laramie 

River Units 1, 2, and 3, as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than five 

years after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP. This is consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). 

We are also asking if interested parties 

have additional information regarding 

the BART factors and EPA’s proposed 

determination, for example our 

weighing of average costs, incremental 

costs, visibility improvement, and 

timing of installation of such controls, 

and in light of such information, 

whether the interested parties think the 

Agency should consider another BART 

control technology option that could be 

finalized either instead of, or in 

conjunction with, BART as proposed. 

The Agency will take the comments and 

testimony received, as well as any 

further SIP revisions submitted by the 

State, into consideration in our final 

promulgation. Supplemental 

information received may lead the 

Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP 

regulations that reflect a different BART 

control technology option, or impact 

other proposed regulatory provisions, 

which differ from this proposal. 

2. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4 NOX

BART Determinations and FIP To 

Address NOX BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

for Dave Johnston Unit 3 

During the baseline period of 2001– 

2003, Dave Johnston Unit 3 was 

uncontrolled for NOX and had emission 

limits of 0.75 lb/MMbtu (3-hour rolling) 

and 0.59 lb/MMbtu (annual). The State 

determined LNBs with advanced OFA, 

LNBs with advanced OFA and SNCR, 

and LNBs with advanced OFA and SCR 

were technically feasible for controlling 

NOX emissions from Unit 3. The State 

did not identify any technically 

infeasible controls. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 5,814 tpy 

for Unit 3 based on unit heat input rate 

of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of 

operation. A summary of the State’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Table 45 below. 

As discussed above, the visibility 

improvement modeling results in these 

tables were developed by EPA because 

Wyoming did not properly follow the 

BART Guidelines. 

TABLE 45—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta deciview 

for the maximum 98th 

percentile impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA analysis 

LNB with advanced OFA ......................... 0.28 2,723 $1,764,775 $648 ........................ 0.77 

LNB with advanced OFA and SNCR ....... 0.19 3,717 2,679,192 721 $920 0.94 

LNB with advanced OFA and SCR ......... 0.07 5,041 16,347,519 3,243 10,234 1.16 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

OFA were reasonable for NOX BART. 

The State determined the cost of 

compliance (capital costs and annual 

operating and maintenance costs) were 

significantly higher for the addition of 

SCR. The State determined that the NOX

BART emission limit for Unit 3 is 0.28 

lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

EPA’s Conclusions on Dave Johnston 

Unit 3 NOX BART Determination and 

Proposed FIP for NOX BART 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. We 

disagree with the State’s estimate of 

baseline NOX emissions (5,814 tpy) 

because it is based on a unit heat input 

rate of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours 

of operation rather than an average of 

actual annual emissions. EPA finds that 

baseline NOX emissions are 4,913 tpy 

for Unit 3 based on the actual annual 

average for the years 2001–2003. A 

summary of the EPA’s NOX BART 

analysis and the visibility impacts is 

provided in Tables 46 and 47 below. 

TABLE 46—SUMMARY OF EPA’S DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 0.22 2,837 $1,699,807 $599 ........................ 0.64 

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 0.16 3,356 3,545,435 1,057 $3,555 0.76 

LNBs with OFA and SCR ........................ 0.05 4,433 11,262,188 2,540 7,163 1.00 

Dave Johnston Unit 3 also impacts 

other Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 47 

below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34778 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

52 Detailed supporting information for our cost 

and visibility improvement analyses can be found 

in the Docket (see Staudt memos and EPA BART 

and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively). 

TABLE 47—DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 3: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT MODELED AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact) – LNBs + 

OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact) – LNBs + 

OFA/SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile impact) – LNBs + 

OFA/SCR 

Badlands .......................................................................................................................... 0.44 0.52 0.67 

Mt. Zirkel .......................................................................................................................... 0.21 0.25 0.33 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.24 0.29 0.38 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.34 0.41 0.54 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.28 lb/ 

MMBtu, which can be achieved with the 

installation and operation of LNBs with 

OFA, is reasonable for NOX BART for 

Dave Johnston Unit 3. We propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly 

follow the requirements of the BART 

Guidelines in determining NOX BART 

for this unit. Specifically, we propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably conduct certain 

requirements of the BART analysis. 

As discussed in detail above, because 

Wyoming relied on visibility modeling 

methodologies that are inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, we do not consider 

Wyoming’s analysis of visibility 

improvement for the NOX BART to be 

reasonable for Dave Johnston Unit 3. We 

propose to find that Wyoming’s analysis 

for this Unit is inconsistent with the 

statutory and regulatory requirement 

that ‘‘the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology.’’ 

Also, we are not relying on the State’s 

costs due to reasons stated in section 

VII.C.3.a. We propose to find that 

Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably ‘‘take into consideration the 

costs of compliance.’’ Thus, the State’s 

BART analysis for Dave Johnson Unit 3 

does not meet the requirements of the 

CAA and the RHR, and we are 

proposing to disapprove the analysis 

and the State’s NOX BART 

determination. We are proposing a FIP 

for NOX BART to fill the gap left by our 

disapproval, as explained below. 

Our analysis follows our BART 

Guidelines. With the exception of the 

NOX emission limits, the visibility 

improvement analyses, and the cost 

analyses, EPA is proposing to find that 

the Wyoming regional haze NOX BART 

analysis for Dave Johnson Units 3 

fulfills all the relevant requirements of 

CAA Section 169A and the Regional 

Haze Rule. As discussed above, 

Wyoming’s visibility improvement 

analyses for these units is inconsistent 

with the requirements found in the 

BART Guidelines. 

EPA’s NOX BART analysis and the 

visibility impacts for Dave Johnson 

Units 3 are summarized in Tables 46– 

47 above and detailed information can 

be found in the docket.52 The costeffectiveness for LNB with OFA and 

SCR at this unit is $2,540, with visibility 

improvement at the most impacted 

Class I area of 1.00 dv. SCR provides 

significant visibility improvement at 

other impacted Class I areas, with 

cumulative visibility improvements of 

2.92 dv. We do not find that the 

incremental cost-effectiveness for LNBs 

with OFA and SCR precludes the 

selection of this technology for BART. 

The cost-effectiveness and visibility 

improvement are within the range that 

Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in other 

SIP and FIP actions have considered 

reasonable in the BART context. 

Based on our examination of the cost 

estimates and the predicted visibility 

improvement (along with a 

consideration of the other BART 

factors), we propose to find that LNBs 

with OFA plus SCR at an emission limit 

of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average) is reasonable and consistent 

with the CAA and BART Guideline 

requirements for NOX BART for Dave 

Johnston Unit 3. We are proposing that 

the FIP NOX BART emission limit for 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 is 0.07 

lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Dave 

Johnston Unit, as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP, consistent with the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv). 

We are also asking if interested parties 

have additional information regarding 

the BART factors and EPA’s proposed 

determination, for example our 

weighing of average costs, incremental 

costs, visibility improvement, and 

timing of installation of such controls, 

and in light of such information, 

whether the interested parties think the 

Agency should consider another BART 

control technology option that could be 

finalized either instead of, or in 

conjunction with, BART as proposed. 

The Agency will take the comments and 

testimony received, as well as any 

further SIP revisions submitted by the 

State, into consideration in our final 

promulgation. Supplemental 

information received may lead the 

Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP 

regulations that reflect a different BART 

control technology option, or impact 

other proposed regulatory provisions, 

which differ from this proposal. 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

for Dave Johnston Unit 4 

Unit 4 is currently controlled with 

LNBs that were placed in operation in 

1976. The State determined new LNBs 

with advanced OFA, new LNBs with 

advanced OFA and SNCR, and new 

LNBs with advanced OFA and SCR 

were technically feasible for controlling 

NOX emissions for Unit 4. The State did 

not identify any technically infeasible 

controls. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. 

Baseline NOX emissions are 8,566 tpy 

for Unit 4 based on unit heat input rate 

of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours of 

operation. A summary of the State’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Table 48 below. 

As discussed above, the visibility 

improvement modeling results in these 

tables were developed by EPA because 

Wyoming did not properly follow the 

BART Guidelines. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34779 

TABLE 48—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility improvement 

(delta deciview 

for the maximum 98th 

percentile impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA analysis 

New LNB with advanced OFA ................. 0.15 6,142 $841,527 $137 ........................ 0.71 

New LNB with advanced OFA and 

SNCR ................................................... 0.12 6,626 2,141,786 323 $2,686 0.80 

New LNB with advanced OFA and SCR 0.07 7,435 16,430,528 2,210 17,662 0.97 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined new LNBs 

with advanced OFA was reasonable for 

NOX BART for Dave Johnston Unit 4. 

