[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 1, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21721-21727]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-10806]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CO-001-0055; FRL-6972-1]


Clean Air Act Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality 
Implementation Plan Revision for Colorado; Long-Term Strategy of State 
Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection: Craig Station 
Requirements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a proposed revision to the long-
term strategy portion of Colorado's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
Class I Visibility Protection, contained in section III of the document 
entitled ``Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility 
Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements,'' as submitted by 
the Governor with a letter dated February 20, 2001. The proposed 
revision will incorporate into the SIP emissions reduction requirements 
for the Craig Station (a coal-fired steam generating plant located near 
the town of Craig, Colorado). EPA proposes to approve the proposed SIP 
revision, which is expected to remedy Craig Station's contribution to 
visibility impairment in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area and, therefore, 
make reasonable progress toward the Clean Air Act National visibility 
goal with respect to such contribution. EPA makes this proposal based 
on its understanding that the State will make two minor changes to the 
proposed SIP revision before final adoption, as described in this 
proposed rule.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by 
May 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Richard Long, Director, Air 
and Radiation Programs, 8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405.
    Copies of the State's submittal and other information are available 
for inspection during normal business hours at the following locations: 
Air and Radiation Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
VIII, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, Colorado 80202-2405; and 
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Pollution 
Control Division, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, Colorado 
80222-1530.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Platt, Air and Radiation Programs, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, (303) 312-6449.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used it means the Environmental Protection 
Agency.

I. Background

    Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (CAA),\1\ 42 U.S.C. 7491, 
establishes as a National goal the prevention of any future, and the 
remedying of any existing, anthropogenic visibility impairment in 
mandatory Class I Federal areas \2\ (referred to herein as the 
``National goal'' or ``National visibility goal''). Section 169A called 
for EPA to, among other things, issue regulations to assure reasonable 
progress toward meeting the National visibility goal, including 
requiring each State with a mandatory Class I Federal area to revise 
its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to contain such emission limits, 
schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make 
reasonable progress toward meeting the National goal. CAA section 
169A(b)(2). Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)(J), 
similarly requires SIPs to meet the visibility protection requirements 
of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Clean Air Act is codified, as amended, in the U.S. Code 
at 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
    \2\ Mandatory class I Federal areas include international parks, 
national wilderness areas, and national memorial parks greater than 
five thousand acres in size, and national parks greater than six 
thousand acres in size, as described in section 162(a) of the Act 
(42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal land manager'' (FLM), the Secretary of 
the department with authority over such lands. See section 302(i) of 
the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We promulgated regulations that required affected States to, among 
other things, (1) coordinate development of SIPs with appropriate 
Federal Land Managers (FLMs); (2) develop a program to assess and 
remedy visibility impairment from new and existing sources; and (3) 
develop a long-term (10-15 years) strategy to assure reasonable 
progress toward the National visibility goal. See 45 FR 80084, December 
2, 1980 (codified at 40 CFR 51.300-307). The regulations provide for 
the remedying of visibility impairment that is reasonably attributable 
to a single existing stationary facility or small group of existing 
stationary facilities. These regulations require that the SIPs provide 
for periodic review, and revision as appropriate, of the long-term 
strategy not less frequently than every three years, that the review 
process include consultation with the appropriate FLMs,

[[Page 21722]]

