[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 193 (Thursday, October 3, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51659-51666]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25399]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CO-001-0007; FRL-5630-8]
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, Part I: Hayden
Station Requirements
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the long-term
strategy portion of Colorado's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for
Class I Visibility Protection, contained in Section VI of the document
entitled ``Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State
[[Page 51660]]
Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection, Part I: Hayden
Station Requirements,'' as submitted by the Governor with a letter
dated August 23, 1996. The revision was made to incorporate into the
SIP, among other things, emissions reduction requirements for the
Hayden Station (a coal-fired steam generating plant located near the
town of Hayden, Colorado) that are based on a consent decree addressing
numerous air pollution violations at the plant. EPA proposes to approve
the SIP revision, which is expected to remedy Hayden 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.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
November 4, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Richard Long, Director, Air
Program, 8P2-A, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th
Street, suite 500, 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 Program, Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th
Street, suite 500, 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 Program, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region VIII, (303) 312-6449.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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. section
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) (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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA 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, 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),
EPA 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). EPA 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. section
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. EPA approved this SIP revision in
an August 12, 1988 Federal Register notice (53 FR 30428), and this
revision replaced the Federal plans and regulations in the Colorado
Visibility SIP.
The Governor of Colorado submitted a subsequent SIP revision for
visibility protection with a letter dated November 18, 1992. This
revision was made to fulfill the requirements to periodically review
and, as appropriate, revise the long-term strategy for visibility
protection. EPA approved that long-term strategy revision on October
11, 1994 (59 FR 51376).3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As a matter of clarification to EPA's October 11, 1994
action, please note that the September 1 due date referred to by EPA
as the reporting deadline for Colorado's long-term strategy three-
year reviews applies to the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Division's responsibility to provide its review, and revision as
appropriate, of the long-term strategy to the Colorado Air Quality
Control Commission, with a submittal to EPA made by November 1 of
each three-year cycle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 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, which is the focus of this SIP revision, is located
19 miles upwind from MZWA. The facility consists of two units as
follows: Unit 1 is a 180 megawatt steam generating unit completed in
1965 and Unit 2 is a 260 megawatt steam generating unit completed in
1976. The facility is currently uncontrolled for SO2 NOX and
operates electro-static precipitators to control particulate pollution.
The 1995 emissions inventory for Hayden Station indicated that the
plant emitted 16,000 tons of SO2 and 14,000 tons of NOX.
Particulate emissions have been more difficult to estimate due to
control equipment malfunction.
On August 18, 1993, the Sierra Club sued the owners of the Hayden
Station in United States District Court, alleging over 16,000
violations of the State's opacity standards and arguing that the
alleged violations resulted in a number of air quality impacts in MZWA.
On July 21, 1995, the Court found the Hayden Station owners liable for
over 19,000 violations of the opacity standards between 1988 and 1993.
See Sierra Club v. Public Service Company of Colorado, et al., 894 F.
Supp. 1455 (D. Colo. 1995). In October 1995, the Sierra Club, the
Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD), and the Hayden 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
[[Page 51661]]
of impairment in MZWA. In January 1996, EPA issued a Notice of
Violation (NOV) to the owners of the Hayden Station for continuing
opacity violations and joined in the settlement negotiations.
On May 22, 1996, the parties to the negotiations (EPA, Sierra Club,
State of Colorado, and the Hayden Station owners) filed a signed
Consent Decree with the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, in Civil Action No. 93-B-1749. The United States published
notice of the settlement in the Federal Register and provided a thirty-
day public comment period. The United States responded to comments in a
motion to the Court to approve the Consent Decree. The Court approved
the Consent Decree on August 19, 1996. The Consent Decree resolves a
number of issues, including the Sierra Club and EPA enforcement
actions, and, as part of that resolution, requires substantial
reductions in air pollutants that are intended to resolve Hayden
Station's contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA. The Consent
Decree contemplates incorporation into the SIP of the visibility
protection-related requirements of the Consent Decree. The terms
``Hayden Consent Decree'' or ``Consent Decree'' are used herein to
refer to this judicially-enforceable settlement.
