EO 12866 13563 Review: Interagency Comments EPA Regional Haze NPRM Kymn, Christine J. to: Phil Lorang 12/20/2011 06:18 PM

Cc: Martha Keating, Rhea Jones, Todd Hawes, Paula VanLare, Joseph-J Dougherty, Alan Rush, Kelly Rimer, Pam Long, "Laity, Jim"

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine

_ J.

_ Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

To: Phil Lorang/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Martha Keating/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Rhea Jones/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Todd Hawes/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula VanLare/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph-J Dougherty/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Alan Rush/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Kelly 2 attachments

EO 13563 12866 Interagencycomments1 Better than BART.docx

EO 12866 13563 Interagencycomments2 Better than BART.docx

All,

Thank you again for today's constructive call. Attached please find consolidated interagency comments, including suggested footnote language. We in turn have forwarded EPA's language insert and have asked reviewers to get back to us by NOON TOMORROW, WED. 12/21. Likewise, could EPA let us know if they are OK with the suggested footnote by that time?

Have a great evening all, Christine 202.395.4638

-----Original Message----- From: Phil Lorang [mailto:Lorang.Phil@epamail.epa.gov] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:29 PM To: Kymn, Christine J. Cc: Martha Keating; Rhea Jones; Todd Hawes; Paula VanLare; Joseph-J Dougherty; Alan Rush; Kelly Rimer; Pam Long Subject: One more version per today's call - draft Federal Register notice for the rule titled " Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source-Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals,...

The changes discussed today appear on pages 24 and 26, including a placeholder for the remaining sentence. There are a few other edits at page 13 from our end today to correct language about reasonable progress goals and long term strategies that was not worded precisely. This aligns page 13 with existing text on page 49 and makes clearer that we are not proposing any action related to reasonable progress goals and long term strategies in this notice.

(See attached file: EO12866_RegionalHazeRevisions_2060-AR05_NPRM_20111019_REDLINE_12_20_11_version 6.docx)Phil Lorang, Senior Policy Advisor Air Quality Policy Division, OAQPS, EPA 919-541-5463***E.O. 12866 Review

– Draft

– Do Not Cite, Quote or Release During Review*** EO12866_Regional Haze Revisions_2060

- AR05_Proposal FRN_ 20111019

Page 1 of 1 From page 24:

In this action we are also proposing a FIP for those Transport

Rule state s for which we already have or now are proposing a limited

disapproval due to the termination of CAIR. For these states, the

proposed FIP would replace reliance on the CAIR requirements with

reliance on the Transport Rule as an alternative to BART for SO 2 and

NO X emissions from EGUs and as a long

- term strategy measure.

We are proposing to leave unchanged the final sentence of

section 51.308(e)(4) in the regional haze regulations . Th is language

allows a state to address BART, when it is required based on

r easonable attribution of visibility impairment at a Class I area to

a particular source, by including a geographic enhancement in its

SIP. For example, a geographic enhancement in the form of adjusted

allocations at a BART

- subject source might take the pla ce of source

specific emission rate limits. Use of a geographic enhancement in the

context of reasonable attribution of visibility impairment at a Class

I area will be addressed in separate EPA or state actions on a case

by

- case basis in accordance with 40 CFR 51.306. 1

1 U nder section 51. 302

, the affected Federal Land Manager may certify that ther e exists reasonably attributable visibility

impairment (RAVI) in a mandatory Class I Federal area. This certification is an extraordinary measure to address localized impacts due to a specific source or sources . EPA and Federal Land Managers are working together on the above language to clarify and preserve the RAVI process , including source

- specific BART, within the better than BART construct for regional haze

.Summary of Interagency Working Comments on Draft Language under EO 12866 Interagency Review. Subject to Further Policy Review.

1 Regional Haze: Revisions to Provisions Governing Alternatives to Source

- Specific Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Determinations, Limited SIP Disapprovals, and Federal Implementation Plans.

**•** The commenter notes the draft rule may have an unintended consequence of placing an added burden on the Federal Land Managers who would have to facilitate any certification of Reasonably Attributable Visibility Impairment (RAVI) . Com menters are concerned that the RAVI certification process could be the only mechanism available to Federal Land Managers to press for geographic enhancements to Transport Rule emission allocations.

**•** Several commenters support ed EPA’s interpretation and application of its two pronged test for making a “better than BART” determination. Commenters fe l t that EPA reasonably interprets its statutory duty as established in the existing regulation 1 and applies the test in a manner cons istent with prio r practice. In addition, this approach was upheld as a “reasonable notion of reasonable progress” when EPA made the determination that states could rely on CAIR as a better than BART alternative (see pp. 17

- 18 of preamble for further discus sion).

