2024-16697. Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plan; Nebraska; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal Implementation Plan for Regional Haze; Completion of Remand
Table 1—DSI Costs
Unit Control Removal efficiency (90%) Controlled SO 2 rate (lb/MMBtu) 2022$ Cost effectiveness (/ton) GERALD GENTLEMAN STATION Unit 1 DSI (milled trona) w/BGH 52 84 0.30 0.10 $2,383 $2,491 GERALD GENTLEMAN STATION Unit 2 DSI (milled trona) w/BGH 53 84 0.30 0.10 $2,362 $2,486 As previously mentioned, we used the “Air Pollution Control Cost Estimation Spreadsheet for Wet and Dry Scrubbers for Acid Gas Control,” to estimate the cost of SDA scrubbers. This is an Excel-based tool that can be used to estimate the costs for installing and operating scrubbers for reducing SO2 and acidic gas emissions from fossil fuel-fired combustion units and other industrial sources of acid gases.[70] The size and costs of SDA scrubbers are based primarily on the size of the combustion unit and the sulfur content of the coal burned. The calculation methodologies used in the “Air Pollution Control Cost Estimation Spreadsheet for Wet and Dry Scrubbers for Acid Gas Control” are consistent with those presented in the U.S. EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual. The “Air Pollution Control Cost Estimation Spreadsheet for Wet and Dry Scrubbers for Acid Gas Control” employs version 6 of our IPM model.[71] The cost models used in IPM version 6 were based on 2016 dollars. In performing the cost calculations in this action,[72] we have escalated the costs to 2022 dollars. The “Air Pollution Control Cost Estimation Spreadsheet for Wet and Dry Scrubbers for Acid Gas Control” allows the user to enter a different dollar-year for costs and the corresponding cost index if a different dollar-year is desired. Using this capability, we entered the 2022 Chemical Engineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) [73] into the spreadsheet to estimate the cost of SDA scrubbers in 2022 dollars.
We evaluated the cost of SDA using a control efficiency rate of 90 and 91 percent SO2 removal at Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2, corresponding to an SO2 emission rate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu at both Units. The EPA analyzed the cost of SDA scrubbers using this removal rate and emission limit because the lowest available SO2 emission guarantees from original equipment manufacturers of SDA systems are 0.06 lb/MMBtu. A summary of our SDA scrubber cost analysis is shown in table 2. We conclude SDA scrubbers are cost-effective at $4,073/ton and $4,002/ton for Unit 1 and Unit 2, respectively at the 0.06 lb/MMBtu rate analyzed.[74]
Table 2—SDA Costs
Unit Control Removal efficiency (%) Controlled SO 2 Rate (lb/MMBtu) 2022$ Cost effectiveness (/ton) GERALD GENTLEMAN STATION Unit 1 SDA 90 0.06 $4,073 GERALD GENTLEMAN STATION Unit 2 SDA 91 0.06 4,002 The cost of a baghouse to collect the particles from the operation of the SDA scrubbers was not included in our cost estimate because Gerald Gentleman Station currently operates a baghouse on both units. The EPA invites comment on the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of a higher control efficiency, and lower emission rate, using dry scrubbing at Gerald Gentleman, supported by evidence.
We also evaluated the cost of a wet FGD at Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2. The size and costs of wet FGD scrubbers are based primarily on the size of the combustion unit and the sulfur content of the coal burned. The wet FGD scrubber cost methodology includes cost algorithms for capital and operating cost for wastewater treatment consisting of chemical pretreatment, low hydraulic residence time biological reduction, and ultrafiltration to treat wastewater generated by the wet FGD system.[75]
Similar to our SDA analysis and approach, the cost models used in IPM version 6 were based on 2016 dollars and we escalated the costs to 2022 dollars to estimate the cost of wet FGD scrubbers in 2022 dollars. As shown in table 3, the EPA used SO2 control efficiencies of 90-91 percent and 94 percent corresponding to emission rates of 0.06 and 0.04 lb/MMBtu, respectively.[76] We conclude wet FGD are cost-effective at $4,283/ton and $4,145/ton for Unit 1 at 90% and 94% SO2 removal rate (respectively) and $4,267/ton and $4,132/ton for Unit 2 at 91% and 94% SO2 removal rate (respectively).