II. Revision Submitted August 23, 1996
With a letter dated August 23, 1996, the Governor of Colorado
submitted an August 15, 1996 revision to the long-term strategy portion
of Colorado's SIP for Visibility Protection, entitled ``Long-Term
Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's State Implementation Plan
for Visibility Protection, Part I: Hayden Station Requirements.'' The
revision was made to fulfill, with respect to Hayden Station's
contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA, the Federal and Colorado
requirements to revise the long-term strategy as appropriate following
the three-year periodic review.4 The State reviewed the long-term
strategy in light of the USFS's certification of visibility impairment,
the results of the Mt. Zirkel Visibility Study 5 and other
technical data, and the Hayden Consent Decree. Based on this review,
the State concluded that a revision to the long-term strategy was
necessary to remedy Hayden Station's contribution to visibility
impairment at MZWA and to ensure reasonable progress toward the
National visibility goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The report resulting from this review was specific to Hayden
Station and the State reviewed the components of the Long-Term
Strategy as they relate to Hayden Station only. According to an
August 16, 1996 letter from Margie Perkins, Colorado Air Pollution
Control Division, to Richard Long, EPA, the State intends to address
Colorado's remaining visibility issues in ``part two'' of the Long-
Term Strategy review and report by December 1996.
\5\ This collaborative study was spearheaded by the State to
collect additional information regarding visibility conditions in
the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area and to identify potential sources of
impairment. The final report is available at the addresses listed in
the beginning of this document. The study was completed on July 15,
1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among other things, the SIP revision submitted by the Governor
incorporates provisions of the Hayden Consent Decree that require the
owners of Hayden Station to install control equipment or switch to
natural gas and meet stringent emission limitations for particulates
(including opacity) and sulfur dioxide (SO2).
A. Analysis of State Submission
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.
EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and
therefore warrants further EPA review and action [see Section 110(k)(1)
and 57 FR 13565]. EPA's completeness criteria for SIP submittals are
set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. EPA attempts to make
completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submission.
However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a
completeness determination is not made by EPA within six months after
receipt of the submission.
To entertain public comment, the Colorado Air Quality Control
Commission (AQCC), after providing adequate notice, held a public
hearing on August 15, 1996 to consider the proposed revision to the
Long-Term Strategy of the Visibility SIP, Part I: Hayden Station
Requirements. Following the public hearing, the AQCC adopted the
revision. The Governor of Colorado submitted the SIP revision to EPA
with a letter dated August 23, 1996.
EPA reviewed the SIP revision to determine completeness in
accordance with the completeness criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V. EPA found the submittal complete and forwarded a letter
dated August 29, 1996 to the Governor indicating the completeness of
the submittal and the next steps in the review process.
2. Content of SIP Revision
The SIP revision is contained in Section VI of the August 15, 1996
document entitled Long-Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's
State Implementation Plan for Class I Visibility Protection, Part I:
Hayden Station Requirements. Only Part C of Section VI contains
provisions that are enforceable against the Hayden Station owners. Part
C incorporates relevant portions of the Hayden Consent Decree into the
long-term strategy. The remainder of the 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. Part C of Section VI: Provisions from the Hayden Consent Decree
The State incorporated into its Visibility SIP revision provisions
of the Hayden Consent Decree pertinent to visibility, including
Definitions, Emission Controls and Limitations, Continuous Emission
Monitors, Construction Schedule, Emission Limitation Compliance
Deadlines, and Reporting.6 Such provisions must be met by the
Hayden Station owners and are enforceable. The Consent Decree numbering
scheme was retained to avoid confusion between the SIP and the Consent
Decree, but only those sections pertinent to visibility, necessary to
ensure enforceability of the requirements related to visibility, and
necessary to assure reasonable progress in remedying Hayden Station's
contribution to visibility impairment at MZWA were adopted into the
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 Hayden Consent Decree are
summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The Consent Decree also includes requirements for NOX
emission controls and limitations; however, since these controls and
limits do not have a direct relationship to visibility, they are not
being incorporated into this Visibility SIP revision nor will any
detailed discussion be provided. The NOX requirements were
included in the Consent Decree to address acid deposition concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2 Emission Limitations--As described below, the SO2
emission limitations will result in at least an 82%
[[Page 51662]]
reduction in SO2 from Hayden Station. The Hayden Station owners
must install a Lime Spray Dryer (LSD) system to meet the emissions
limitations or must switch to natural gas. The following emissions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
limitations apply regardless of the fuel utilized:
--No more than 0.160 lbs SO2 per million Btu heat input on a 30
boiler operating day rolling average basis;
--No more than 0.130 lbs SO2 per million Btu heat input on a 90
boiler operating day rolling average basis;
--At least an 82% reduction of SO2 on a 30 boiler operating day
rolling average basis (to make sure that substantial reductions occur
and that control equipment is run optimally even if lower sulfur coal
is used); and
--A unit cannot operate for more than 72 consecutive hours without any
SO2 emissions reductions; that is, it must shut down if the
control equipment is not working at all for three days (to prevent the
build-up of SO2 emissions that may lead to visibility impairment
events).