The State determined the NOX BART 

emission limit for Unit 4 is 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

EPA’s Conclusions on Dave Johnston 

Unit 4 NOX BART Determination and 

FIP for NOX BART 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. We 

disagree with the State’s estimate of 

baseline NOX emissions (8,566 tpy) 

because it is based on a unit heat input 

rate of 2,500 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours 

of operation rather than an average of 

actual annual emissions. EPA finds that 

baseline NOX emissions are 5,070 tpy 

for Unit 4 based on the actual annual 

average for the years 2001–2003. A 

summary of the EPA’s NOX BART 

analysis and the visibility impacts is 

provided in Tables 49 and 50 below. 

TABLE 49—SUMMARY OF EPA’S DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.14 3,114 $767,342 $246 ........................ 0.84 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.11 3,505 2,592,288 740 $4,665 0.95 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.05 4,377 13,021,894 2,975 11,951 1.2 

Dave Johnston Unit 4 also impacts 

other Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement EPA modeled at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 50 

below. 

TABLE 50—DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 4: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT MODELED AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Badlands .......................................................................................................................... 0.54 0.57 0.73 

Mt. Zirkel .......................................................................................................................... 0.28 0.32 0.37 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.29 0.32 0.39 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.45 0.51 0.63 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.15 lb/ 

MMBtu, which can be achieved with the 

installation and operation on new LNBs 

with OFA, is reasonable for NOX BART 

for Dave Johnston Unit 4. We propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly 

follow the requirements of the BART 

Guidelines in determining NOX BART 

for this unit. Specifically, we propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably conduct certain 

requirements of the BART analysis. 

As discussed in detail above, because 

Wyoming relied on visibility modeling 

methodologies that are inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, we do not consider 

Wyoming’s analysis of visibility 

improvement for the NOX BART to be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34780 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

53 Detailed supporting information for our cost 

and visibility improvement analyses can be found 

in the Docket (see Staudt memos and EPA BART 

and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively). 

reasonable for Dave Johnston Unit 4. We 

propose to find that Wyoming’s analysis 

for this Unit is inconsistent with the 

statutory and regulatory requirement 

that ‘‘the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology.’’ 

Also, we are not relying on the State’s 

costs due to reasons stated in section 

VII.C.3.b. We propose to find that 

Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably ‘‘take into consideration the 

costs of compliance.’’ Thus, the State’s 

BART analysis for Dave Johnson Unit 4 

does not meet the requirements of the 

regional haze regulation, and we are 

proposing to disapprove the analysis 

and the State’s NOX BART 

determination. We are proposing a FIP 

for NOX BART to fill the gap left by our 

disapproval, as explained below. 

Our analysis follows our BART 

Guidelines. With the exception of the 

NOX emission limits, the visibility 

improvement analyses, and the costeffectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing 

to find that the Wyoming RH BART 

analysis of NOX for Dave Johnson Units 

4 fulfills all the relevant requirements of 

CAA Section 169A and the RHR. As 

discussed above, Wyoming’s visibility 

improvement analyses for these units 

are inconsistent with the requirements 

found in the BART Guidelines. 

EPA’s NOX BART analysis and the 

visibility impacts for Dave Johnson Unit 

4 are summarized in Tables 49–50 above 

and detailed information can be found 

in the docket.53 Additionally, the cost 

effectiveness and visibility 

improvement are within the range that 

Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in other 

SIP and FIP actions have considered 

reasonable and consistent with the 

BART Guidelines. 

Based on our examination of the cost 

estimates and the predicted visibility 

improvement (along with a 

consideration of the other BART 

factors), we propose to find that new 

LNBs with OFA plus SNCR at an 

emission limit of 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) is reasonable and 

consistent with the CAA and BART 

Guideline requirements for NOX BART 

for Dave Johnston Unit 4. We are 

proposing that the FIP NOX BART 

emission limit for PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 4 is 0.12 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average). 

We propose to eliminate the higher 

performing control option (i.e., new 

LNBs with advanced OFA plus SCR) 

because, although the average cost 

effectiveness and visibility 

improvement for SCR are within the 

range EPA has found reasonable in other 

SIP or FIP actions, we find that the 

incremental cost of SCR at $11,951/ton 

is high enough so that it precludes the 

selection of SCR. 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Dave 

Johnston Unit 4, as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP. This is consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). 

We are also asking if interested parties 

have additional information regarding 

the BART factors and EPA’s proposed 

determination, for example our 

weighing of average costs, incremental 

costs, visibility improvement, and 

timing of installation of such controls, 

and in light of such information, 

whether the interested parties think the 

Agency should consider another BART 

control technology option that could be 

finalized either instead of, or in 

conjunction with, BART as proposed. 

The Agency will take the comments and 

testimony received, as well as any 

further SIP revisions submitted by the 

State, into consideration in our final 

promulgation. Supplemental 

information received may lead the 

Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP 

regulations that reflect a different BART 

control technology option, or impact 

other proposed regulatory provisions, 

which differ from this proposal. 

3. Proposal in the Alternative for 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2 

NOX BART 

As noted above, EPA is seeking 

comment on a proposal (‘‘first proposed 

approach’’) to approve the regional haze 

plan submitted by the State for Jim 

Bridger Unit 1 and Unit 2. EPA also is 

seeking comment on another alternative 

approach (‘‘second proposed approach’’) 

that would determine that BART for 

Units 1 and 2 at Jim Bridger power plant 

is SCR, and would establish 

corresponding NOX emission limits for 

these units that would have to be 

achieved within five years of our final 

action. This would have the effect of 

accelerating the installation of the SCR 

controls at these units that the State and 

source owner (PacifiCorp) had proposed 

to install later (in the 2021–2022 timeperiod). The State determined that 

BART for these units is LNB plus OFA, 

and selected the 2021–2022 time-period 

for SCR-based emission limits as a 

reasonable progress measure. The 

timeframe was based on the large 

number of actions PacifiCorp is 

undertaking (or helping to finance) at a 

large number of EGUs in Wyoming, 

Utah, Colorado, and Arizona that it 

owns and operates or co-owns. 

Under our second proposed approach, 

EPA would propose that it does not 

agree with the State’s conclusion that a 

limit of 0.26 lb/MMBtu is reasonable for 

BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

which can be achieved with the 

installation and operation on LNBs with 

OFA. In particular, the costeffectiveness values that EPA calculated 

for LNBs with OFA and SCR at Unit 1 

is $2,393 with a 0.96 deciview visibility 

improvement at the most impacted 

Class I area. The cost-effectiveness 

values that EPA calculated for LNBs 

with SOFA and SCR at Unit 2 is $2,492, 

with a 0.95 deciview visibility 

improvement at the most impacted 

Class I area. Under this approach, EPA 

would propose to find that the cost 

effectiveness values are reasonable and 

the visibility improvement significant 

for LNBs with SOFA plus SCR. In 

addition, the costs are within the range 

that Wyoming in its SIP and EPA in 

other SIP and FIP actions have 

considered reasonable in the BART 

context. We would propose in the 

alternative to find that it was 

unreasonable for the State not to 

determine that LNBs with OFA plus 

SCR was NOX BART for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2. Though the State is 

requiring the installation of SCR on 

Units 1 and 2 under its LTS, the 

compliance date for both installations is 

beyond the five-years allowed for BART 

sources by 40 CFR 51.308(e)(iv). Thus, 

we would propose to disapprove the 

State’s NOX BART determination for Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2 and propose a FIP 

for NOX BART. 

Based on our examination of the cost 

estimates and the predicted visibility 

improvement (along with a 

consideration of the other BART 

factors), for our second proposed 

approach we would propose to find that 

LNBs with SOFA plus SCR at an 

emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) is reasonable for 

NOX BART for Jim Bridger Units 1 and 

2. We would propose that the FIP NOX

BART emission limit for PacifiCorp 

Units 1 and 2 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). 

Under our second proposed approach, 

we would propose that PacifiCorp meet 

our proposed emission limit at Jim 

Bridger Unit 1 and 2, as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than five 

years after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP. This is consistent with 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34781 

54The proposed regulatory language for this 

rulemaking only covers our first proposed 

approach. If EPA finalizes an action that differs 

from our first proposed approach for Jim Bridger 

Units 1 and 2, we will revise the regulatory 

language accordingly. If we finalize action on our 

first proposed approach, the regulatory language 

will reflect a compliance deadline of December 31, 

2021 for Unit 2 and December 31, 2022 for Unit 1. 