Table 3—Wet FGD Costs
Unit Control Removal efficiency (%) Controlled SO 2 Rate (lb/MMBtu) 2022$ Cost effectiveness (/ton) GERALD GENTLEMAN STATION Unit 1 Wet FGD 90 94 0.06 0.04 $4,283 4,145 GERALD GENTLEMAN STATION Unit 2 Wet FGD 91 94 0.06 0.04 4,267 4,132 We acknowledge that the remaining useful life affects the cost effectiveness estimates for the control technologies analyzed in this section. As discussed in more detail in appendix A of the TSD, available in the docket of this proposal, and in section IV.A.4. below, the EPA has used 30 years as the remaining useful life of the units and any new controls installed on them. The EPA believes that even if the remaining useful life of the units is as short as 20 years, the proposed control rate and associated control technologies are still cost effective.
Based on our assessment, we are concluding that cost effective controls of SO2 are available using DSI, SDA scrubbers and wet FGD scrubbers.
B. Factor 2—The Time Necessary for Compliance
The EPA believes five years is the appropriate time period for installation of wet FGD or SDA except where there are unusual circumstances. Five years for installation is consistent with our experience regarding FGD installations at power plants generally. In response to a section 114 information request, NPPD submitted several documents that demonstrate that between 2009 and 2014, NPPD considered installing wet FGD controls on Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2.[77] The engineering documents and requests for bids from this process included a timeline of five years from design to completion. The EPA believes this is an appropriate timeframe for installation of wet FGD controls at Gerald Gentleman Station. We believe that SDA could be installed within the same timeframe. DSI may be able to be installed in a time frame of two to three years. This is consistent with the previous EPA actions.[78]
C. Factor 3—The Energy and Non-Air Quality Environmental Impacts of Compliance
The Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program advises, “In assessing energy impacts, you may want to consider whether the energy requirements associated with a control technology result in energy penalties.” “To the extent that these considerations are quantifiable they should be included in the engineering analyses supporting compliance cost estimates”, and to consult the BART Guidelines.[79] To analyze energy impacts, the BART Guidelines advise, “You should examine the energy requirements of the control technology and determine whether the use of that technology results in energy penalties or benefits.” [80] As discussed above in our cost analyses for DSI, SDA, and wet FGD, our cost model allows for the cost of additional auxiliary power required for pollution controls to be included in the variable operating costs. The EPA chose to include this additional auxiliary power in all cases. Further, the cost of electricity is negligible compared to the capacity of Gerald Gentleman Station and the grid as a whole. For WFGD, the cost of electricity is approximately 1.25% of energy output. For SDA, the cost of electricity is approximately 1.32% of energy output. For DSI, the cost of electricity is 0.28% of energy output. Consequently, we believe that any energy impacts of compliance have been adequately considered in our analyses.
The Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program also advises the consideration of “the effects of the waste stream that may be generated by a particular control technology, and/or other resource consumption rates such as water, water supply, and wastewater disposal. To the extent that these considerations are quantifiable, they should also be included in the analyses supporting compliance cost estimates” and to also consult the BART Guidelines for additional guidance on applying this factor to stationary sources.[81] Regarding the analysis of non-air quality environmental impacts, the BART Guidelines advise “Such environmental impacts include solid or hazardous waste generation and discharges of polluted water from a control device. You should identify any significant or unusual environmental impacts associated with a control alternative that have the potential to affect the selection or elimination of a control alternative. Some control technologies may have potentially significant secondary environmental impacts. Scrubber effluent, for example, may affect water quality or land use. Alternatively, water availability may affect the feasibility and costs of wet FGD. Other examples of secondary environmental impacts could include hazardous waste discharges, such as spent catalysts or contaminated carbon. Generally, these types of environmental concerns become important when sensitive site-specific receptors exist, or when the incremental emission reductions potential of the more stringent control is only marginally greater than the next most-effective option. However, the fact that a control device creates liquid and solid waste that must be disposed of does not necessarily argue against selection of that technology as BART, particularly if the control device has been applied to similar facilities elsewhere and the solid or liquid waste is similar to those other applications. On the other hand, where you or the source owner can show that unusual circumstances at the proposed facility create greater problems than experienced elsewhere, this may provide a basis for the elimination of that control alternative as BART.” [82]
The SO2 control technologies the EPA considered in our analyses—DSI, SDA, and wet FGD—are in wide use in the coal-fired electricity generation industry. All three technologies would add spent reagent to the waste stream already generated by Gerald Gentleman Station, but do not present any unusual environmental waste impacts. In the case of DSI, the use of sodium-based sorbents makes fly ash unsaleable. The EPA has calculated that this would result in revenue loss of approximately $0.07/MWh ($1/ton fly ash estimate converted to $/MWh) and additional disposal costs of approximately $2/MWh. As discussed in our cost analyses for DSI, SDA, and wet FGD, our cost model includes waste disposal costs in the variable operating costs.