and that the State provide a report to the public and EPA that includes 
an assessment of the State's progress toward the National visibility 
goal. See 40 CFR 51.306(c).
    On July 12, 1985 (50 FR 28544) and November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45132), 
we disapproved the SIPs of states, including Colorado, that failed to 
comply with the requirements of the provisions of 40 CFR 51.302 
(visibility general plan requirements), 51.305 (visibility monitoring), 
and 51.306 (visibility long-term strategy). We also incorporated 
corresponding Federal plans and regulations into the SIPs of these 
states pursuant to section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(c)(1).
    The Governor of Colorado submitted a SIP revision for visibility 
protection on December 21, 1987, which met the criteria of 40 CFR 
51.302, 51.305, and 51.306 for general plan requirements, monitoring 
strategy, and long-term strategies. We approved this SIP revision in an 
August 12, 1988 Federal Register document (53 FR 30428), and this 
revision replaced the Federal plans and regulations in the Colorado 
Visibility SIP.
    The Governor of Colorado submitted subsequent SIP revisions for 
visibility protection with letters dated November 18, 1992, August 23, 
1996, and August 19, 1998. These revisions were made to fulfill the 
requirements to periodically review and, as appropriate, revise the 
long-term strategy for visibility protection. We approved the first two 
long-term strategy revisions on October 11, 1994 (59 FR 51376), and 
January 16, 1997 (62 FR 2305), respectively. The 1998 revisions will be 
addressed at a later date.
    After Colorado's 1992 long-term strategy review, the U.S. Forest 
Service (USFS) certified visibility impairment in Mt. Zirkel Wilderness 
Area (MZWA) and named the Hayden and Craig generating stations in the 
Yampa Valley of Northwest Colorado as suspected sources. The USFS is 
the FLM for MZWA. This certification was issued on July 14, 1993. 
Hayden Station was addressed in the State's 1996 long-term strategy 
review and revision (see 62 FR 2305, January 16, 1997).
    Craig Station, which is the focus of this SIP revision, is located 
40 miles upwind from MZWA. The facility consists of three units, but 
only Units 1 and 2 are subject to this action. Unit 1 is a 428 megawatt 
steam generating unit that commenced commercial operation in 1980 and 
Unit 2 is a 428 megawatt steam generating unit that commenced 
commercial operation in 1979. The existing emission control equipment 
on Units 1 and 2 consists of the following: wet scrubbers to control 
sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) (currently achieve 65% SO<INF>2</INF> 
removal), electro-static precipitators to control particulate 
pollution, and low nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) burners to control 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. The 1999 emissions inventory for Craig 
Station Units 1 and 2, as reported to EPA's Acid Rain database, 
indicated that these units emitted 9,216 tons of SO<INF>2</INF> and 
12,501 tons of NO<INF>X</INF>. Particulate emissions have been more 
difficult to estimate since continuous emissions rate data is not 
available.
    On October 9, 1996, Sierra Club, Inc. (``Sierra Club'') sued the 
owners of the Craig Station in United States District Court, alleging 
numerous violations of State and Federal opacity standards from 1991-
1996. In the Fall of 1996, the State, Craig Station owners, and EPA 
initiated a joint study to develop information on SO<INF>2</INF> 
emission reduction options and associated costs for Craig Station Units 
1 and 2. This joint study, referred to as the ``Craig Flue Gas 
Desulfurization Study (Craig FGD Study),'' was viewed as a means to 
move the parties to a negotiated resolution of Craig Station's 
contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA, and if negotiations 
failed, as a possible basis for a Best Available Retrofit Technology 
(BART) determination under State and EPA visibility regulations. The 
Craig FGD Study was completed on August 31, 1999.
    The Craig FGD Study identified several options, at reasonable 
costs, for addressing Craig Station's contribution to visibility 
impairment at MZWA. This information and the results of other technical 
analyses led us, on September 22, 1999, to call for a revision to the 
Colorado Visibility SIP to resolve the long outstanding certification 
of visibility impairment for MZWA with respect to Craig Station (see 64 
FR 54010, October 5, 1999). The State was given 12 months to revise the 
SIP accordingly.
    In October 1999, the Sierra Club, the Colorado Air Pollution 
Control Division (APCD), EPA, USFS, and the Craig Station owners 
entered into negotiations to try to reach a ``global settlement'' of 
the various issues facing the power plant. These issues included the 
Sierra Club lawsuit and the USFS certification of impairment in MZWA.
    On October 17, 2000, the Sierra Club and owners of Craig Station 
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the Sierra Club lawsuit. 
Sierra Club and the Craig Station owners subsequently negotiated and 
signed a consent decree that they filed with the United States District 
Court for the District of Colorado on January 10, 2001 (Civil Action 
No. 96-N-2368) (referred to hereafter as ``Craig Consent Decree'' or 
``Consent Decree.'')
    The Consent Decree resolves the Sierra Club complaint regarding 
opacity violations and also requires substantial reductions in air 
pollutants that are intended to resolve Craig Station's contribution to 
visibility impairment in MZWA. The Consent Decree contemplates that its 
requirements will be incorporated into the Colorado SIP. Although we 
were not involved in the direct negotiations between Sierra Club and 
the Craig Station owners regarding the terms of the Consent Decree, 
during negotiations Sierra Club and the Craig Station owners sought, 
and we provided, our input regarding terms of the settlement. In 
particular, in a December 20, 2000 letter, we commented on a final 
draft of the Consent Decree and gave our preliminary views of the 
settlement with respect to the SO<INF>2</INF> limits for Craig Station. 
We made clear that only through our public rulemaking process would we 
reach final judgment regarding a Visibility SIP revision based on the 
Consent Decree. This proposed rulemaking is the first step in that 
public rulemaking process. The Sierra Club and Craig Station owners 
also asked the State, USFS, and National Park Service to provide input 
on the Consent Decree during the negotiations of the final agreement.