If we finalize action on our second proposed 

approach, the regulatory language would be revised 

to require compliance at Unit 1 and Unit 2 no later 

than five years after we take final action. 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv).54

4. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Naughton Units 1 and 2 NOX BART 

Determinations and FIP to Address NOX

BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

During the baseline period of 2001– 

2003, NOX emissions from Naughton 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 were controlled with 

good combustion practices with NOX

emission limits of 0.75 lb/MMBtu (3- 

hour block) per boiler, and 0.58 lb/ 

MMBtu (annual) and 0.54 lb/MMBtu 

(annual), respectively. The State 

determined that new LNBs with OFA, 

new LNBs with OFA and SNCR, and 

new LNBs with OFA and SCR were all 

technically feasible for controlling NOX

emissions from Unit 1 and Unit 2. The 

State did not identify any technically 

infeasible options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analyses for Units 1 and 2 is provided 

in Tables 51 and 52 below. As discussed 

above, the visibility improvement 

modeling results in these tables were 

developed by EPA because Wyoming 

did not properly follow the BART 

Guidelines. Baseline NOX emissions are 

4,230 tpy for Unit 1 and 5,109 tpy for 

Unit 2 based on heat input rates of 1,850 

MMBtu/hr and 2,400 MMBtu/hr, 

respectively, and 7,884 hours of 

operation. 

TABLE 51—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S NAUGHTON UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta deciview 

for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact at 

Bridger Wilderness Area) 

EPA Analysis 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.26 2,334 $993,248 $426 ........................ 0.79 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.21 2,699 1,972,363 731 $2,683 0.80 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.07 3,720 10,231,210 2,750 8,089 1.07 

TABLE 52—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S NAUGHTON UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta 

deciview) 

(delta deciview 

for the 

maximum 98th 

percentile 

impact at 

Bridger Wilderness Area) 

EPA Analysis 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.26 2,649 $945,683 $357 ........................ 0.70 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.21 3,122 2,260,957 724 $2,781 0.74 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.07 4,447 12,664,919 2,848 7,852 1.10 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined new LNBs 

with OFA was reasonable for NOX

BART for Unit 1 and Unit 2. The State 

determined SNCR and SCR were not 

reasonable based on the high cost 

effectiveness and associated visibility 

improvement. The State determined that 

the NOX BART emission limit for 

Naughton Unit 1 is 0.26 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average), and the NOX BART 

emission limit for Naughton Unit 2 is 

0.26 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average). 

EPA’s PacifiCorp Naughton Units 1 and 

2 NOX BART Determination and 

Proposed FIP for NOX BART 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. We 

disagree with the State’s estimate of 

baseline NOX emissions of 4,230 tpy for 

Unit 1 and 5,109 tpy for Unit 2 because 

these estimates are based on heat input 

rates of 1,850 MMBtu/hr and 2,400 

MMBtu/hr, respectively rather than an 

average of actual annual emissions. EPA 

finds that baseline NOX emissions are 

3,553 tpy for Unit 1 and 4,337 tpy for 

Unit 2 based on the actual annual 

average for the years 2001–2003. A 

summary of the EPA’s NOX BART 

analysis and the visibility impacts is 

provided in Tables 53–56 below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34782 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 53—SUMMARY OF EPA’S NAUGHTON UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at 

Bridger 

Wilderness 

Area) 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.21 2,100 $932,466 $444 ........................ 0.84 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.16 2,463 2,258,826 917 $3,650 0.99 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.05 3,209 7,437,269 2,318 6,947 1.23 

Naughton Unit 1 also impacts other 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 54 

below. 

TABLE 54—NAUGHTON UNIT 1: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Fitzpatrick ..................................................................................................................................... 0.38 0.45 0.56 

N. Absaroka ................................................................................................................................. 0.14 0.16 0.20 

Washakie ..................................................................................................................................... 0.20 0.23 0.29 

Teton ............................................................................................................................................ 0.25 0.29 0.36 

Grand Teton ................................................................................................................................. 0.33 0.39 0.49 

Yellowstone .................................................................................................................................. 0.28 0.32 0.41 

TABLE 55—SUMMARY OF EPA’S NAUGHTON UNIT 2 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at 

Bridger 

Wilderness 

Area) 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.21 2,586 $883,900 $342 ........................ 0.97 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.16 3,024 2,510,049 830 $3,713 1.15 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.05 3,922 8,843,387 2,255 7,050 1.42 

Naughton Unit 2 also impacts other 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement modeled by EPA at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 56 

below. 

TABLE 56—NAUGHTON UNIT 2: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Fitzpatrick ..................................................................................................................................... 0.43 0.51 0.64 

N. Absaroka ................................................................................................................................. 0.18 0.21 0.26 

Washakie ..................................................................................................................................... 0.24 0.28 0.34 

Teton ............................................................................................................................................ 0.24 0.37 0.45 

Grand Teton ................................................................................................................................. 0.48 0.56 0.70 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34783 

55 Detailed supporting information for our cost 

and visibility improvement analyses can be found 

in the Docket (see Staudt memos and EPA BART 

and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively). 

TABLE 56—NAUGHTON UNIT 2: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS—Continued 

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Yellowstone .................................................................................................................................. 0.26 0.30 0.37 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.26 lb/ 

MMBtu, which can be achieved with the 

installation and operation of new LNBs 

with SOFA, is reasonable for BART for 

Naughton Units 1 and 2. We propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly 

follow the requirements of the BART 

Guidelines in determining NOx BART 

for these units. Specifically, we propose 

to find that Wyoming did not properly 

or reasonably conduct certain 

requirements of the BART analyses. 

As discussed in detail above, because 

Wyoming relied on visibility modeling 

methodologies that are inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, we do not consider 

Wyoming’s analysis of visibility 

improvement for the NOX BART to be 

reasonable for Naughton Units 1 and 2. 

We propose to find that Wyoming’s 

analyses for these Units are inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirement that ‘‘the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology.’’ 

Also, we are not relying on the State’s 

costs due to reasons stated in section 

VII.C.3.b. We propose to find that 

Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably ‘‘take into consideration the 

costs of compliance.’’ Thus, the State’s 

BART analyses for Naughton Units 1 

and 2 do not meet the requirements of 

the CAA and RHR, and we are 

proposing to disapprove the analyses 

and the State’s NOX BART 

determinations. We are proposing a FIP 

for NOX BART to fill the gaps left by our 

disapproval, as explained below. 

Our analysis follows our BART 

Guidelines. With the exception of the 

NOX emission limits, the visibility 

improvement analyses, and the cost 

effectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing 

to find that the Wyoming’s regional haze 

NOX BART analysis for Naughton Units 

1 and 2, fulfills all the relevant 

requirements of CAA Section 169A and 

the RHR. 

EPA’s NOX BART analysis and the 

visibility impacts for Naughton Units 1 

and 2 are summarized in Tables 53–56 

above and detailed information can be 

found in the docket.55 EPA’s cost 

analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness 

value for LNBs with OFA and SCR at 

Unit 1 is $2,318/ton with a 1.23 dv 

visibility improvement at the most 

impacted Class I area. The cost 

effectiveness value for LNBs with OFA 

and SCR at Unit 2 is estimated at 

$2,255/ton, with a 1.42 dv visibility 

improvement at the most impacted 

Class I area. In addition, the installation 

of SCR will also have substantial 

visibility benefits for other Class I areas, 

besides the most impacted area. The 

cumulative visibility improvement is 

3.54 dv for Unit 1 and 4.18 dv for Unit 

2. EPA followed the BART Guidelines 

in developing these cost-effectiveness 

values, which are reasonable and the 

visibility improvement is significant for 

new LNBs with OFA plus SCR. The 

costs and visibility improvements are 

within the range that Wyoming in its 

SIP and EPA in other SIP and FIP 

actions have considered reasonable in 

the BART context. 

Based on our examination of the cost 

estimates and the predicted visibility 

improvement (along with a 

consideration of the other BART 

factors), we propose to find that new 

LNBs with OFA plus SCR at an 

emission limit of 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30- 

day rolling average) is reasonable and 

consistent with the CAA and BART 

Guidelines requirements for NOX BART 

for Naughton Units 1 and 2. We are 

proposing that the FIP NOX BART 

emission limit for PacifiCorp Naughton 

Units 1 and 2 is 0.07 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Naughton 

Unit 1 and 2, as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after EPA finalizes action on our 

proposed FIP. This is consistent with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(iv). 

We are also asking if interested parties 

have additional information regarding 

the BART factors and EPA’s proposed 

determination, for example our 

weighing of average costs, incremental 

costs, visibility improvement, and 

timing of installation of such controls, 

and in light of such information, 

whether the interested parties think the 

Agency should consider another BART 

control technology option that could be 

finalized either instead of, or in 

conjunction with, BART as proposed. 

The Agency will take the comments and 

testimony received, as well as any 

further SIP revisions submitted by the 

State, into consideration in our final 

promulgation. Supplemental 

information received may lead the 

Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP 

regulations that reflect a different BART 

control technology option, or impact 

other proposed regulatory provisions, 

which differ from this proposal. 