Non-air environmental impacts may also take into account water use to operate to the SO2 controls evaluated, in particular wet FGD scrubbers. While the cost of incorporating a wastewater treatment facility at Gerald Gentleman Station is factored into our cost analysis for Wet FGD, we recognize water quality concerns associated with the waste stream for wet FGD as compared to the installation of SDA scrubbers and DSI. The wet FGD scrubber methodology includes cost algorithms for capital and operating cost for wastewater treatment consisting of chemical pretreatment, low hydraulic residence time biological reduction, and ultrafiltration to treat wastewater generated by the wet FGD system. The calculation methodologies used in the “Air Pollution Control Cost Estimation Spreadsheet for Wet and Dry Scrubbers for Acid Gas Control,” are those presented in the U.S. EPA's Air Pollution Control Cost Manual.
The cost algorithm used in the “Air Pollution Control Cost Estimation Spreadsheet for Wet and Dry Scrubbers for Acid Gas Control” calculates the Total Capital Investment, Direct Annual Cost, and Indirect Annual Cost. The Total Capital Investment for wet FGD is a function of the absorber island capital costs, reagent preparation equipment costs, waste handling equipment costs, balance of plant costs, and wastewater treatment facility costs.
Regarding water related impacts, we recognize that wet FGD requires additional amounts of water as compared to SDA and DSI. Furthermore, based on Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELG), it is expected that all future wet FGD installations will require the facility to incorporate a wastewater treatment facility.[83] While this cost is factored into our cost analysis, it also highlights water quality concerns associated with the waste stream for wet FGD as compared to the installation of dry scrubbers and DSI.
Gerald Gentleman Station is located in western Nebraska, a semi-arid region dominated by agriculture. While we are aware of water availability concerns in the area surrounding Gerald Gentleman Station, we believe water resources are available to operate all control technologies evaluated in our cost analysis. This is based on Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP, the record for our previous actions on Nebraska's SIP, and information obtained from NPPD in 2017, which contain extensive information about water availability in the area of Gerald Gentleman Station. In our 2012 action, the EPA found that the cost of purchasing additional water at $234 per ton of SO2 and that this cost was reasonable.[84]
D. Factor 4—The Remaining Useful Life of the Source
The Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals under the Regional Haze Program advises, “If the remaining useful life of the source will clearly exceed” the standard time period listed in the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, “the remaining useful life factor has essentially no effect on control costs and on the reasonable progress determination process. Where the remaining useful life of the source is less than the time period for amortizing the costs of the retrofit control, you may wish to use this shorter time period in your cost calculations. For additional guidance on applying this factor to stationary sources, you may wish to consult the BART Guidelines”.[85] Regarding the analysis of remaining useful life, the BART Guidelines advise “The “remaining useful life” of a source, if it represents a relatively short time period, may affect the annualized costs of retrofit controls. For example, the methods for calculating annualized costs in EPA's OAQPS Control Cost Manual requires the use of a specified time period for amortization that varies based upon the type of control. If the remaining useful life will clearly exceed this time period, the remaining useful life essentially has no effect on control costs and on the BART determination process. Where the remaining useful life is less than the time period for amortizing costs, you should use the shorter time period in your cost calculations.” [86]
In determining the cost of scrubbers in the original SIP submission, Nebraska did not provide a specific useful life for the Gerald Gentleman Station.[87] NPPD also did not provide additional insight regarding the remaining useful life of the Gerald Gentleman Station in their section 114 response from 2016. Therefore, in line with the EPA's approach in prior actions,[88] we used 30 years in the cost module of the IPM model when calculating costs for scrubber controls at the Gerald Gentleman Station in this action.
Similarly, the EPA sees no reason to assume that a DSI system installation, which is a much less complex and costly (capital costs, as opposed to annualized costs) technology in comparison to a scrubber installation, should have a shorter lifetime. As with a wet FGD or SDA, we expect the boiler to be the limiting factor when considering the lifetime of a coal-fired power plant. The EPA has therefore similarly assumed that the lifetime of a DSI system is 30 years.