**•** Several commenters alternatively suggested that EPA reconsider or reword its interpretation of the 1 st prong of the two pronged criteria for making a “better than BART” determination

. The commenters note that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) requires EPA

to a nalyze “differences in visibility between the BART and trading programs.” The commenters feel EPA applied the 1 st prong test only to ensure that the Transport Rule alone, without any consideration of the replaced BART, would not have a negative effect on visibility at any Class I area , and that this is not the correct interpretation of the statute

.

1 Section III C 1 of the preamble to the draft NPRM cites the Regional Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to describe EPA’s criteria for comparing visibility progress of an alternative program to BART. The regulatory text from 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) sets two spe cific criteria as:

(3) A State which opts under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) to implement an emissions trading program or other alternative measure rather than to require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART may satisfy the final step of the demonstration required by that section as follows: If the distribution of emissions is not substantially different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed to achie ve greater reasonable progress. If the distribution of emissions is significantly different, the State must conduct dispersion modeling to determine differences in visibility between BART and the trading program for each impacted Class I area, for the wors t and best 20 percent of days. The modeling would demonstrate “greater reasonable progress” if both of the following two criteria

are met:

(i) Visibility does not decline in any Class I area, and

(ii) There is an overall improvement in visibility, determ ined by comparing the average differences between BART and the alternative over all affected Class I areas.2

2 Commenters also suggested that EPA reconsider its 2 nd prong interpretation and recommended that EPA reconsider the 2 nd criteria as described above and evaluate how individual State adoption of the Transport Rule will impact the Class I areas that each State’s emissions affect.

The commenters interpret ed the language to imply that t he evaluation method requires States t o either evaluate total emission differences between BART and a trading program or conduct air quality modeling to evaluate “overall improvement” at affected areas. By expanding the “overall improvement” area to include all eastern or all continental U.S. Class I areas, the commenters were concerned that EPA may have created the unexpected consequence of suggesting that no control in some states is better than, or as good as, significant controls which would have resulted from BART. Further

, commenters we r e concerned that EPA modeling results may smooth out individual Class I area “declines” as well as downplay the significance of large emission reductions on the western edge that would result from presumptive BART controls. As examples, commenters antici pate the following possible state

- specific

outcomes: Kansas completed BART determinations for EGUs subject to BART in its Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, and EPA has proposed to approve Kansas’ Plan (76 FR 52604). If Kansas’ emissions allowance u nder the Transport Rule will not require these EGUs to install controls; commenters interpret the two pronged test as indicating emissions under the Transport Rule are greater than emissions under BART. The commenters note a similar circumstance in Nebras ka . Commenters felt that l esser

- or

- no additional controls under the Transport Rule cannot produce better visibility progress than greater emission reductions of, at a minimum, presumptive BART. Commenters note that EPA modeling indicates that visibility on the 20% worst days at Badlands, Wind Cave, and Theodore Roosevelt National Parks is projected to be poorer under the Transport Rule than under BART.

**•** Several commenters noted that EPA’s TSD supports a finding of better than BART. More specifically, the analysis in Section 3.6 of the TSD supports the determination that CSAPR provides greater average visibility improvement at affected Class I areas

as compared to the “Nationwide BART” scenario.

Table 3

- 6. Summary of average visibility results for Eastern and nationwide areas. Transport Rule

– 2014 Base Case 20% Best Days Transport Rule

– 2014 Base Case 20% Worst Days Nationwide BART

– 2014

Base Case 20% Best Days Nationwide BART

– 2014

Base Case 20% Worst Days

Eastern Class I Areas Average (60 Areas) - 0.3

- 1.6

- 0.2

- 1.0

All Class I Areas Average
- 0.1

- 0.7

- 0.1

- 0.53

3 (140 Areas)

**•** Commenters requested further clarification of Section III C 4 of the draft NPRM (page 24) regarding 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) that allows states discretion to include geographic enhancements in their regional haze implementation plan for the BART analysis requi red to address RAVI.

**•** Commenters also felt EPA was incorrect in finding that summertime nitrogen oxide (NOx) reductions aimed at reducing ozone pollution for those states whose coverage under the Transport Rule relates only to ozone issues are acceptable to address nitrate contributions to regional haze. Commenters further suggested that b ecause nitrate particle concentrations are dependent on cooler temperatures and generally are elevated in the winter rather than the summer months, NOx controls that ap ply only during the summertime ozone season may not be appropriate to address wintertime

n itrate impacts to visibility. As such commenters suggested that EPA treat the states of Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, separately from t he

rema ining eastern states because those states were either subject to ozone only or are new additions to the Transport Rule that were not subject to the earlier Clean Air Interstate Rule.

Figure 1

– Non

- ozone season extinction budge ts for Class I areas of South Central United States for period 2000

– 2009.4

4 Figure 2

- Ozone season extinction budgets for Class I areas of South Central United States for period 2000

– 2009.