5. Disapproval of the State’s PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1 NOX BART 

Determination and FIP To Address NOX

BART 

Wyoming’s NOX BART Determination 

During the baseline period, Wyodak 

Unit 1 was controlled for NOX

emissions with early generation LNBs 

with emission limits of 0.70 lb/MMBtu 

(3-hour block) and 0.31 lb/MMbtu 

(annual). The State determined new 

LNBs with OFA, existing LNBs with 

ROFA, new LNBs with OFA plus SNCR, 

and new LNBs with OFA plus SCR were 

technically feasible for controlling NOX

emissions. The State did not identify 

any technically infeasible control 

options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX BART 

analyses for Unit 1 is provided in Table 

57 below. Baseline NOX emissions are 

5,744 tpy based on the unit heat input 

rate of 4,700 MMBtu/hr and 7,884 hours 

of operation per year. As discussed 

above, the visibility improvement 

modeling results in these tables were 

developed by EPA because Wyoming 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34784 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

did not properly follow the BART 

Guidelines. 

TABLE 57—SUMMARY OF WYOMING’S WYODAK UNIT 1 NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(30-day rolling 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA analysis 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 0.23 1,483 $1,306,203 $881 ........................ 0.25 

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 0.18 2,409 2,306,728 958 $1,080 0.40 

LNBs with OFA and SCR ........................ 0.07 4,447 18,910,781 4,252 8,147 0.72 

Based on its consideration of the five 

factors, the State determined LNBs with 

OFA was reasonable for NOX BART for 

Unit 1. The State determined other 

control technologies were not 

reasonable based on the high-cost 

effectiveness values and low visibility 

improvement. The State determined the 

NOX BART emission limit for Wyodak 

Unit 1 is 0.23 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). 

EPA’s Conclusions on Wyodak Unit 1 

NOX BART Determination and FIP for 

NOX BART 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. We 

disagree with the State’s estimate of 

baseline NOX emissions of 5,744 tpy 

because these estimates are based on the 

unit heat input rate of 4,700 MMBtu/hr 

and 7,884 hours of operation per year 

rather than an average of actual annual 

emissions. EPA finds that baseline NOX

emissions are 4,615 tpy based on the 

actual annual average for the years 

2001–2003. A summary of the EPA’s 

NOX BART analysis and the visibility 

impacts is provided in Tables 58 and 59 

below. 

TABLE 58—SUMMARY OF EPA’S WYODAK’S NOX BART ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

New LNBs with OFA ................................ 0.19 1,239 $1,272,427 $1,027 ........................ 0.24 

New LNBs with OFA and SNCR ............. 0.15 1,914 3,787,466 1,979 $3,725 0.38 

New LNBs with OFA and SCR ................ 0.05 3,735 14,386,417 3,852 5,822 0.71 

Wyodak also impacts one other Class 

I area. The visibility improvement EPA 

modeled at the other Class I area is 

shown in Table 59 below. 

TABLE 59—WYODAK: VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SNCR 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – new 

LNBs + OFA/ 

SCR 

Badlands ...................................................................................................................................... 0.17 0.23 0.45 

EPA does not agree with the State’s 

conclusion that a limit of 0.23 lb/ 

MMBtu is reasonable for NOX BART for 

Wyodak Unit 1, which can be achieved 

with the installation and operation of 

new LNBs with OFA. We propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly 

follow the requirements of the BART 

Guidelines in determining NOx BART 

for this unit. Specifically, we propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably conduct certain 

requirements of the BART analysis. 

As discussed in detail above, because 

Wyoming relied on visibility modeling 

methodologies that are inconsistent 

with the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, we do not consider 

Wyoming’s analysis of visibility 

improvement for the NOX BART to be 

reasonable for Wyodak Unit 1. We 

propose to find that Wyoming’s analysis 

for this Unit is inconsistent with the 

statutory and regulatory requirement 

that ‘‘the degree of improvement in 

visibility which may reasonably be 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34785 

56 Detailed supporting information for our cost 

and visibility improvement analyses can be found 

in the Docket (see Staudt memos and EPA BART 

and RP Modeling for Wyoming, respectively. 

anticipated to result from the use of 

such technology.’’ 

Also, we are not relying on the State’s 

costs due to reasons stated in section 

VII.C.3.b of this notice. We propose to 

find that Wyoming did not properly or 

reasonably ‘‘take into consideration the 

costs of compliance.’’ Thus, the State’s 

BART analysis for Wyodak Unit 1 does 

not meet the requirements of the CAA 

and RHR, and we are proposing to 

disapprove the analysis and the State’s 

NOX BART determination. We are 

proposing a FIP for NOX BART to fill 

the gap left by our disapproval, as 

explained below. 

Our analysis follows our BART 

Guidelines. With the exception of the 

NOX emission limits, the visibility 

improvement analyses, and the costeffectiveness analyses, EPA is proposing 

to find that the Wyoming’s regional haze 

NOX BART analysis for Wyodak Unit 1 

fulfills all the relevant requirements of 

CAA Section 169A and the RHR. 

EPA’s NOX BART analysis and the 

visibility impacts for Wyodak Unit 1 are 

summarized in Tables 58–59 above and 

detailed information can be found in the 

docket.56 In particular, the cost 

effectiveness value for new LNB with 

OFA plus SNCR at this unit is $1,979/ 

ton with a visibility improvement at the 

most impacted Class I area of 0.38 

deciviews. The costs are within the 

range that EPA in other SIP and FIP 

actions has considered reasonable and 

consistent with the BART Guidelines. 

Based on our examination of the costs 

estimates, emission reductions, and the 

predicted visibility improvement, we 

propose to find that new LNBs with 

OFA plus SNCR at an emission limit of 

0.17 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) 

is reasonable and consistent with the 

CAA and BART Guideline requirements 

for NOX BART for Wyodak Unit 1. We 

are proposing that the FIP NOX BART 

emission limit for PacifiCorp Wyodak 

Unit 1 is 0.17 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling 

average). 

We have eliminated the highest 

performing option from consideration— 

new LNBs with OFA plus SCR. 

Although the cost-effectiveness and 

visibility improvement are within the 

range of other EPA FIP actions, we find 

that the cumulative visibility 

improvement of 1.16 deciviews for new 

LNBs with OFA plus SCR is low 

compared to the cumulative visibility 

benefits that will be achieved by 

requiring SCR at Dave Johnston Unit 3 

(2.92 dv), Laramie River Unit 1 (2.12 

dv), Laramie River Unit 2 (1.97 dv), 

Laramie River Unit 3 (2.29 dv), 

Naughton Unit 1 (3.54 dv), and 

Naughton Unit 2 (4.18 dv). 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Wyodak Unit 

1, as expeditiously as practicable, but no 

later than five years after EPA finalizes 

action on our proposed FIP. This is 

consistent with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(iv). 

We are also asking if interested parties 

have additional information regarding 

the BART factors and EPA’s proposed 

determination, for example our 

weighing of average costs, incremental 

costs, visibility improvement, and 

timing of installation of such controls, 

and in light of such information, 

whether the interested parties think the 

Agency should consider another BART 

control technology option that could be 

finalized either instead of, or in 

conjunction with, BART as proposed. 

The Agency will take the comments and 

testimony received, as well as any 

further SIP revisions submitted by the 

State, into consideration in our final 

promulgation. Supplemental 

information received may lead the 

Agency to adopt final SIP and/or FIP 

regulations that reflect a different BART 

control technology option, or impact 

other proposed regulatory provisions, 

which differ from this proposal. 

B. Disapproval of the State’s NOX

Reasonable Progress Determinations 

and Federal Implementation Plan for 

NOX Reasonable Progress 

Determinations and Limits 

We are proposing to disapprove the 

State’s reasonable progress 

determination for PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2, and we are 

proposing a reasonable progress NOX

FIP for these units, as explained below. 

As noted above, the State provided fourfactor analyses that evaluated the 

required factors. However, due to 

deficiencies in the control cost 

estimates, EPA conducted its own cost 

analyses for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and 

2. The cost analysis was done in the 

same manner as described for BART 

sources in Section VII.C. 

We concluded that it is also 

appropriate to consider a fifth factor for 

these units for evaluating potential 

reasonable progress control options— 

the degree of visibility improvement 

that may reasonably be anticipated from 

the use of the reasonable progress 

controls. Our reasonable progress 

guidance contemplates that states (or 

EPA in lieu of a state) may be able to 

consider other relevant factors for 

reasonable progress sources (see EPA’s 

Guidance for Setting Reasonable 

Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’), pp. 2–3, July 1, 2007). We 

find it appropriate, in certain 

circumstances, to consider visibility 

improvement when evaluating potential 

reasonable progress controls. Thus, in 

the same manner as described for BART 

sources in Section VII.C, EPA conducted 

visibility improvement modeling for 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

1. PacifiCorp Dave Johnston—Units 1 

and 2 

Background 

PacifiCorp’s Dave Johnston power 

plant is comprised of four units burning 

pulverized subbituminous Powder River 

Basin coal. Units 3 and 4 are subject to 

BART, as described above. Units 1 and 

2 are nominal 106 MW dry bottom wallfired boilers. Unit 1 began operation in 

1958 and Unit 2 in 1960. 