When considering the remaining useful life of a source, we must consider the useful life of any additional controls we could require and the remaining useful life of the source itself. All the examined control options have useful lives of 30 years, therefore, we propose to conclude that Units 1 and 2 have a remaining useful life of 30 years. In the NPPD 2023 Integrated Resource Plan, NPPD analyzed several continued operation scenarios. In the “SD-05” scenario, Gerald Gentleman Station continues to operate as is until at least 2050.[89] While NPPD has indicated a possible shortening of its EGUs' lifespans, including Gerald Gentleman Station, NPPD has also indicated continued operation of Gerald Gentleman Station. Without a federally enforceable shutdown included in the SIP, the EPA must conclude that NPPD will continue operating Gerald Gentleman Station and must use the 30-year lifetime in the EPA cost analyses.
E. Evaluation of Potential Visibility Impacts and Improvements
Although visibility is not a required element of the four-factor analysis, we reviewed the visibility information from the original Nebraska Regional Haze SIP record to verify the impacts of Gerald Gentleman Station on the nearest Class I areas of Badlands, Wind Cave, and Rocky Mountain National Parks. In addition, we provide an updated meteorological back-trajectory analysis on the 20% most impaired monitored days for the period from 2008 through 2021 at Badlands, Wind Cave and Rocky Mountain Class I areas in our Analysis and Modeling TSD, which is included in the docket. In this back-trajectory analysis, we run 72-hour HYSPLIT model back-trajectories originating at Class I area at three different height levels (100 meters, 500 meters and 1,000 meters). We created composite HYSPLIT density plots for multi-year periods and the plots show a consistent pattern of the air mass over or near the location of Gerald Gentleman Station on the 20% most impaired days for the Badlands and Wind Cave Class I areas. We also generated daily back trajectory plots accompanied by plots of Gerald Gentleman Station SO2 emissions data and show that Gerald Gentleman Station was operating and emitting SO2 on, or leading up to, the most impaired days when back trajectories traveled near Gerald Gentleman Station.
In summary, we confirmed the CENRAP and Nebraska CALPUFF modeling associated with Nebraska's first planning period SIP, and our updated back-trajectory analysis shows that Gerald Gentleman Station likely impacts the visibility at the affected Class I areas. Please see our Analysis and Modeling TSD for the detailed analysis linking emissions from Gerald Gentleman Station to visibility impairment at nearby Class I areas.
Both the CENRAP and WRAP CAMx modeling and BART CALPUFF modeling relied upon in the Nebraska's first planning period SIP indicate a visibility improvement with the installation of SO2 controls at Gerald Gentleman Station. The projected 2018 modeling shows improvements in the visibility impairment contribution from Nebraska elevated sources at Badlands due to decreases in emissions from the SO2 BART controls assumed at Gerald Gentleman Station in the modeling. CALPUFF modeling with either wet FGD or DSI at a control rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu produced significant visibility improvements at the two South Dakota Class I areas and Rocky Mountain National Park when averaged over the 2001-2003 modeling period. All control options with this level of control rate or lower will achieve significant emission reductions and visibility improvements, with lower control rates ( i.e., below the modeled 0.15 lb/MMBtu) leading to greater visibility improvement.
Therefore, although visibility is not a required element of the four-factor analysis, we propose to conclude there will be significant visibility benefit to the Class I areas as a result of installation of cost-effective SO2 controls at Gerald Gentleman Station.
VI. Amending the FIP on Remand—Long-Term Strategy Determination for Gerald Gentleman Station
In light of the significant emission reductions achieved by a 0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 emission limit, leading to significant visibility improvements, the proven ability of both FGD and SDA to achieve a rate of 0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 consistently over a long period of time, the controls being cost effective, the ability to reasonably obtain water to operate controls, the lower amount of wastewater generated, and the lack of certainty surrounding DSI being able to achieve the proposed limit at Gerald Gentlemen Station, to address the remand for LTS for SO2 at Gerald Gentleman Station, the EPA is proposing that Gerald Gentleman Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 meet an SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu averaged over a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day period for each unit.[90]
Further, the EPA notes that all SO2 control technologies analyzed in this action are cost effective at all analyzed control percentages. While a 0.06 lb/MMBtu SO2 limit would achieve a high level of visibility improvement, the EPA nonetheless acknowledges that all the emission control technologies evaluated in this action will reduce SO2 emissions, thus resulting in improved visibility at the affected Class I areas.