II. Colorado's February 1, 2001, Proposed Revision

    With a letter dated February 20, 2001, the Governor of Colorado 
submitted a proposed revision to the long-term strategy portion of 
Colorado's SIP for Visibility Protection, entitled ``Revision of 
Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection: 
Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements.'' The proposed revision is 
being made to fulfill, with respect to Craig Station's contribution to 
visibility impairment in MZWA, the Federal and Colorado requirements to 
revise the long-term strategy to include emission limitations and 
schedules for compliance necessary to demonstrate reasonable progress 
toward the National visibility goal.\3\
    Among other things, the proposed SIP revision incorporates 
provisions of the Craig Consent Decree that require the

[[Page 21723]]

owners of Craig Station to install control equipment and meet stringent 
emission limitations for particulates (including opacity), 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This proposed revision is specific to requirements for Craig 
Station and does not constitute the State's three year review of the 
components of the Long-term Strategy, as required by 40 CFR 
51.306(c). That review and report are not due from the State until 
September 2001, at which time the public will be able to review and 
comment on the State's full Long-term Strategy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Analysis of State's Proposed Revision

1. Procedural Background
    The CAA requires States to observe certain procedural requirements 
in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to 
EPA. Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA provides that each implementation 
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and 
public hearing. Section 110(l) of the CAA similarly provides that each 
revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the CAA 
must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public 
hearing.
    On January 11, 2001, the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division 
requested that the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC), 
after providing adequate notice, hold a public hearing on April 19, 
2001 to consider the proposed revision to the Long-term Strategy of the 
Visibility SIP. This request was granted. In a February 20, 2001 letter 
to EPA from Governor Bill Owens, the State requested that we ``parallel 
process'' the proposed revision.
    Parallel processing allows us to propose rulemaking on a proposed 
SIP revision at the same time the State is soliciting public comment on 
the proposed SIP revision. If the Colorado Air Quality Control 
Commission (AQCC) adopts the proposed SIP revision without significant 
changes (except for the two minor changes we believe are necessary, as 
described below), and the Governor submits the final revision to us for 
approval, we will consider any comments received and proceed with a 
final rulemaking action. However, should the State substantially change 
the proposed SIP revision before submitting the final version to us, we 
will re-propose and again solicit public comment on the State amended 
SIP revision before we take final rulemaking action. For further 
information regarding parallel processing, please see 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix V, section 2.3.1.
    We have reviewed the proposed SIP revision incorporating 
requirements for Craig Units 1 and 2 to determine adequacy should the 
State's proposal be finalized. We believe the State's proposed revision 
would adequately address Craig Station's contribution to visibility 
impairment in MZWA, thereby resolving the USFS's certification of 
impairment and making reasonable progress toward the National 
visibility goal. In addition, should the State's proposed revision be 
finalized and submitted to EPA, with the two minor changes described 
below in section II.A.2.b., Analysis of Reasonable Progress, it will 
adequately satisfy EPA's September 22, 1999, Visibility SIP Call.
2. Content of Proposed SIP Revision
    The proposed SIP revision is contained in section III of the 
submittal entitled ``Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan 
for Class I Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 
Requirements,'' dated February 1, 2001. Only section III contains 
provisions that are enforceable against the Craig Station owners. Part 
III incorporates relevant portions of the Craig Consent Decree into the 
long-term strategy. The remainder of the proposed SIP revision contains 
