                       Technical Support Document (TSD)
        for the Proposed Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS
                      Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272

                EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies Proposed Rule TSD

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                                 October 2020
Introduction:
The analysis presented in this document supports the EPA's proposed Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS.  In developing the proposed Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA considered all NOX control strategies that are widely in use by EGUs, listed below. This Technical Support Document (TSD) discusses costs, emission reduction potential, and feasibility related to these EGU NOX emission control strategies.  Specifically, this TSD explores three topics: (1) the appropriate representative cost resulting from "widespread" implementation of a particular NOX emission control technology; (2) the NOX emission rates widely achievable by "fully operating" emission control equipment; and (3) the time required to implement these EGU NOX control strategies (e.g., installing and/or restoring an emission control system to full operation or shifting generation to reduce NOX emissions).  These analyses inform the EPA's evaluation of costs and emission reductions in Step 3 of its four step interstate transport framework.  These mitigation technology assessments are also central to EPA's electricity system impact estimates, compliance feasibility assessments, and emissions budget determinations for the proposed Revised CSAPR Update Rule.
NOX control strategies that are widely available for EGUs include:
 Returning to full operation any existing SCRs that have operated at fractional design capability;
 Restarting inactive SCRs and returning them to full operation;
 Restarting inactive SNCRs and/or returning to full operation any SNCRs that have operated at fractional design capability;
 Upgrading combustion controls with newer, more advanced technology (e.g., state-of-the-art low NOX burners);
 Installing new SCR systems;
 Installing new SNCR systems; and
 Shifting generation (i.e., changing dispatch) from high- to low-emitting or zero-emitting units.