The EPA also notes that all the SO2 control technologies discussed in this action can be installed within 5 years and DSI can be installed as quickly as two years. Therefore, the time necessary for compliance for all emission rates can be considered equivalent and reasonable.
In considering the relevant energy and nonair environmental concerns, the cost of electricity is negligible compared to the capacity of Gerald Gentleman Station and the grid as a whole, as included in our cost analysis. Additionally, more waste will be generated but not at a rate that would be considered unusual or unreasonable. The EPA notes that DSI and SDA generate less wastewater than wet FDG, for the same emission limit. Finally, while there is water scarcity in the region, NPPD has access to water to operate the controls and water costs are included in our cost analysis.
The EPA also proposes to find that there are no permanent and enforceable limitations on the continued operation of Gerald Gentleman Station. The EPA is therefore proposing that the remaining useful life of the source is at least thirty years.
Therefore, we also invite comment on all the control technologies and other emission limits analyzed within this action. The EPA is choosing to propose an SO2 emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu based on multiple factors outlined at the beginning of this section. This limit was selected based on the operation of SDA. We find SDA can meet the 0.06 lb/MMBtu limit at a reasonable, cost-effective level and will result in large emissions reductions and visibility improvements with less water usage and wastewater than wet FGD. As discussed in more detail in the Cost TSD (Appendix A), we are not able to find information showing that any coal-fired units in the U.S. are currently meeting the 0.06 lb/MMBtu rate limit proposed in this action with the use of DSI alone. Therefore, we do not have a sufficient basis to conclude that DSI can be used to meet a 0.06 lb/MMBtu limit at Gerald Gentleman Station. However, the EPA's analysis shows that NPPD can achieve this emission rate utilizing SDA or wet FGD technology, both of which are cost-effective based on the EPA's analysis outlined throughout this action. Therefore, rather than proposing a specific control technology, the EPA believes it is appropriate to only propose an emission limit because it may be possible to meet the proposed limit with SDA or FGD. As stated above, we do not have sufficient information to determine whether DSI can meet this limit on a consistent, long-term basis. By proposing a limit only, the EPA is providing the source with greater flexibility to select the control technology that best meets its needs while also providing emissions reductions which will result in visibility benefits at the affected Class I areas.
VII. The EPA's FLM Consultation
The EPA consulted with the FLMs (specifically, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service) on April 23, 2024 to May 10, 2024. During the consultation we provided an overview of our proposed actions and drafts of our technical support documents. The FLMs signaled general support for our action.
VIII. Proposed Action
Based on the EPA's review of the LTS requirements along with its analysis of the four statutory factors, the EPA proposes that NPPD Gerald Gentleman Station Unit 1 and Unit 2 each meet an emission limit of 0.06 lb/MMBtu averaged over a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day period. This emission limit would apply at all times, including periods of startup and shut down. We are also taking comment on the other control technologies and emissions limits analyzed in this action.