Since SO2 is a chemical precursor to visibility-impairing
sulfate particles or aerosols, the State has concluded that these
SO2 emissions limitations will help remedy the facility's
contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA.
Particulate Emission Limitations--The Hayden Station owners must
install and operate a Fabric Filter Dust Collector (known as a baghouse
or FFDC) on each unit unless the owners elect to switch to natural gas.
In either case, particulate emissions should be virtually eliminated.
Particulate emission limitations for each unit are:
--No more than 0.03 lbs of primary 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.
Compliance with Emissions Limits--All required controls must be
designed to meet enforceable emission limits. Compliance with the
SO2 and opacity emission limits shall be determined by continuous
emission monitors.
Hayden Station Owner's Decision: Coal vs. Natural Gas--No later
than November 17, 1996 the Hayden Station owners must decide whether to
continue using coal as the primary fuel at the Hayden Station or to
switch to natural gas.
Schedule--Coal as Primary Fuel--Should the owners of the Hayden
Station elect to continue to burn coal, the schedule for constructing
control equipment is as follows:
Unit 1
--Commencement of physical, on-site construction of control
equipment by 6/30/97
--Commencement of start-up testing of FFDC and SO2 control
equipment by 12/31/98
Unit 2
--Commencement of physical, on-site construction of control
equipment by 6/30/98
--Commencement of start-up testing of FFDC and SO2 control
equipment by 12/31/99
The schedule for commencement of compliance with the emissions
limitations is as follows:
SO2
--For Unit 1, within 180 days after flue gas is passed through the
SO2 control equipment, or by July 1, 1999, whichever date is
earlier.
--For Unit 2, within 180 days after flue gas is passed through the
SO2 control equipment, or by July 1, 2000, whichever date is
earlier.
Particulates
--For Unit 1, within 90 days after flue gas is passed through the
FFDC control equipment, or by April 1, 1999, whichever date is earlier.
--For Unit 2, within 90 days after flue gas is passed through the
FFDC control equipment, or by April 1, 2000, whichever date is earlier.
Schedule--Natural Gas as Primary Fuel--Should the owners of the
Hayden Station elect to switch to natural gas, the construction
schedule is as follows:
Units 1 & 2
--Initiate permitting activities for construction of natural gas
pipeline by 10/30/96
--Complete construction of pipeline and Hayden Station boiler
modifications and commence use of natural gas as primary fuel source by
12/31/98
The schedule for commencement of compliance with the emissions
limitations is as follows:
SO2 and Particulates
--February 1, 1999 or 30 days after the owners of Hayden Station
commence use of natural gas as the primary fuel source, whichever date
is earlier.
These construction deadlines and emission limitation compliance
deadlines (for either coal or natural gas as primary fuel) are subject
to the ``force majeure'' provisions of the Consent Decree, which are
being included in this 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 Hayden Station owners.
To help ensure that reasonable progress continues to be made, the
State commits to reopen the SIP (with public notice and hearing) as
soon as possible 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. Necessary revisions may include the adoption of
new construction or compliance deadlines as necessary to ensure that
the emission limitations are met. In addition, the SIP 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 SIP should assure reasonable
progress toward the National visibility goal. If deadlines extend more
than twelve months, EPA fully expects the State to revise the SIP.
b. Remainder of SIP Revision
i. 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. The regulations also provide that the
affected FLM may certify to a State at any time that visibility
impairment exists in a mandatory Class I Federal area. See 40 CFR
51.302(c)(1). Recognizing the need to periodically evaluate the
effectiveness of the long-term strategy in protecting visibility, EPA
required States to review their
[[Page 51663]]
long-term strategies at least every three years. See 40 CFR 51.306(c).