As shown in figure 1, NO x controls which are limited to ozone season will have little effect on reducing particulate nitrate levels during the period of the year when nitrate contribution to light extinction is greatest. Additionally, photochemical modeling results conducted by th e CENRAP RPO for Class I sites in Oklahoma and Arkansas are examined figures 3 through 5 . In each of these Class I areas, the modeling depicts that both observed and predicted nitrate are seasonally dependent, with highest nitrate prediction formed during the November through February timeframe, also outside the

ozone season. Therefore, commenters request further clarity regarding scientific basis for allowing reliance of ozone season controls as a BART

- alternative for Class I areas affected by nitrate as modeling and data analysis does not demonstrate that ozone season NO x controls would be an effective substitute for NO x BART

. Commenters suggest that EPA require establishment of year round federally enforceable NO x emissions limitations to allow for s tates to rely upon CSAPR in lieu of BART requirements.5

5 Figure 3

- Comparison of daily extinction (observed and predicted) for Upper Buffalo Class I area.6

6 Figure 4

- Comparison of daily extinction (observed a nd predicted) for Caney Creek Class I area.7

7 Figure 5

- Comparison of daily extinction (observed and pre dicted) for Wichita Mountains Class I area.8

8 **•** Commenters expressed concern at the possibility that the draft rule creates subregions within the Transport Rule domain where em issions reduct ions under CSAPR c ould be significantly less than under BART. As shown in figure 6, the commenter estimates that a number of the new states west of the Mississippi River could have significantly greater SO 2 emissions under CSAPR as compared to the BART ca se. The “Mississippi

- West” subregion of the Transport Rule domain will have SO 2 emissions 164% greater under CSAPR than would have been assumed by presumptive BART (Table 1).

Figure 6

– State by state SO2 emissions Under BART and Transport Rule (based upon Table 2

- 4 of TSD).9

9 Table 1

– Subregional comparison of SO 2 emissions between BART and CSAPR.

State 2014 Baseline 2014 BART 2014 CSAPR
Iowa 133.1 43.9 83.8

Kansas 69.8 19.8 49.1

Missouri 390.3 107.9 181.8

Nebraska 73.1 32.9 71.2

Arkansas 99.4 38.1 39.7

Oklahoma 138 41.4 41.4

Louisiana 118.2 81.2 92.6

Texas 453.3 139.3 266.6

Totals 1475.2 504.5 826.2

The commenter feels that BART controls for SO 2 are an essential component to meeting the subregional progress goals for the Class I areas in and surrounding the “Mississippi

West” subregion. The commenter’s analysis in figures Figures 7 and 8 depict the commenter’s estimate of extinction budgets for the 20% best and worst days for the Class I areas to the west and northwest of the Transport Rule region. Under the commenter’s analysis

, SO 4 is the single largest component of the extinction budget for Class I areas in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota, and is second only to O rganic Carbon Mass (O MC ) in Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana on the haziest days. T he commenter further estimates that SO 4 is the largest component of the extinction budget for all Class I areas on the cleanest days.10

10 Figure 7

– Mean extinction budget for Class I areas on the northwest edge of the CSAPR domain for 20% Best Days,
2000

– 2009.11

11 Figure 8

– Mean extinction budget for Class I areas on the northwest edge of the CSAPR domain for 20% Worst Days, 2000

– 2009.

To further illustrate the importance of SO 2 BART for these states within the “Mississippi

West” subregion, the commenter examined source

- specific BART modeling conducted by the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality and EPA Region 7 for the BART eligible units at the Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS) EGU in w estern Nebraska. Under the commenters CALPUFF and CAMx were run for this BART eligible source. According to the commenter’s analysis, shown in t able 2, both CALPUFF and CAMx results show that the GGS facilit y predict a significant contribution (e.g. day s greater than or equal to 0.5 ddv impact) on 55 and 85 (or 15% and 23% ) of the days respectively.

Table 2

– Source specific BART modeling for Nebraska Gerald Gentleman EGU, 2002 meteoro logy.

CALPUFF CAMx No. of Days > 0.5 ddv 55 85 No. of Days > 1.0 ddv 37 45 Impact at 98 th Percentile 2.83 3.38 Maximum Impact 5.68 6.84

The commenter’s CAMx PSAT results for GGS show that SO 2 is the single largest contributing pollutant to light extinction to the Badlands Class I area in South Dakota (figure 9), also underscoring the importance of SO 2 BART for these “Mississippi

- West”

states. The commenter thus concludes CSAPR, BART becomes a “no control” alternative which creates significant concern if SO 2 BART is not implemented in these

states.12

12 Figure 9

– CAMx predicted component specific contribution to light extinction for Gerald Gentleman EGU in
Nebraska for 2002.