IX. Environmental Justice Considerations
This section summarizes environmental justice data for areas that would be impacted by this proposed action and is intended for informational and transparency purposes only. Whereas, environmental justice data is not a key determinate for this action, the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require an evaluation of environmental justice. This action is perceived to have a positive benefit on environmental justice areas. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.” [91] Recognizing the importance of these considerations to local communities, the EPA conducted an environmental justice screening analysis around the location of Gerald Gentleman Station to identify potential environmental stressors on these communities and the potential impacts of this action. However, the EPA is providing the information associated with this analysis for informational purposes only. The information provided herein is not a basis of the proposed action. The EPA conducted the screening analyses using EJScreen, an EJ mapping and screening tool that provides the EPA with a nationally consistent dataset and approach for combining various environmental and demographic indicators.[92] The EJScreen tool presents these indicators at a Census block group (CBG) level or a larger user specified “buffer” area that covers multiple CBGs.[93] An individual CBG is a cluster of contiguous blocks within the same census tract and generally contains between 600 and 3,000 people. EJScreen is not a tool for performing in depth risk analysis, but is instead a screening tool that provides an initial representation of indicators related to EJ and is subject to uncertainty in some underlying data ( e.g., some environmental indicators are based on monitoring data which are not uniformly available; others are based on self-reported data).[94] EJScreen environmental indicators help screen for locations where residents may experience a higher overall pollution burden than would be expected for a block group with the same total population in the U.S. These indicators of overall pollution burden include estimates of ambient particulate matter (PM2.5 ) and ozone concentration, a score for traffic proximity and volume, percentage of pre-1960 housing units (lead paint indicator), and scores for proximity to Superfund sites, risk management plan (RMP) sites, and hazardous waste facilities.[95] EJScreen also provides information on demographic indicators, including percent low-income, communities of color, linguistic isolation, and less than high school education. The EPA prepared an EJScreen report covering a buffer area of approximately 6-mile radius around Gerald Gentleman Station. From this report, no EJ indices were greater than the 80th national percentiles.[96] The full, detailed EJScreen report is provided in the docket for this rulemaking. This action is proposing to promulgate a FIP to address LTS requirements that are not adequately satisfied by the Nebraska Regional Haze SIP. The proposed rule is proposing SO2 limits on Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska to fulfill regional haze program requirements. Exposure to SO2 is associated with significant public health effects. Short-term exposures to SO2 can harm the human respiratory system and make breathing difficult. People with asthma, particularly children, are sensitive to these effects of SO2 .[97] Therefore, we expect that these requirements for Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska, if finalized, and resulting emissions reductions will contribute to reduced environmental and health impacts on all populations impacted by emissions from these sources, including populations experiencing a higher overall pollution burden, people of color and low-income populations. There is nothing in the record which indicates that this proposed action, if finalized, would have disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.
X. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 14094: Modernizing Regulatory Review
This action is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 [98] and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 14094.[99] The proposed FIP only applies to one facility. It is therefore not a rule of general applicability.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act because it is not a rule of general applicability and affects fewer than 10 entities. See 5 CFR 1320(c).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. Nebraska Public Power District is not a small entity.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. The EPA has determined that Title II of UMRA does not apply to this proposed rule. In 2 U.S.C. 1502(1) all terms in Title II of UMRA have the meanings set forth in 2 U.S.C. 658, which further provides that the terms “regulation” and “rule” have the meanings set forth in 5 U.S.C. 601(2). Under 5 U.S.C. 601(2), “the term `rule' does not include a rule of particular applicability relating to . . . facilities.” Because this proposed rule is a rule of particular applicability relating to specific EGUs located at one named facility, the EPA has determined that it is not a “rule” for the purposes of Title II of UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposed rule does not impose significant economic costs on state or local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with the EPA policy to promote communications between the EPA and state and local governments, the EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.
F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action applies to one facility in Nebraska and will affect Federal Class I areas in South Dakota and Colorado. This action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or any other areas where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of Indian county. Thus Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045: Protection from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a disproportionate risk to children. Moreover, “regulation” or “rule” is defined in Executive Order 12866 as “an agency statement of general applicability and future effect.” E.O. 12866 does not define “statement of general applicability” but this term commonly refers to statements that apply to groups or classes, as opposed to statements which apply only to named entities. The proposed FIP, therefore, is not a rule of general applicability because its requirements apply and are tailored to only one individually identified facility. Thus it is not a “rule” or “regulation” within in the meaning of E.O. 12866. However, as this action will limit emissions of SO2, it will have a beneficial effect on children's health by reducing air pollution.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
This proposed action involves technical standards. Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to us available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This proposed rule would require the affected facility to meet the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75 already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards. Consistent with the Agency's Performance Based Measurement (PBMS), part 75 sets forth performance criteria that allow the use of alternative methods to the ones set forth in part 75. The PBMS approach is intended to be more flexible and cost-effective for the regulated community; it is also intended to encourage innovation in analytical technology and improved data quality. At this time, the EPA is not recommending any revisions to part 75; however, the EPA periodically revises the test procedures set forth in part 75. When the EPA revises the test procedures set forth in part 75 in the future, the EPA will address the use of any new voluntary consensus standards that are equivalent. Currently, even if a test procedure is not set forth in part 75, the EPA is not precluding the use of any method, whether it constitutes a voluntary consensus standard or not, as long as it meets the performance criteria specified; however any alternative methods must be approved through the petition process under 40 CFR 75.66 before they are used.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Executive Order 14096: Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All
The EPA believes that the human health and environmental conditions, around Gerald Gentelman Station, that exist prior to this action do not result in disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with Environmental Justice concerns.
