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

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