provisions that are explanatory and analyses that are required by 
section 169A of the CAA, Federal visibility regulations (40 CFR 51.300 
to 51.307), and/or the Colorado Visibility SIP.
a. Section III: Enforceable Portion of the Proposed SIP Revision: Craig 
Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements
    The State incorporated into its proposed Visibility SIP revision 
provisions of the Craig Consent Decree including Definitions, Emission 
Controls and Limitations, Continuous Emission Monitors, Construction 
Schedule, Emission Limitation Compliance Deadlines, and Reporting. Such 
provisions must be met by the Craig Station owners and are enforceable. 
The Consent Decree numbering scheme was retained to avoid confusion 
between the SIP and the Consent Decree, but only the Consent Decree's 
emission controls and limitations, construction schedule, and sections 
necessary to ensure enforceability of these requirements were included 
in the proposed SIP. Some changes were made to Consent Decree language 
to conform to a SIP framework. Finally, changes were made to the force 
majeure provisions of the Consent Decree to ensure that a demonstration 
of reasonable progress could be made at this time. Provisions of 
particular interest incorporated from the Craig Consent Decree are 
summarized below.
    SO<INF>2</INF> Emission Limitations--Craig Units 1 and 2 will be 
designed to meet at least a 93.7% SO<INF>2</INF> removal rate. The 
Craig Station owners must design, construct and operate FGD upgrades 
and related equipment to reliably treat 100% of the flue gas and to 
meet the following emissions limitations:
    --No more than 0.160 lbs SO<INF>2</INF> per million Btu heat input 
on a 30 boiler operating day rolling average basis;
    --No more than 0.130 lbs SO<INF>2</INF> per million Btu heat input 
on a 90 boiler operating day rolling average basis;
    --At least a 90% reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> on a 90 boiler 
operating day rolling average basis, unless Craig Station owners show 
this limit cannot be met, in which case an alternative limit shall be 
established, not to be less than an 85% reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> on 
a 30 boiler operating day average or 86% on a 90 boiler operating day 
average \4\; and
    --A unit cannot operate for more than 72 consecutive hours without 
any SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions; that is, it must shut down if 
the control equipment is not working at all for three days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Any changes made to the percentage reduction requirement 
will be made pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Decree, and 
if the ultimate percentage reduction requirement changes from 90%, 
the State has indicated that it would report the changes in its next 
long-term strategy review. We would provide an information notice on 
any such changes as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particulate Emission Limitations--The Craig Station owners must 
install and operate a Fabric Filter Dust Collector (known as a baghouse 
or FFDC) on Craig Units 1 and 2. Particulate emission limitations for 
each unit are:
    --No more than 0.03 lbs of particulate matter per million Btu heat 
input; and
    --No more than 20.0% opacity, with certain limited exceptions, as 
averaged over each separate 6-minute period within an hour as measured 
by continuous opacity monitors.
    NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions Limitations--NO<INF>X</INF> reductions are 
to be achieved through the requirement to install ``state-of-the-art'' 
low-NO<INF>X</INF> burners utilizing two-stage combustion with 
supplemental over-fire air systems. The emissions limitations on each 
of Craig Station Units 1 and 2 are:
    --No more than 0.30 lbs per million Btu heat input on a calendar 
year annual average basis.
    Compliance with Emissions Limits--All required controls must be 
designed to meet enforceable emission limits. Compliance with the 
emission limits shall be determined by continuous emission monitors. 
Compliance with the percentage reduction requirement for SO<INF>2</INF> 
shall be determined by comparing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the 
stack (measured by continuous emissions monitors--``CEMs'') to 
potential SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from coal combusted (determined 
through coal sampling and analysis).
    Construction Schedule--The final deadlines for constructing control 
equipment are as follows: Unit 1--

[[Page 21724]]