Wyoming’s NOX Reasonable Progress 

Determinations 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 are currently 

uncontrolled for NOX emissions. The 

State determined that LNBs, LNBs with 

OFA, SNCR, and SCR were technically 

feasible for controlling NOX emissions. 

The State did not identify any 

technically infeasible control options. 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality environmental 

impacts that would preclude the 

selection of any of the controls 

evaluated, and there are no remaininguseful-life issues for this source. A 

summary of the State’s NOX reasonable 

progress analyses for Unit 1 and Unit 2, 

along with our visibility modeling 

results, are provided in Tables 60 and 

61 below. Baseline NOX emissions are 

2,256 tpy for Unit 1 and 2,174 tpy for 

Unit 2 based on 2002 actual emissions. 

Wyoming did not provide controlled 

emission rates in their reasonable 

progress analysis. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34786 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

57States must consider the four factors as listed 

above but can also take into account other relevant 

factors for the reasonable progress sources 

identified (see EPA’s Guidance for Setting 

Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress Guidance’’), 

p. 2–3, July 1, 2007). 

TABLE 60—SUMMARY OF DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 1 NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA Analysis 

LNBs .................................................................................... 51 1,150 $631,000 $528 0.37 

LNBs with OFA .................................................................... 65 1,466 962,000 632 0.49 

SNCR ................................................................................... 40 902 2,490,000 2,659 0.26 

SCR ...................................................................................... 80 1,804 3,390,000 1,810 0.58 

TABLE 61—SUMMARY OF DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 2 NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

EPA Analysis 

LNBs .................................................................................... 51 1,108 $631,000 $538 0.38 

LNBs with OFA .................................................................... 65 1,413 962,000 644 0.49 

SNCR ................................................................................... 40 869 2,490,000 2,709 0.28 

SCR ...................................................................................... 80 1,739 3,390,000 1,844 0.58 

The State estimated that it would take 

nearly five and a half years for NOX

reduction strategies to become effective. 

The State determined that roughly two 

years would be necessary for the State 

to develop the necessary regulations to 

implement the selected control 

measures. The State estimated that it 

would take up to a year for the source 

to secure the capital necessary to 

purchase emission control devices and 

approximately 18 months would be 

required for the company to design, 

fabricate, and install SCR or SNCR 

technology. Because there are two 

boilers being evaluated at Dave 

Johnston, the State determined an 

additional year may be required for 

staging the installation process. 

The State determined that no controls 

were reasonable for this planning 

period. The State cited that the fourfactor analysis was limited, in that no 

guidance was provided by EPA for 

identifying significant sources and EPA 

did not establish contribution to 

visibility impairment thresholds (a 

potential fifth factor for reasonable 

progress determinations).57 The State 

further claims that the State cannot, per 

Wyoming Statute 35–11–202, establish 

emission control requirements except 

through state rule or regulation. 

Furthermore, the Wyoming statute 

requires the State to consider the 

character and degree of injury of the 

emissions involved. In this case, the 

State claims it would need to have 

visibility modeling that assessed the 

degree of injury caused by the 

emissions, which the State does not 

have. The State believes it has taken a 

strong and reasonable first step in 

identifying potential contributors to 

visibility impairment, and that the next 

step of creating an appropriate rule or 

regulation will be accomplished in the 

next SIP revision. 

EPA’s Conclusions on Dave Johnston 

Units 1 and 2 NOX Reasonable Progress 

Determination and FIP for NOX

Reasonable Progress Controls 

The EPA agrees with the State’s 

analysis pertaining to energy or non-air 

quality environmental impacts and 

remaining-useful-life for this source. We 

disagree with the State’s estimate of 

baseline NOX emissions of 2,256 tpy for 

Unit 1 and 2,174 tpy for Unit 2, which 

were based on 2002 actual emissions. 

EPA’s estimate of baseline NOX

emissions are 2,188 tpy for Unit 1 and 

2,161 tpy for Unit 2 based on the actual 

annual average for the years 2001–2003. 

A summary of the EPA’s NOX BART 

analysis and the visibility impacts is 

provided in Tables 62–65 below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34787 

TABLE 62—SUMMARY OF EPA’S DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 1 NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 0.20 1,226 $1,187,179 $968 ........................ 0.31 

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 0.15 1,466 2,087,189 1,423 $3,743 0.35 

LNBs with OFA and SCR ........................ 0.05 1,947 6,417,536 3,296 9,004 0.44 

Dave Johnston Unit 1 also impacts 

other Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement EPA modeled at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 63 

below. 

TABLE 63—VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT MODELED AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – LNBs 

+ OFA 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – LNBs 

+ OFA/SNCR 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – LNBs 

+ OFA/SCR 

Badlands .......................................................................................................................... 0.17 0.16 0.25 

Mt. Zirkel .......................................................................................................................... 0.06 0.08 0.13 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.10 0.12 0.15 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.13 0.16 0.22 

TABLE 64—SUMMARY OF EPA’S DAVE JOHNSTON UNIT 2 NOX REASONABLE PROGRESS ANALYSIS

Control technology 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

(annual 

average) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tpy) 

Annualized 

costs 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Incremental 

cost 

effectiveness 

Visibility 

improvement 

(delta dv for 

the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact at Wind 

Cave National 

Park) 

LNBs with OFA ........................................ 0.20 1,180 $1,188,797 $1,007 0.29 

LNBs with OFA and SNCR ...................... 0.15 1,425 2,100,619 1,474 $3,718 0.33 

LNBs with OFA and SCR ........................ 0.05 1,916 6,432,035 3,357 8,830 0.42 

Dave Johnston Unit 1 also impacts 

other Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement EPA modeled at other 

Class I areas is shown in Table 65 

below. 

TABLE 65—VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENT MODELED AT OTHER CLASS I AREAS

Class I area 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – LNBs 

+ OFA 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – LNBs 

+ OFA/SNCR 

Visibility improvement (delta dv 

for the maximum 

98th percentile 

impact) – LNBs 

+ OFA/SCR 

Badlands .......................................................................................................................... 0.14 0.17 0.24 

Mt. Zirkel .......................................................................................................................... 0.06 0.09 0.12 

Rawah .............................................................................................................................. 0.09 0.11 0.15 

Rocky Mountain ............................................................................................................... 0.13 0.16 0.21 

We disagree with the State’s reasoning 

for not adopting reasonable progress 

controls for Dave Johnston Unit 1 and 

Unit 2. If the State determined that it 

needed to adopt a rule or perform 

modeling to adequately assess and, if 

warranted, require reasonable progress 

controls, the State should have 

completed these steps before it 

submitted its regional haze SIP. The 

RHR does not allow for commitments to 

potentially implement strategies at some 

later date that are identified under 

reasonable progress or for the State to 

take credit for such commitments. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34788 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

58CAA Section 110(a)(2) states that SIPs ‘‘shall 

(A) include enforceable emission limitations and 

other control measures, means, or techniques 

(including economic incentives such as fees, 

marketable permits, and auctions of emissions 

rights), as well as schedules and timetables for 

compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to 

meet the applicable requirements of this chapter; 

(C) include a program to provide for the 

enforcement of the measures described in 

subparagraph (A), and regulation of the 

modification and construction of any stationary 

source within the areas covered by the plan as 

necessary to assure that national ambient air quality 

standards are achieved, including a permit program 

as required in parts C and D of this subchapter; (F) 

require, as may be prescribed by the 

Administrator—(i) the installation, maintenance, 

and replacement of equipment, and the 

implementation of other necessary steps, by owners 

or operators of stationary sources to monitor 

emissions from such sources, (ii) periodic reports 

on the nature and amounts of emissions and 

emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) 

correlation of such reports by the State agency with 

any emission limitations or standards established 

pursuant to this chapter, which reports shall be 

available at reasonable times for public inspection’’ 

59Appendix V part 51 states in section 2.2 that 

complete SIPs contain: ‘‘(g) Evidence that the plan 

contains emission limitations, work practice 

standards and recordkeeping/reporting 

requirements, where necessary, to ensure emission 

levels’’; and ‘‘(h) Compliance/enforcement 

strategies, including how compliance will be 

determined in practice.’’ 

60On July 6, 2011, EPA sent an email to the State 

with detailed comments (that are summarized 

above) on the State’s monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4, Section 

V of the SIP. The July 6, 2011 email from Laurel 

Dygowski, EPA Region 8, to Tina Anderson, State 

of Wyoming, is included in the Supporting and 

Related Materials section of the docket. 