This requirement ensures that States will periodically assess their
visibility-related air quality planning in light of a certification of
impairment from the FLM, information about visibility conditions and
sources gathered from the visibility monitoring requirements, or other
relevant information. A central aspect of the periodic assessment is to
evaluate ``[a]dditional measures, including the need for SIP revisions,
that may be necessary to assure reasonable progress toward the national
goal.'' See 40 CFR 51.306(c)(4).
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 Hayden Station owners have agreed in the
context of a judicially-enforceable Consent Decree to meet emissions
limitations that are expected to reduce Hayden 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
concluded that the measures assure reasonable progress by remedying
Hayden Station's contribution to perceptible visibility impairment in
MZWA and has submitted a visibility SIP revision containing these
measures.
Further, in a June 24, 1996 letter from Elizabeth Estill, USFS,
Rocky Mountain Region, to Margie Perkins, APCD, the USFS concluded that
the magnitude of the emission reductions for particulates and sulfur
oxides contained in the Consent Decree should effectively address the
USFS's concerns with visibility impairment in MZWA associated with the
Hayden Station. Based in part on this letter, the State concludes that
the pertinent provisions of the Hayden Consent Decree, as embodied in
this SIP revision, effectively resolve the USFS certification of
impairment in MZWA in relation to Hayden Station.
EPA has reviewed the State's SIP revision and supporting
information in light of the statutory and regulatory requirements and
proposes to approve it. EPA believes the State has reasonably concluded
that the emission reduction measures at Hayden Station required in the
judicially-enforceable Consent Decree and contained in this visibility
SIP revision will remedy Hayden 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 August 15, 1996 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. EPA has reviewed these
``reasonable progress'' considerations and a summary of the State's
analysis follows.
(a) Factor (1) Cost of Compliance
The costs of compliance are reasonable. The State found the cost of
the control equipment (approximately $120 million) at the facility to
be within the range of retrofit costs at other facilities. It is
important to note that neither the Consent Decree, nor this SIP
revision, dictates that the owners continue to burn coal or switch to
natural gas at the Hayden Station. The owners retain the discretion to
make this choice and presumably will evaluate cost as one factor in
making their decision.
The cost of switching the plant to natural gas is not known at
present and is the subject of a current study by the Hayden Station
owners, who must determine by November 17, 1996 whether to continue to
use coal or switch to natural gas. However, in terms of evaluating the
associated costs, the State believes that available information for a
coal retrofit suffices. The State's rationale is that if natural gas is
more expensive, it is unlikely that the Hayden Station owners will
switch fuels. If natural gas is less expensive, then the coal retrofit
analysis serves as an upper bound estimate of costs.
At this time, it is unknown whether the Colorado Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) will give approval for the costs to be passed into the
rate base (i.e., pass the costs along to the electricity customers). If
the PUC does give such approval, the State estimates that it would
result in a rate increase of approximately 1.42%, or an increase to the
average household electric bill of $0.58/month. As a comparison, EPA
estimated the cost of pollution controls (SO2 only) to remedy
visibility impairment in Grand Canyon National Park from the Navajo
Generating Station in Arizona to result in a maximum increase of $1.72/
month for the average customer at that time (1992), i.e., more than the
potential rate-based cost to customers for the Hayden Station retrofit,
which includes both SO2 and particulate controls. The State also
compared costs with the results of an EPA modelling study 7 which
estimated the retrofit costs for SO2 control at 200 coal-fired
electric utilities and found the costs to be reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Project Summary: Retrofit Costs for SO2 and NOX
Control Options at 200 Coal-Fired Plants,'' EPA/600/S7-90-021, March
1991.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State found that estimated costs for SO2 and particulate
emission reductions at Hayden Station appear to be lower or similar to
estimates for other projects. The State concludes, therefore, that the
cost of these SO2 and particulate emission reductions is
reasonable.