Completion of construction and initiation of start-up of all upgrades 
by 12/31/03. Unit 2--Completion of construction and initiation of 
start-up of all upgrades by 6/30/04.
    The schedule for commencement of compliance with the emissions 
limitations is as follows:
SO<INF>2</INF>
    --For Unit 1, within 180 days after completion of construction of 
the additional SO<INF>2</INF> control equipment, or by June 30, 2004, 
whichever date is earlier, except for 90% SO<INF>2</INF> reduction, 
which must be achieved within 270 days of the above compliance date, 
but no later than March 31, 2005.
    --For Unit 2, within 180 days after completion of construction of 
the additional SO<INF>2</INF> control equipment, or by December 31, 
2004, whichever date is earlier, except for 90% SO<INF>2</INF> 
reduction, which must be achieved within 270 days of the above 
compliance date, but no later than September 30, 2005.
Particulates
    --For Unit 1, within 180 days after completion of construction of 
baghouse system, or by April 30, 2004, whichever date is earlier.
    --For Unit 2, within 180 days after completion of construction of 
baghouse system, or by October 31, 2004, whichever date is earlier.
NO<INF>X</INF>
    --June 30, 2004 for Unit 1 and December 31, 2004 for Unit 2.
    These construction deadlines and emission limitation compliance 
deadlines are subject to the ``force majeure'' provisions of the 
Consent Decree, which have been included in the proposed SIP revision. 
A force majeure event refers to an excused delay in meeting 
construction deadlines or in meeting emission limitation compliance 
deadlines due to certain limited circumstances wholly beyond the 
control of the Craig Station owners.
    To help ensure that reasonable progress continues to be made, the 
State commits in the proposed SIP revision to reopen the SIP (with 
public notice and hearing) after it is determined that a construction 
schedule or an emission limitation schedule has been, or will be, 
delayed by more than 12 months as a result of a force majeure 
determination or determinations. The State will re-evaluate the SIP at 
that time to determine whether revisions are necessary to continue to 
demonstrate reasonable progress, and to ensure that the emission 
limitations are met. In addition, the proposed SIP revision also 
contains a clarification that the force majeure provisions are not to 
be construed to authorize or create any preemption or waiver of the 
requirements of State or Federal air quality laws, or of the 
requirements contained in the SIP or Consent Decree.
    EPA believes that the language of the proposed SIP revision should 
assure reasonable progress toward the National visibility goal. If 
deadlines extend more than twelve months, we expect the State to revise 
the SIP.
b. Analysis of Reasonable Progress
    Congress established as a National goal ``the prevention of any 
future, and the remedying of any existing'' anthropogenic visibility 
impairment in mandatory Class I Federal areas. The statute does not 
mandate that the national visibility goal be achieved by a specific 
date but instead calls for ``reasonable progress'' toward the goal. 
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA requires EPA to issue implementing 
regulations requiring visibility SIPs to contain such ``emission 
limits, schedules of compliance and other measures as may be necessary 
to make reasonable progress toward the National goal.''
    EPA's implementing regulations provided for an initial round of 
visibility SIP planning which included a long-term strategy to make 
reasonable progress toward the National goal. See 40 CFR 
51.302(c)(2)(i) and 51.306. Section 169A(g)(1) of the CAA specifies 
factors that must be considered in determining reasonable progress 
including: (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 the source. Protection 
of visibility in a mandatory Class I Federal area is the objective.
    In this unique case, the Craig Station owners have agreed in the 
context of a judicially-enforceable Consent Decree to meet emissions 
limitations that are expected to reduce Craig Station's contribution to 
visibility impairment in MZWA to below perceptible levels. The State 
has analyzed the emission reductions provided for in the Consent Decree 
in light of the statutory factors for determining reasonable progress 
and the ultimate objective of protecting visibility. The State has 
proposed that the measures assure reasonable progress by remedying 
Craig Station's contribution to perceptible visibility impairment in 
MZWA and has proposed a Visibility SIP revision containing these 
measures.
    Further, in a December 14, 2000 letter from Tom Thompson, USFS, 
Rocky Mountain Region, to Margie Perkins, APCD, the USFS concluded that 
``the proposed reductions of both sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides 
will resolve all Forest Service issues relative to the Craig Station 
and our 1993 Certification of Impairment.'' Based in part on this 
letter, the State has proposed that the pertinent provisions of the 
Craig Consent Decree, as embodied in the proposed SIP revision, 
effectively resolve the USFS certification of impairment in MZWA in 
relation to Craig Station.
    We have reviewed the State's proposed SIP revision and supporting 
information in light of the statutory and regulatory requirements and 
propose to approve it based on the understanding that the State will 
make two minor changes. First, in section III, Enforceable Portion of 
the SIP Revision: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements, the 
following language should be added to section II.2.(m) (definition of 
``Craig Owners'') to ensure that successor owners are covered by the 
SIP revision: ``and successor owners of Craig Station.'' Second, also 
in section III, the following language should be removed from section 
IX.26., to clarify that reporting requirements continue indefinitely 
after the Consent Decree is terminated: ``and continuing until the 
Decree is terminated.'' We believe these changes are necessary to 
ensure enforceability of the SIP revision and consistency with the 
Hayden SIP revision. Our proposed approval is based on our anticipation 
that these changes will be made in the final SIP revision adopted by 
the AQCC.
    We believe the State has reasonably proposed that the emission 
reduction measures at Craig Station required by the Consent Decree and 
contained in the proposed Visibility SIP revision will remedy Craig 
Station's contribution to perceptible visibility impairment at MZWA, 
with reasonable costs, an expeditious compliance schedule, and no 
significant adverse energy or non-air quality environmental impacts. 
The State's February 1, 2001 proposed SIP revision and accompanying 
information, available at the addresses listed at the beginning of this 
document, provides a detailed analysis of each of the ``reasonable 
progress'' considerations. We have reviewed these ``reasonable 
progress'' considerations and a summary of the State's analysis 
follows.
(i) Factor (1) Cost of Compliance
    By signing the Consent Decree, the Craig Station owners have 
demonstrated their willingness to bear the cost to upgrade Craig 
Station Units 1 and 2. Therefore, this factor is not particularly 
relevant to this action. However, the