The EPA believes that this action is not likely to result in new disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. This proposed FIP limits emissions of SO2 from one facility in Nebraska.
The information supporting this Executive Order review is contained in Section IX Environmental Justice Considerations of this action and the file GGS6mileEJScreen Community Report.pdf in the docket for this action.
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed by this proposed action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns because it increases the level of environmental protection for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, including any communities with environmental justice concerns.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental relations
- Interstate transport of pollution
- Nitrogen dioxide
- Ozone
- Particulate matter
- Regional haze
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Sulfur oxides
- Visibility
Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Subpart CC—Nebraska
2. Amend § 52.1437 by revising paragraph (b) and adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Visibility protection.* * * * *(b) Measures addressing partial disapproval associated with SO2 . The deficiencies associated with the SO2 BART determination for NPPD, Gerald Gentleman Station, Units 1 and 2 identified in EPA's partial disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Nebraska on July 13, 2011, are satisfied by § 52.1429. The deficiencies associated with the SO2 LTS addressing SO2 emissions for NPPD, Gerald Gentleman Station, Units 1 and 2 identified in EPA's partial disapproval of the regional haze plan submitted by Nebraska on July 13, 2011, are satisfied by paragraph (c) of this section.
(c) Requirements for Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2 affecting visibility.
(1) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to each owner, operator, or successive owners or operators of the coal burning equipment designated as Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2.
(2) Compliance dates. Compliance with the requirements of this section is required by 5 years from the effective date of this rule for Gerald Gentleman Station Units 1 and 2.
(3) Definitions. All terms used in this part but not defined herein shall have the meaning given to them in the Clean Air Act and in parts 51 and 60 of this title. For the purposes of this section:
24-hour period means the period of time between 12:01 a.m. and 12 midnight.
Air pollution control equipment includes baghouses, particulate or gaseous scrubbers, sorbent injection systems, and any other apparatus utilized to control emissions of regulated air contaminants which would be emitted to the atmosphere.
Boiler-operating-day means any 24-hour period between 12:00 midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted at any time in a steam generating unit.
Daily average means the arithmetic average of the hourly values measured in a 24-hour period.
Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a unit and does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air, recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources. Heat input shall be calculated in accordance with 40 CFR part 75.
Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates, controls, or supervises any of the coal burning equipment designated in paragraph (a) of this section.
Regional Administrator means the Regional Administrator of Region 7 or his/her authorized representative.
Unit means each individual coal-fired boiler covered under paragraph (a) of this section.
(4) Emissions limitations. SO2 emission limit. The owner/operator of the units listed below shall not emit or cause to be emitted pollutants in excess of the following limitations in pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) as averaged over a rolling 30 boiler-operating-day period from the subject unit. Compliance with the requirements of this section is required as listed below. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit for each individual unit shall be as listed in the following table.
Unit SO 2 Emission limit (lbs/MMBtu) Compliance date Gerald Gentleman Station Unit 1 0.06 Five years from effective date of the final rule. Gerald Gentleman Station Unit 2 0.06 Five years from effective date of the final rule.
Document Information
- Published:
- 08/01/2024
- Department:
- Environmental Protection Agency
- Entry Type:
- Proposed Rule
- Action:
- Proposed rule.
- Document Number:
- 2024-16697
- Dates:
- Comments must be received on or before September 30, 2024. The EPA will hold an in-person public hearing in Nebraska and a separate virtual public hearing. For more information on the in-person and virtual public hearings, see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
- Pages:
- 62691-62707 (17 pages)
- Docket Numbers:
- EPA-R07-OAR-2024-0224, FRL-11566-01-R7
- Topics:
- Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides
- PDF File:
- 2024-16697.pdf
- Supporting Documents:
- » AppI_WICA1_NAM12backtraj_impaired_daily_2008-2021
- » NPPDRH114_0002059
- » CENRAP-Appdx-A-F-TSD-Draft3_e51
- » CENRAP_PSAT_Tool_ENVIRON_Aug_27_2007
- » CENRAP-Rept-TSD-Draft3_619
- » AppH_WICA1_NAM12backtraj_impaired_annual_density_2008-2021
- » CENRAP_PSAT_Tool_Summary
- » CAMD SO2 annual emissions from GGS20152022
- » CENRAP_NE_Elevated_Point_Emissions_Summary
- » docketlistnotfordocket