(b) Factor (2) Time Necessary for Compliance
The time necessary for compliance is reasonable. If the Hayden
Station owners elect to continue using coal as their primary fuel,
start-up testing of the baghouses and SO2 control equipment will
occur by 12/31/98 for Unit 1 and 12/31/99 for Unit 2. If the owners
elect to switch to natural gas as the primary fuel, they must do so by
12/31/98. Even in the longest scenario (coal retrofit), only
approximately 3\1/2\ years would elapse between the filing of the
Hayden Consent Decree and the operation of control equipment.8 By
comparison, EPA's Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) implementing
visibility protection measures for Grand Canyon National Park allowed
approximately 6, 7, and 8 years, respectively, for the installation of
SO2 controls on the Navajo Generating Station's three 750 megawatt
units. See 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991). In addition, the State notes
that alternative regulatory processes might allow a significantly
longer period of time to install controls or switch to natural gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ EPA notes that should this proposed approval be finalized,
the time period between SIP approval and operation of control
equipment would be even shorter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) Factor (3) Energy and Non-air Quality Environmental Impacts of
Compliance
Any negative impacts are minimal, as discussed below.
Natural Gas
If the Hayden Station owners elect to switch to natural gas as the
primary fuel, the owners will have to initiate permitting, design and
construction activities for a natural gas pipeline. The construction of
any pipeline generally
[[Page 51664]]
would cause disturbances, and such disturbances would be addressed
during permitting.
Coal
If the Hayden Station owners elect to retrofit for continued coal
use, there are (1) energy, (2) water, and (3) ash and sludge impacts.
(1) Energy Impacts. It is estimated that the use of baghouses and
LSDs would decrease the plant output by 1.1%, due to the energy needed
to run these systems.
(2) Water Impacts. Some additional water use would be necessary to
operate the LSDs. Most of the required water would come from the reuse
of water in evaporation ponds. The remainder would come from existing
water rights owned by Hayden Station in the Yampa River.
(3) Ash and Sludge Impacts. Hayden Station's solid waste stream
would be changed as a result of the LSD operations. In addition to coal
ash in the baghouse, the LSD would add spent reagent plus unreacted
absorbent, typically low in solubility and not considered an
environmental disposal problem. The operator of Hayden Station (Public
Service Company of Colorado--``PSCo'') has indicated that, should a
retrofit be chosen, these compounds and flyash would be disposed of in
the current landfill located near the plant, and no major changes to
the current solid waste disposal practices would be required. However,
the quantity of waste generated, and therefore needing disposal, would
be increased by 36%.
Overall, the State concludes that any energy and non-air quality
related impacts are acceptable from either a natural gas conversion or
a coal retrofit, as required by this SIP revision.
Additionally, in a July 10, 1996 letter from Elizabeth Estill,
USFS, Rocky Mountain Region, to Margie Perkins, APCD, the USFS
indicated that the significant reductions in SO2 emissions
required in this SIP revision, as well as the NOX emission
reductions required under the Consent Decree, will provide positive
environmental impacts to the aquatic ecosystems in MZWA.
(d) Factor (4) Remaining Useful Life of Source
PSCo has indicated it anticipates a useful life of the Hayden
Station on the order of another 20 years, provided that the plant
remains competitive in the marketplace. Therefore, the State believes
that the retrofit or conversion required in this SIP revision is
reasonable. The State's conclusion is based on the overall competitive
position of PSCo in the region, the typical current projected life of
electric generating stations, and past representation of the remaining
life of the Hayden Station made by PSCo in its 1994 Annual Report
(indicated remaining life of Unit 1 as 20 years and Unit 2 as 31
years).
(e) Visibility Benefits and Level of Emission Reduction
(1) Visibility Benefits
Any contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA from the Hayden
Station would come from primary particulate plumes and/or a locally
generated sulfate haze. Based on the State's technical judgment,
experience with information generated regarding the operation of the
Hayden Station, and findings of the Mt. Zirkel Visibility Study, there
is close correspondence between occasions when particulate plumes are
clearly visible from the Hayden Station and malfunctions with its
existing electro-static precipitators. The conversion of the station to
natural gas or use of baghouses will virtually eliminate particulate
plumes coming from Hayden Station that may enter MZWA. With regard to
locally generated sulfate hazes, it is the State's technical judgment
that removing at least 82% 9 of Hayden Station's 1995 inventory of
16,000 tons/year of SO2 emissions will effectively address
visibility problems in MZWA caused by SO2 emissions from the
facility. Any contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA from Hayden
Station SO2 emissions will be reduced to below perceptible levels.