[[Page 21725]]

State proposes that the costs are reasonable given that the cost of the 
combined Craig Units 1 and 2 SO<INF>2</INF> removal upgrades 
(approximately $27.5 million total or $4.49 million/year and $659/ton 
of SO<INF>2</INF> removed--in January 1998 dollars) at the facility are 
within the range of retrofit costs at other facilities. It should be 
noted that included in these cost estimates are credits that represent 
a portion of the control costs that the Craig Station owners will be 
able to recoup by the sale of marketable allowances of SO<INF>2</INF> 
received under the allowance trading program of the Clean Air Act's 
Acid Rain Program (approximately $100/ton).
    The State also compared costs with the results of an EPA modelling 
study \5\ which estimated the retrofit costs for SO<INF>2</INF> control 
at 200 coal-fired electric utilities (630 boilers). This study 
indicated that the 50th percentile cost (in 1998 dollars) was more than 
the estimated cost of the Craig Units 1 and 2 upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Project Summary: Retrofit Costs for SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> Control Options at 200 Coal-Fired Plants,'' EPA/600/
S7-90-021, March 1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State believes that estimated costs for SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
reductions at Craig Station Units 1 and 2 appear to be lower or similar 
to estimates for other projects and therefore, that the cost of these 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions is reasonable. For a more detailed 
discussion of the cost of compliance, please refer to the proposed SIP 
revision.
(ii) Factor (2) Time Necessary for Compliance
    The time necessary for compliance is reasonable. Under the terms of 
the Craig Consent Decree, approximately three to four years will elapse 
between the filing of the Decree and operation of the control equipment 
on Units 1 and 2, respectively.\6\ By comparison, if the State went 
through a complete regulatory process with the Craig Station to make a 
reasonable attribution decision and BART determination, the State 
estimates that the time until installation of controls could be 5\1/2\ 
years. We note that the Hayden Consent Decree allowed approximately 
3\1/2\ years time between the filing of the Consent Decree and 
operation of the required control equipment. See 62 FR 2305 (January 
16, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ EPA notes that should this proposed approval be finalized, 
the time period between SIP approval and operation of control 
equipment would be even shorter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(iii) Factor (3) Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of 
Compliance
    Any negative impacts are minimal, as discussed below.
    (a) Energy Impacts. It will be necessary to divert additional power 
(estimated at 1.5 MW/unit) to in-house use to operate the upgrade 
equipment, resulting in a percent decrease in plant output of 0.2%. By 
comparison, the retrofit at Hayden Station resulted in a decrease in 
plant output of 1.1%. See 62 FR 2305 (January 16, 1997).
    (b) Water Impacts. An increase in water consumption will be needed 
to support the SO<INF>2</INF> upgrades. However, it is uncertain at 
this time how large this increase will be. It is possible that the 
increase can be met entirely through increased internal efficiencies in 
water use at the facility. If not, then Craig Station will need to 
increase its consumptive use of existing water rights in the Yampa 
River. Craig Station is a ``zero discharge facility'' and does not have 
a river water discharge. Overall, the State believes that the upgrades 
to current control equipment should have only a minimal impact on water 
usage at Craig Station.
    (c) Solid Waste Impacts. Craig Station's solid waste will increase, 