In addition, the cost effectiveness 

value for LNBs with OFA at Unit 1 is 

$968/ton and $1,007/ton at Unit 2. 

These values are very reasonable and far 

less than some of the cost effectiveness 

values the State found reasonable in 

making its BART determinations. Given 

predicted visibility improvement of 

approximately 0.30 deciviews per unit 

at the most impacted Class I area and 

the fact that Wyoming’s reasonable 

progress goals will not meet the URP, 

we find that it was unreasonable for the 

State to reject these very inexpensive 

controls. Thus, we are proposing to 

disapprove the State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for Dave 

Johnston Unit 1 and Unit 2 and 

proposing a FIP for NOX reasonable 

progress controls as explained below. 

Based on our examination of the 

State’s costs estimates, emission 

reductions, and the predicted visibility 

improvement, we propose to find that 

LNBs with OFA at an emission limit of 

0.22 lb/MMBtu (30-day rolling average) 

is reasonable for NOX reasonable 

progress controls for Dave Johnston 

Units 1 and 2. We are proposing that the 

FIP NOX reasonable progress emission 

limit for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 

1 and Unit 2 is 0.22 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). 

We propose that PacifiCorp meet our 

proposed emission limit at Dave 

Johnston Units 1 and 2 as expeditiously 

as practicable, but no later than July 31, 

2018. This is consistent with the 

requirement that the SIP cover an initial 

planning period that ends July 31, 2018. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

We are proposing to impose 

reasonable progress controls on Dave 

Johnston Units 1 and 2, as well as more 

stringent NOX BART controls on 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 3 and 

Unit 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1 and 

Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and 

Basin Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, 

and 3, than WRAP assumed in modeling 

Wyoming’s RPGs. 

We could not re-run the WRAP 

modeling due to time and resource 

constraints, but anticipate that the 

additional controls would result in an 

increase in visibility improvement 

during the 20% worst days. As noted in 

our analyses, many of our proposed 

controls would result in significant 

incremental visibility benefits when 

modeled against natural background. 

We anticipate that this would translate 

into measurable improvement if 

modeled on the 20% best days as well. 

While we expect our proposed controls 

will result in additional visibility 

improvement, we do not expect that 

these improvements will result in the 

State achieving the URP. For some of 

the reasons discussed in section VII.D.3, 

in particular, emissions from sources 

outside the WRAP modeling domain, 

along with our consideration of the 

statutory reasonable progress factors, we 

find it reasonable for the State to not 

achieve the URP during this planning 

period. We expect the State to quantify 

the visibility improvement in its next 

regional haze SIP revision. 

For purposes of this action, we are 

proposing RPGs that are consistent with 

the additional controls we are 

proposing. While we would prefer to 

quantify the RPGs, we note that the 

RPGs themselves are not enforceable 

values. The more critical elements for 

our FIP are the emissions limits we are 

proposing to impose, which will be 

enforceable. 

D. Federal Monitoring, Recordkeeping, 

and Reporting Requirements 

The CAA requires that SIPs, including 

the regional haze SIP, contain elements 

sufficient to ensure emission limits are 

practically enforceable.58 Other 

applicable regulatory provisions are 

contained in Appendix V to Part 51— 

Criteria for Determining the 

Completeness of Plan Submissions.59

We are proposing to find that the State’s 

regional haze SIP does not contain 

adequate monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements. Chapter 6.4, 

Section V of the SIP contains 

monitoring and reporting requirements 

that we find inadequate for numerous 

reasons, summarized as follows: (1) The 

State’s language includes references to 

WAQSR Chapters that EPA has not 

approved as part of the SIP and are thus 

not federally enforceable. These 

references should be to the appropriate 

sections in the CFR; (2) Definitions have 

not been included; (3) The State’s 

language allows for data substitution 

pursuant to 40 CFR part 75. The data 

substitution procedures of 40 CFR part 

75 were never intended to apply to 

BART sources; (4) There are numerous 

language clarifications and rewordings 

needed; and (5) The State did not 

include appropriate recordkeeping 

language.60

EPA is proposing to disapprove the 

State’s monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements in Chapter 6.4 of 

the SIP. EPA is proposing regulatory 

language as part of our FIP that specifies 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for all BART and 

reasonable progress sources. For 

purposes of consistency, EPA is 

proposing to adopt language that is the 

same as we have adopted for other states 

in Region 8. 

E. Federal Implementation Plan for the 

Long-Term Strategy 

We are proposing regulatory language 

as part of our FIP that specifies NOX

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for the following sources: 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Units 1–4, 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Units 1 and 2, 

PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2, 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin 

Electric Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

We are also proposing monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting 

requirements for all BART SIP and FIP 

sources and for Dave Johnston Units 1 

and 2. We are proposing this regulatory 

language to fill the gap in the LTS that 

would be left by our proposed partial 

disapproval of the LTS. 

F. Federal Implementation Plan for 

Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Long-Term Strategy 

In response to EPA’s RAVI rules, 

Wyoming adopted WAQSR Chapter 9, 

Section 2. EPA approved WAQSR 

Chapter 9, Section 2 as part of the SIP 

on July 28, 2004 (69 FR 44965). As 

discussed above, the State is required to 

coordinate the review of its RAVI and 

regional haze LTS and conduct the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34789 

reviews together. WAQSR Chapter 9, 

Section 2(f) requires the State to review 

its RAVI LTS every three years, which 

does not coordinate with the five-year 

review for the State’s regional haze LTS. 

Thus, we are proposing to disapprove 

the State’s SIP because it does not meet 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). 

We are proposing a FIP in which EPA 

commits to coordinating the State’s 

RAVI LTS review with the regional haze 

LTS review. Thus, EPA is committing to 

provide a review of the State’s RAVI 

LTS every five years in coordination 

with the State’s regional haze LTS 

review. EPA is proposing that our 

review of the State’s RAVI LTS will 

follow those items as indicated by 40 

CFR 51.306(c). 

IX. EPA’s Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to partially approve 

and partially disapprove a regional haze 

SIP revision submitted by the State of 

Wyoming on January 12, 2011. 

Specifically, we are proposing to 

disapprove the following: 

• The State’s NOX BART 

determinations for PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Unit 3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp 

Naughton Unit 1 and Unit 2, PacifiCorp 

Wyodak Unit 1, and Basin Electric 

Laramie River Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• The State’s NOX reasonable 

progress determination for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• Wyoming’s RPGs. 

• The State’s monitoring and 

recordkeeping requirements in Chapter 

6.4 of the SIP. 

• Portions of the State’s LTS that rely 

on or reflect other aspects of the 

regional haze SIP we are proposing to 

disapprove. 

• The provisions necessary to meet 

the requirements for the coordination of 

the review of the RAVI and the regional 

haze LTS. 

We are proposing to approve the 

remaining aspects of the State’s January 

12, 2011, SIP submittal. We are also 

seeking comment on an alternative 

proposal related to the State’s NOX

BART determination for PacifiCorp Jim 

Bridger Units 1 and 2. 

We are proposing the promulgation of 

a FIP to address the deficiencies in the 

Wyoming regional haze SIP that we 

have identified in this proposal. The 

proposed FIP includes the following 

elements: 

• NOX BART determinations and 

limits for PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Unit 

3 and Unit 4, PacifiCorp Naughton Unit 

1 and Unit 2, PacifiCorp Wyodak Unit 

1, and Basin Electric Laramie River 

Units 1, 2, and 3. 

• NOX reasonable progress 

determination and limits for PacifiCorp 

Dave Johnston Units 1 and 2. 

• RPGs consistent with the SIP limits 

proposed for approval and the proposed 

FIP limits. 

• Monitoring, record-keeping, and 

reporting requirements applicable to all 

BART and reasonable progress sources 

for which there is a SIP or FIP emissions 

limit. 

• LTS elements pertaining to 

emission limits and compliance 

schedules for the proposed BART and 

reasonable progress FIP limits. 

• Provisions to ensure the 

coordination of the RAVI and regional 

haze LTS. 