The State also notes that evidence in the Mt. Zirkel Visibility Study
indicates that eliminating Hayden Station's SO2 emissions (which
the Consent Decree and this SIP revision nearly accomplish) would
result in a change in visibility in MZWA that would be
perceptible.10 EPA believes these conclusions are reasonable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ EPA believes that emissions reductions will actually be more
than 82%. The mass emissions limits for the 90 day averaging period
represent an 85% reduction from the average sulfur content in coal
utilized at Hayden Station.
\10\ It should be noted that current Hayden Station emissions
are not expected to contribute to visibility impairment under all
meteorological conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Level of Emission Reductions
The State believes that the level of particulate reduction at
Hayden Station is appropriate and bases this conclusion, in part, on a
comparison of levels of control required at the most recently permitted
coal-fired utilities in Colorado. In each case, the emission limit was
set at 0.03 lbs per million Btu heat input, i.e., the same limit
required for the Hayden Station retrofit/conversion. The State also
believes that the SO2 emission limits for Hayden Station are
comparable to, or better than, what is generally required for new
sources. Hayden Station's emission limits were established by reducing
the sulfur content of its coal by 85%.
(f) Reasonable Progress
The measures contained in the SIP revision will produce significant
emission reductions that are expected to effectively eliminate Hayden
Station's contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA. The retrofit
or conversion requirements appear to be reasonable upon examination of
the associated costs, time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air
quality environmental impacts, and remaining useful life of the
facility. By expeditiously remedying Hayden Station's perceptible
contribution to visibility impairment in MZWA, at a reasonable cost and
in a reasonable time frame without undue energy or non-air quality
environmental impacts, the State believes that this SIP revision
assures reasonable progress toward meeting the National visibility goal
as it relates to Hayden Station and MZWA. It should be noted that the
State recognizes that regional haze from outside Colorado, emissions
from sources outside Colorado, and emissions from other Colorado
sources could also be contributing to visibility impairment in MZWA.
Finally, as noted above, the USFS has concluded that the emissions
reductions reflected in this SIP revision should effectively address
concerns of visibility impairment in MZWA associated with Hayden
Station.
ii. 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 revision to its long-term strategy. These six
factors are as follows: (1) Emission 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 Hayden Station requirements that
resulted from a
[[Page 51665]]
negotiated settlement, the State concluded that factors (1), (4), and
(5) are not applicable. These factors will be considered in Part II of
the long-term strategy review/revision process that the State has
committed to complete by the end of the year. For a detailed discussion
of the remaining factors as they relate to Hayden Station, please refer
to Colorado's 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. The State addressed all comments received.
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). The EPA 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 August 15,
1996 revision to the SIP are addressed above in Section II.A.2.a.,
``Part C of Section VI: Provisions from the Hayden Consent Decree.'' By
adopting emission limitations for Hayden Station into the Visibility
SIP on August 15, 1996, the limitations became enforceable by the
State. C.R.S. 25-7-115. Enforceability of emission limitations is
enhanced by the inclusion in this SIP revision of Consent Decree
Sections VI., Continuous Emission Monitors (for SO2 and opacity),
and IX., Reporting, to ensure determination of compliance through
reliable and valid measurements and to ensure accurate and adequate
data reporting. Further, should EPA finalize this proposed approval of
the SIP revision, the emission limitations also 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, EPA believes that the control measures contained in the
revision to the Long-Term Strategy for Colorado's Class I Visibility
Protection, Part I: Hayden Station Requirements, are enforceable and
that the APCD has adequate enforcement capabilities to ensure
compliance with those control measures.
III. Proposed Action
EPA has reviewed the adequacy of the State's revision to the long-
term strategy portion of Colorado's SIP for Class I Visibility
Protection, contained in Section VI of the document entitled ``Long-
Term Strategy Review and Revision of Colorado's SIP for Class I
Visibility Protection, Part I: Hayden Station Requirements,'' as
submitted by the Governor with a letter dated August 23, 1996. EPA is
proposing to approve this revision, which includes the incorporation of
certain requirements from the Hayden Consent Decree.
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
EPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposal. As
indicated at the outset of this document, EPA will consider any
comments received by November 4, 1996.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600, et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected.
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action proposed does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to
approve pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes
no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State,
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from
this action.
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.
[[Page 51666]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: September 24, 1996.
Patricia D. Hull,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-25399 Filed 10-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