although no major changes to current disposal methods will be required. 
However, the increase in scrubber waste solids due to the increase in 
SO<INF>2</INF> removal may require the acquisition of two new transport 
trucks for landfill disposal of the wastes.
    (d) Other Environmental Benefits. In a December 14, 2000 letter 
from Tom Thompson, USFS, Rocky Mountain Region (i.e., the Federal land 
manager for Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area), to Margie Perkins, APCD, the 
USFS indicated that it believes the proposed reductions in 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions required under the Consent 
Decree will ``significantly benefit'' the aquatic ecosystems in MZWA. 
The State concurs that the emission reductions should reduce acid 
accumulations in the snowpack.
    Overall, the State believes that any energy and non-air quality 
related impacts that will result from this proposed revision are 
acceptable.
(iv) Factor (4) Remaining Useful Life of Source
    The owners of the Craig Station assume that Craig Station Units 1 
and 2 have a remaining useful life of 20 years. In its technical 
judgment, the State believes 20 years is an accurate estimate and 
therefore, the upgrade required in this proposed SIP revision is 
reasonable.
(v) Visibility Benefits
    Any contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA caused or 
contributed to by the Craig Station Units 1 and 2 come from their 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions converted to sulfate haze in the atmosphere. 
The enhanced FGD control systems will lower Craig Station Units 1 and 
2's combined SO<INF>2</INF> emissions to a total of approximately 2,600 
tons per year from the current level of over 9,300 tons per year. In 
the State's technical judgment, this will effectively address 
visibility problems in MZWA caused by SO<INF>2</INF> from Craig Units 1 
and 2 and will lower the threshold of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the 
units to below perceptible levels in MZWA. We believe these conclusions 
are reasonable. It should be noted that the State recognizes that 
regional haze from outside Colorado and emissions from other Colorado 
sources could also be contributing to visibility impairment at MZWA.
(vi) Reasonable Progress and BART
    The State believes that its proposed SIP revision assures 
reasonable progress toward meeting the National visibility goal as it 
relates to Craig Station and MZWA. First, the proposed SIP revisions 
embody emission reductions of visibility impairing pollutants at Craig 
Station Units 1 and 2 at a reasonable cost, within the same timeframe 
or earlier than similar reductions would likely occur through 
reasonable attribution and BART determinations. Second, the emission 
limitations for Craig Station Units 1 and 2 for SO<INF>2</INF>, 
particulate, and NO<INF>X</INF> reached through a negotiation process 
are similar to or more stringent than those imposed on some units 
subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations 
(e.g., Craig Station Unit 3 and Rawhide Energy Station). Third, 
although there have been no BART determinations made nationally under 
the mandatory Class I Federal visibility protection program since 1977, 
there have been several ``BART-like'' decisions made in settlement of 
FLM certifications of impairment that have resulted in SO<INF>2</INF> 
limitations that are similar or less stringent than those in the Craig 
Consent Decree.
    The State believes that the Craig Consent Decree, as embodied in 
the proposed SIP revision, expeditiously remedies Craig Station's 
contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA, at a reasonable cost and 
without undue non-air environmental or energy impacts. Although a 
formal BART analysis has not been performed for Craig Station Units 1 
and 2, the State also expects that the Consent Decree's 90% control

[[Page 21726]]