X. 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’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is therefore not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). As discussed in 

section C below, the proposed FIP 

applies to only five facilities. It is 

therefore not a rule of general 

applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the 

proposed FIP applies to just five 

facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act 

does not apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s proposed rule on small 

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A 

small business as defined by the Small 

Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. The Regional Haze FIP that 

EPA is proposing for purposes of the 

regional haze program consists of 

imposing federal controls to meet the 

BART requirement for NOX emissions 

on specific units at five sources in 

Wyoming, and imposing controls to 

meet the reasonable progress 

requirement for NOX emissions at one 

additional source in Wyoming. The net 

result of this FIP action is that EPA is 

proposing direct emission controls on 

selected units at only five sources. The 

sources in question are each large 

electric generating plants that are not 

owned by small entities, and therefore 

are not small entities. The proposed 

partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex 

Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 

F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for proposed and final rules 

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may 

result in expenditures to State, local, 

and Tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more (adjusted for 

inflation) in any one year. Before 

promulgating an EPA rule for which a 

written statement is needed, section 205 

of UMRA generally requires EPA to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives and 

adopt the least costly, most costeffective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34790 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

EPA to adopt an alternative other than 

the least costly, most cost-effective, or 

least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before EPA establishes 

any regulatory requirements that may 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of EPA regulatory 

proposals with significant federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. 

Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not contain a federal mandate that may 

result in expenditures that exceed the 

inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of 

$100 million by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. In addition, this proposed rule 

does not contain a significant federal 

intergovernmental mandate as described 

by section 203 of UMRA nor does it 

contain any regulatory requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

requires EPA to develop an accountable 

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and 

timely input by State and local officials 

in the development of regulatory 

policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or EPA consults with state 

and local officials early in the process 

of developing the proposed regulation. 

EPA also may not issue a regulation that 

has federalism implications and that 

preempts state law unless the Agency 

consults with state and local officials 

early in the process of developing the 

proposed regulation. 

This rule 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, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation to prohibit 

emissions from interfering with other 

states measures to protect visibility 

established in the CAA. Thus, Executive 

Order 13132 does not apply to this 

action. In the spirit of Executive Order 

13132, and consistent with EPA policy 

to promote communications between 

EPA and state and local governments, 

EPA specifically solicits comment on 

this proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this proposed rule will limit 

emissions of NOX, SO2, and PM, the rule 

will have a beneficial effect on 

children’s health by reducing air 

pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

We have determined that this 

proposed action, if finalized, will not 

have disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority or low-income 

populations because it increases the 

level of environmental protection for all 

affected populations without having any 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on any population, including any 

minority or low-income population. 

This proposed rule limits emissions of 

NOX from five facilities in Wyoming. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34791 

61The proposed regulatory language only reflects 

our proposed action. If EPA’s final action differs 

from our proposed action, the regulatory language will be amended, as necessary, to reflect the 

Agency’s final decision. 

The partial approval of the SIP, if 

finalized, merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and 

imposes no additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, does not apply 

because this action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: May 23, 2013. 

Shaun L. McGrath, 

Regional Administrator Region 8. 

40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 2. Add section 52.2636 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2636 Federal implementation plan for 

regional haze.61

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to each owner and operator of the 

following emissions units in the State of 

Wyoming for which EPA proposes to 

approve the State’s BART 

determination: 

FMC Westvaco Trona Plant Units NS– 

1A and NS–1B (PM and NOX); 

TATA Chemicals Partners (previously 

General Chemical) Boilers C and D (PM 

and NOX); 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3 

(PM); 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant 

Unit 3 (PM); 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant 

Unit 4 (PM); 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Power Plant 

Units 1, 2, 3, and 4 (NOX and PM); 

PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant 

Unit 3 (PM and NOX); 

PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 (PM); and 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 

1 (PM). 

This section also applies to each 

owner and operator of the following 

emissions units in the State of Wyoming 

for which EPA proposes to disapprove 

the State’s BART determination and 

issue a NOX BART Federal 

Implementation Plan: 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative 

Laramie River Station Units 1, 2, and 3; 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant 

Unit 3; 

PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Power Plant 

Unit 4; 

PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant 

Unit 1 and Unit 2; and 

PacifiCorp Wyodak Power Plant Unit 

1. 

This section also applies to each 

owner and operator of the following 

emissions units in the State of Wyoming 

for which EPA proposes to disapprove 

the State’s reasonable progress 

determinations and issue a reasonable 

progress determination NOX Federal 

Implementation Plan: PacifiCorp Dave 

Johnston Power Plant Units 1 and 2. 

(b) Definitions. Terms not defined 

below shall have the meaning given 

them in the Clean Air Act or EPA’s 

regulations implementing the Clean Air 

Act. For purposes of this section: 

(1) BART means Best Available 

Retrofit Technology. 

(2) BART unit means any unit subject 

to a Regional Haze emission limit in 

Table 1 and Table 2 of this section. 

(3) CAM means Compliance 

Assurance Monitoring as required by 40 

CFR part 64. 

(4) Continuous emission monitoring 

system or CEMS means the equipment 

required by this section to sample, 

analyze, measure, and provide, by 

means of readings recorded at least once 

every 15 minutes (using an automated 

data acquisition and handling system 

(DAHS)), a permanent record of NOX

emissions, diluent, or stack gas 

volumetric flow rate. 

(5) FIP means Federal Implementation 

Plan. 

(6) Lb/hr means pounds per hour. 

(7) Lb/MMBtu means pounds per 

million British thermal units of heat 

input to the fuel-burning unit. 

(8) NOX means nitrogen oxides. 

(9) Operating day means a 24-hour 

period between 12 midnight and the 

following midnight during which any 

fuel is combusted at any time in the 

BART or RP unit. It is not necessary for 

fuel to be combusted for the entire 24- 

hour period. 

(10) The owner/operator means any 

person who owns or who operates, 

controls, or supervises a unit identified 

in paragraph (a) of this section. 

(11) PM means filterable total 

particulate matter. 

(12) RP unit means any Reasonable 

Progress unit subject to a Regional Haze 

emission limit in Table 3 of this section. 

(13) Unit means any of the units 

identified in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(c) Emissions limitations. 

(1) The owners/operators of emissions 

units subject to this section shall not 

emit, or cause to be emitted, PM or NOX

in excess of the following limitations: 

TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS FOR BART UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES TO APPROVE THE STATE’S BART 

DETERMINATION

Source name/BART unit 

PM 

Emission limits 

NOX

Emission limits 

lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu 

FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS–1A ................................................................................................................ 0.05 0.35 

FMC Westvaco Trona Plant/Unit NS–1B ................................................................................................................ 0.05 0.35 

TATA Chemicals Partners (General Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/Boiler C ................................................ 0.09 0.28 

TATA Chemicals Partners (General Chemical) Green River Trona Plant/Boiler D ................................................ 0.09 0.28 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 1 ............................................................................ 0.03 N/A 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 2 ............................................................................ 0.03 N/A 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 3 ............................................................................ 0.03 N/A 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 3 ........................................................................................................ 0.015 N/A 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 4 ........................................................................................................ 0.015 N/A 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34792 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—EMISSION LIMITS FOR BART UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES TO APPROVE THE STATE’S BART 

DETERMINATION—Continued 

Source name/BART unit 

PM 

Emission limits 

NOX

Emission limits 

lb/MMBtu lb/MMBtu 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 1 .............................................................................................................. 0.03 0.07 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 2 .............................................................................................................. 0.03 0.07 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 3 .............................................................................................................. 0.03 0.07 

Pacificorp Jim Bridger Power Plant/Unit 4 .............................................................................................................. 0.03 0.07 

Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1 ................................................................................................................. 0.04 N/A 

Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2 ................................................................................................................. 0.04 N/A 

Pacificorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 3 ................................................................................................................. 0.015 0.07 

Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1 .................................................................................................................... 0.015 N/A 

TABLE 2—EMISSION LIMITS FOR BART UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES TO DISAPPROVE THE STATE’S BART 

DETERMINATION AND IMPLEMENT A FIP 

Source name/BART unit 

NOX Emission 

limit 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 1 ........................................................................................................ 0.07 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 2 ........................................................................................................ 0.07 

Basin Electric Power Cooperative Laramie River Station/Unit 3 ........................................................................................................ 0.07 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 3 .................................................................................................................................... 0.07 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 4 .................................................................................................................................... 0.12 

PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 1 ............................................................................................................................................ 0.07 

PacifiCorp Naughton Power Plant/Unit 2 ............................................................................................................................................ 0.07 

Pacificorp Wyodak Power Plant/Unit 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 0.17 

TABLE 3—EMISSION LIMITS FOR RP UNITS FOR WHICH EPA PROPOSES TO DISAPPROVE THE STATE’S RP 

DETERMINATION AND IMPLEMENT A FIP 

Source name/RP unit 

NOX Emission 

limit 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 1 .................................................................................................................................... 0.22 

Pacificorp Dave Johnston Power Plant/Unit 2 .................................................................................................................................... 0.22 

(2) These emission limitations shall 

apply at all times, including startups, 

shutdowns, emergencies, and 

malfunctions. 

(d) Compliance date. 

(1) The owners and operators of 

PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Unit 3 and Unit 

4 shall comply with the emission 

limitations and other requirements of 

this section by December 31, 2015, for 

Unit 3 and December 31, 2016, for Unit 

4. 

(2) The owners and operators of the 

other BART and RP sources subject to 

this section shall comply with the 

emissions limitations and other 

requirements of this section within five 

years of the effective date of this rule. 

(e) Compliance determinations for 

NOX. 

(1) For all BART and RP units other 

than Trona Plant units: 

(i) CEMS. At all times after the 

compliance date specified in paragraph 

(d) of this section, the owner/operator of 

each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and 

operate a CEMS, in full compliance with 

the requirements found at 40 CFR part 

75, to accurately measure NOX, diluent, 

and stack gas volumetric flow rate from 

each unit. The CEMS shall be used to 

determine compliance with the 

emission limitations in paragraph (c) of 

this section for each unit. 

(ii) Method. 

(A) For any hour in which fuel is 

combusted in a unit, the owner/operator 

of each unit shall calculate the hourly 

average NOX concentration in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 75. At the end of each 

operating day, the owner/operator shall 

calculate and record a new 30-day 

rolling average emission rate in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic 

average of all valid hourly emission 

rates from the CEMS for the current 

operating day and the previous 29 

successive operating days. 

(B) An hourly average NOX emission 

rate in lb/MMBtu or lb/hr is valid only 

if the minimum number of data points, 

as specified in 40 CFR part 75, is 

acquired by both the pollutant 

concentration monitor (NOX) and the 

diluent monitor (O2 or CO2). 

(C) Compliance with tons-per-year 

emission limits shall be calculated on a 

rolling 12-month basis. At the end of 

each calendar month, the owner/ 

operator shall calculate and record a 

new 12-month rolling average emission 

rate from the arithmetic average of all 

valid hourly emission rates from the 

CEMS for the current month and the 

previous 11 months and the report the 

result in tons. 

(D) Data reported to meet the 

requirements of this section shall not 

include data substituted using the 

missing data substitution procedures of 

subpart D of 40 CFR part 75, nor shall 

the data have been bias adjusted 

according to the procedures of 40 CFR 

part 75. 

(2) For all Trona Plant BART units: 

(i) CEMS. At all times after the 

compliance date specified in paragraph 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 34793 

(d) of this section, the owner/operator of 

each unit shall maintain, calibrate, and 

operate a CEMS, in full compliance with 

the requirements found at 40 CFR part 

60, to accurately measure NOX, diluent, 

and stack gas volumetric flow rate from 

each unit, including the CEMS quality 

assurance requirements in appendix F 

of 40 CFR part 60. The CEMS shall be 

used to determine compliance with the 

emission limitations in paragraph (c) of 

this section for each unit. 

(ii) Method. 

(A) For any hour in which fuel is 

combusted in a unit, the owner/operator 

of each unit shall calculate the hourly 

average NOX concentration in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr at the CEMS in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR part 60. At the end of each 

operating day, the owner/operator shall 

calculate and record a new 30-day 

rolling average emission rate in lb/ 

MMBtu and lb/hr from the arithmetic 

average of all valid hourly emission 

rates from the CEMS for the current 

operating day and the previous 29 

successive operating days. 

(B) An hourly average NOX emission 

rate in lb/MMBtu or lb/hr is valid only 

if the minimum number of data points, 

as specified in 40 CFR part 60, is 

acquired by both the pollutant 

concentration monitor (NOX) and the 

diluent monitor (O2 or CO2). 

(C) Compliance with tons-per-year 

emission limits shall be calculated on a 

rolling 12-month basis. At the end of 

each calendar month, the owner/ 

operator shall calculate and record a 

new 12-month rolling average emission 

rate from the arithmetic average of all 

valid hourly emission rates from the 

CEMS for the current month and the 

previous 11 months and report results 

in tons. 

(f) Compliance determinations for 

particulate matter. 

Compliance with the particulate 

matter emission limit for each BART 

and RP unit shall be determined from 

annual performance stack tests. Within 

60 days of the compliance deadline 

specified in section (d), and on at least 

an annual basis thereafter, the owner/ 

operator of each unit shall conduct a 

stack test on each unit to measure 

particulate emissions using EPA Method 

5, 5B, 5D, or 17, as appropriate, in 40 

CFR part 60, Appendix A. A test shall 

consist of three runs, with each run at 

least 120 minutes in duration and each 

run collecting a minimum sample of 60 

dry standard cubic feet. Results shall be 

reported in lb/MMBtu and lb/hr. In 

addition to annual stack tests, the 

owner/operator shall monitor 

particulate emissions for compliance 

with the BART emission limits in 

accordance with the applicable 

Compliance Assurance Monitoring 

(CAM) plan developed and approved by 

the State in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 64. 

(g) Recordkeeping. The owner/ 

operator shall maintain the following 

records for at least five years: 

(1) All CEMS data, including the date, 

place, and time of sampling or 

measurement; parameters sampled or 

measured; and results. 

(2) Records of quality assurance and 

quality control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to, any records required by 40 

CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, 

records of quality assurance and quality 

control activities for emissions 

measuring systems including, but not 

limited to appendix F of 40 CFR part 60. 

(3) Records of all major maintenance 

activities conducted on emission units, 

air pollution control equipment, and 

CEMS. 

(4) Any other CEMS records required 

by 40 CFR part 75. Or, for Trona Plant 

units, any other CEMs records required 

by 40 CFR part 60. 

(5) Records of all particulate stack test 

results. 

(6) All data collected pursuant to the 

CAM plan. 

(h) Reporting. All reports under this 

section shall be submitted to the 

Director, Office of Enforcement, 

Compliance and Environmental Justice, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 8, Mail Code 8ENF–AT, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

(1) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit quarterly excess emissions 

reports for NOX BART and RP units no 

later than the 30th day following the 

end of each calendar quarter. Excess 

emissions means emissions that exceed 

the emissions limits specified in 

paragraph (c) of this section. The reports 

shall include the magnitude, date(s), 

and duration of each period of excess 

emissions, specific identification of 

each period of excess emissions that 

occurs during startups, shutdowns, and 

malfunctions of the unit, the nature and 

cause of any malfunction (if known), 

and the corrective action taken or 

preventative measures adopted. The 

owner/operator shall also submit reports 

of any exceedances of tons-per-year 

emission limits. 

(2) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit quarterly CEMS 

performance reports, to include dates 

and duration of each period during 

which the CEMS was inoperative 

(except for zero and span adjustments 

and calibration checks), reason(s) why 

the CEMS was inoperative and steps 

taken to prevent recurrence, and any 

CEMS repairs or adjustments. The 

owner/operator of each unit shall also 

submit results of any CEMS 

performance tests required by 40 CFR 

part 75. Or, for Trona Plant units, the 

owner/operator of each unit shall also 

submit results of any CEMs performance 

test required appendix F of 40 CFR part 

60 (Relative Accuracy Test Audits, 

Relative Accuracy Audits, and Cylinder 

Gas Audits). 

(3) When no excess emissions have 

occurred or the CEMS has not been 

inoperative, repaired, or adjusted during 

the reporting period, such information 

shall be stated in the quarterly reports 

required by sections (h)(1) and (2) 

above. 

(4) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit results of any particulate 

matter stack tests conducted for 

demonstrating compliance with the 

particulate matter BART limits in 

section (c) above, within 60 calendar 

days after completion of the test. 

(5) The owner/operator of each unit 

shall submit semi-annual reports of any 

excursions under the approved CAM 

plan in accordance with the schedule 

specified in the source’s title V permit. 

(i) Notifications. 

(1) The owner/operator shall submit 

notification of commencement of 

construction of any equipment which is 

being constructed to comply with the 

NOX emission limits in paragraph (c) of 

this section. 

(2) The owner/operator shall submit 

semi-annual progress reports on 

construction of any such equipment. 

(3) The owner/operator shall submit 

notification of initial startup of any such 

equipment. 

(j) Equipment operation. At all times, 

the owner/operator shall maintain each 

unit, including associated air pollution 

control equipment, in a manner 

consistent with good air pollution 

control practices for minimizing 

emissions. 

(k) Credible Evidence. Nothing in this 

section shall preclude the use, including 

the exclusive use, of any credible 

evidence or information, relevant to 

whether a source would have been in 

compliance with requirements of this 

section if the appropriate performance 

or compliance test procedures or 

method had been performed. 

■ 3. Add section 52.2637 to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2637 Federal implementation plan for 

reasonable attributable visibility impairment 

long-term strategy. 

As required by 40 CFR 41.306(c), EPA 

will ensure that the review of the State’s 

reasonably attributable visibility 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2

34794 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

impairment long-term strategy is 

coordinated with the regional haze longterm strategy under 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA’s review will be in accordance with 

the requirements of 40 CFR 51.306(c). 

[FR Doc. 2013–13611 Filed 6–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2