requirement on a 90-day rolling average for SO<INF>2</INF> would be at 
least as good as BART had such an analysis been performed.
    Finally, as noted above, the USFS has concluded that the emissions 
reductions reflected in this proposed SIP revision should effectively 
address concerns of visibility impairment in MZWA associated with Craig 
Station.
    In our opinion, the State's belief is reasonable that the proposed 
SIP revision will assure reasonable progress in remedying Craig 
Station's contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA. However, as 
described above, we believe that two minor changes to the proposed SIP 
revision are necessary.
c. Six Factors Considered in Developing the Long-Term Strategy
    The State considered the six factors contained in 40 CFR 51.306(e) 
when developing this proposed revision to its long-term strategy. These 
six factors are as follows: (1) Eemission reductions due to ongoing air 
pollution control programs; (2) additional emission limitations and 
schedules for compliance; (3) measures to mitigate the impacts of 
construction activities; (4) source retirement and replacement 
schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural and 
forestry management purposes including such plans as currently exist 
within the State for these purposes; and (6) enforceability of emission 
limitations and control measures. Because this long-term strategy SIP 
revision is focused entirely on the Craig Station Units 1 and 2 
requirements that resulted from a negotiated settlement, the State 
concluded that factors (1), (4), and (5) are not applicable. These 
factors will be considered when the State conducts its next full long-
term strategy review process in September 2001. For a detailed 
discussion of the remaining factors as they relate to Craig Station 
Units 1 and 2, please refer to Colorado's proposed long-term strategy 
revision, which is available at the addresses listed in the beginning 
of this document.
3. Additional Requirements
a. FLM Consultation
    As required under State and Federal regulations (Colorado Air 
Quality Control Commission Regulation No. 3, section XV.F.; 40 CFR 
51.306(c)), the State prepared and distributed a FLM Comment Draft of 
its long-term strategy review/revision to the USFS and the National 
Park Service. These agencies are the FLMs of all of Colorado's Class I 
areas.
b. SIP Enforceability
    All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable by 
the State and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR 
13556). Our criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP 
revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with 
attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541).
    The specific emissions limitations contained in this February 1, 
2001 proposed revision to the SIP are addressed above in section 
II.A.2.a., ``Section III: Enforceable Portion of the SIP Revision: 
Craig Station Requirements.'' By adopting emission limitations for 
Craig Station into the Visibility SIP, the limitations will become 
enforceable by the State. C.R.S. 25-7-115. Enforceability of emission 
limitations will be ensured by the inclusion in this proposed SIP 
revision of Consent Decree sections VI., Continuous Emission Monitors 
(for SO<INF>2</INF> and opacity), and IX., Reporting, to ensure 
determination of compliance through reliable and valid measurements and 
to ensure accurate and adequate data reporting. As described above, we 
believe that two minor changes to the proposed SIP revision are needed 
to ensure enforceability. Should EPA finalize this proposed approval of 
the proposed SIP revision, the emission limitations will be federally 
enforceable.
    Consistent with section 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, the State of 
Colorado has a program that will ensure that the measures contained in 
the SIP are adequately enforced. The Colorado APCD has the authority to 
implement and enforce all control measures adopted by the AQCC. C.R.S. 
25-7-111. In addition, Colorado statute provides that the APCD shall 
enforce against any ``person'' who violates the emission control 
regulations of the AQCC, the requirements of the SIP, or the 
requirements of any permit. C.R.S. 25-7-115. Civil penalties of up to 
$15,000 per day per violation are provided for in the State statute for 
any person in violation of these requirements (C.R.S. 25-7-122), and 
criminal penalties are also provided for in the State statute. C.R.S. 
25-7-122.1.
    Thus, we believe that the control measures contained in the 
proposed revision to Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I 
Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements, will 
be enforceable and that the APCD has adequate enforcement capabilities 
to ensure compliance with those control measures.

III. Proposed Action

    We have reviewed the adequacy of the State's proposed revision to 
the long-term strategy portion of Colorado's SIP for Class I Visibility 
Protection, contained in section III of the document entitled 
``Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan for Class I 
Visibility Protection: Craig Station Units 1 and 2 Requirements,'' as 
submitted by the Governor with a letter dated February 20, 2001. We are 
proposing to approve the proposed revision, which includes the 
incorporation of certain requirements from the Craig Consent Decree, 
provided that the State makes two minor changes to the proposed SIP 
revision, as described in the body of this document.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to a SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

IV. Request for Public Comments

    We are requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As 
indicated at the outset of this document, we will consider any comments 
received by May 31, 2001.

V. Administrative Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. This proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 
that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any 
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does 
not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect 
small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995 (Pub. L. 104-4). This proposed rule also does not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on 
the

[[Page 21727]]

distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does 
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied 
with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining 
the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive order. 
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.).

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.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: April 19, 2001.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 01-10806 Filed 4-30-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P