To evaluate the cost for some of these EGU NOX reduction strategies, the agency used the capital expenses, fixed and variable operation and maintenance costs for installing and fully operating emission controls researched by Sargent & Lundy, a nationally recognized architect/engineering firm with the EGU sector expertise.  From this research, EPA has created a publicly available Excel-based tool called the Retrofit Cost Analyzer that implements the cost equations. Application of the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations to the existing coal-fired fleet can be found in the docket.  EPA also used the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to analyze power sector response while accounting for electricity market dynamics such as generation shifting.
Cost Estimate for Fully Operating Existing SCR that Already Operate to Some Extent
EPA sought to examine costs for full operation of SCR controls.  SCR systems are post-combustion controls that reduce NOx emissions by reacting the NOX with a reagent (typically ammonia or urea).  The SCR technology utilizes a catalyst to increase the conversion efficiency and produces high conversion of NOX.  Over time with use, the catalyst will degrade and require replacement.  The ammonia or urea reagent is also consumed in the NOx conversion process.  Fully operating an SCR includes maintenance costs, labor, auxiliary power, catalyst, and reagent cost.  The chemical reagent (typically ammonia or urea) is a significant portion of the operating cost of these controls.
EPA examined the costs to fully operate an SCR that was already being operated to some extent using the equations within the Retrofit Cost Analyzer.  There are variable operations and maintenance (VOM) costs related to the consumption of reagent and degredation of the catalyst as well as fixed operating and maintenance (FOM) costs related to maintaining and operating the equipment to be considered.
EPA examined three of the VOM costs illustrated in the Retrofit Cost Analyzer:  reagent, catalyst, and auxiliary power.  Depending on circumstances, SCR operators may operate the system while achieving less than "full" removal efficiency by using less reagent, and/or not replacing degraded catalyst which allows the SCR to perform at lower reduction capabilities.  Consequently, the EPA finds it reasonable to consider the costs of both additional reagent and catalyst maintenance and replacement in representing the cost of optimizing existing and operating SCR systems. In contrast, based on the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations, the auxiliary power component of VOM is largely indifferent to the NOX removal.  That is, auxiliary power is indifferent to reagent consumption, catalyst degradation, or NOX removal rate.  Therefore, for units where the SCR is operating, but may not be fully operating, the auxiliary power VOM component has likely been incurred.
In addition, based on the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations for FOM, units running their SCR systems have incurred the complete set of FOM costs, regardless of reagent consumption, catalyst degredation, or NOx removal rate.  Thus, as was the case for the auxiliary power VOM cost component, the FOM cost component is also not included in the cost estimate to achieve "full" operation for units that are already operating.  In conclusion, EPA finds that only the VOM reagent and catalyst replacement costs should be included in cost estimates for optimization of partially operating SCRs.
In an SCR, the chemical reaction consumes approximately 0.57 tons of ammonia or 1 ton of urea reagent for every ton of NOX removed.  During development of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the original CSAPR, the agency identified a marginal cost of $500 per ton of NOX removed (1999$) with ammonia costing $190 per ton of ammonia, which equated to $108 per ton of NOx removed for the reagent procurement portion of operations.  The remaining balance reflected other operating costs.  Over the years, reagent commodity prices have changed, affecting the operational cost in relation to reagent procurement.  For data on the relationship between reagent price and its associated cost regarding NOX reduction, see Appendix A: "Historical Anhydrous Ammonia and Urea Costs and their Associated Cost per NOX ton Removed in a SCR."  These commodities are created in large quantities for use in the agriculture sector.  Demand from the power sector for use in pollution controls is small relative to the magnitude used in agriculture.  Fluctuations in price are expected and are demonstrated in the pricing data presented in Appendix A.  Some of these prices reflect conditions where demand and commodity prices are high.  Consequently, the reagent costs used by EPA in this rule are representative.  In the cost estimates presented here, EPA uses the cost for urea, which is greater than ammonia costs, to arrive at a conservative estimate.  In the CSAPR Update, EPA used the default cost of $310/ton for a 50% weight solution in Retrofit Cost Analyzer.  With the updates to the Retrofit Cost Analyzer, the default costs of the urea reagent also increased to $350/ton for a 50% weight solution of urea.  In this action, EPA conservatively assumed the cost of $350/ton for a 50% weight solution of urea. Using the Retrofit Cost Analyzer (multiplying the VOM $/ton cost by the ratio of the VOM cost for urea $/MWh to the total VOM cost $/MWh) results in a cost of around $500/ton of NOX removed for the reagent cost alone.
EPA also estimated the cost of catalyst replacement and disposal in addition to the costs of reagent.  EPA identified the cost for returning a partially operating SCR to full operation applying the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations for all coal-fired units that operated in 2019 in the United States on a per ton of NOX removed basis.  This assessment covered 223 units.  EPA was able to identify the costs of individual VOM and FOM cost components, including reagent, catalyst, and auxiliary fans.  Some of these expenses, as modeled by the Retrofit Cost Analyzer, vary depending on factors such as unit size, NOX generated from the combustion process, and reagent utilized. The EPA performed multiple assessments with this tool's parameters to investigate sensitivity relating to cost per ton of NOX removed. Additionally, the agency conservatively modeled costs with urea, the higher-cost reagent for NOX mitigation (and the reagent included in the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations).  The key input parameters in the cost equations are the size of the unit, the uncontrolled, or "input", NOx rate, the NOx removal efficiency, the type of coal, and the capacity factor.
In the analysis, we assumed these units burned bituminous coal at a 47.6% capacity factor.  We assumed that the SCRs operate with the NOx removal efficiency needed for them to achieve their third-lowest ozone season NOx rate over the time-period from 2009-2019.  In this section, where we are assessing the cost to return a partially operating SCR to full operation, we examined only the sum of the VOM reagent and catalyst cost components (from the set of 153 units that had minimum "input" NOx emission rates of at least 0.2 lb/mmBtu).  EPA ranked the quantified VOM costs for each unit and identified the cost at the 90[th] percentile level rank, which rounded to $800 per ton of NOx removed.   EPA also identified the average cost which rounded to $700 per ton of NOx removed. EPA selected the 90[th] percentile value because a substantial portion of units had combined reagent and catalyst costs at or less than this $800/ton of NOx removed.
Thus, $800 per ton NOx removed represents a reasonable estimate of the cost for operating these post combustion controls based on current market prices and typical operation.  For purposes of the IPM modeling, the agency assumes that $800 per ton of NOX removed is a broadly available cost point for units that currently are partially operating SCRs to fully operate their NOX controls.
Cost Estimates for Restarting Idled Existing SCR
For a unit with an idled, bypassed, or mothballed SCR, all FOM and VOM costs such as auxiliary fan power, catalyst costs, and additional administrative costs (labor) are realized upon resuming operation through full potential capability.  To understand the costs, the agency applied the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations for two "typical" units with varying input NOX rates in a bounding analysis and then did a more detailed analysis encompassing all coal-fired units with SCR that operated in 2019 in the contiguous United States.  For both analyses, the agency assumed the same input parameters used for the partially-operating SCR analysis described above, but in keeping with this assessment's focus on restarting SCRs that are not already operating, these analyses included the auxiliary fan power VOM component and all of the FOM components along with the reagent and catalyst VOM components in the total cost estimate.
First, to better understand the effect of input NOX rate on costs, using the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations, the EPA performed a bounding analysis to identify reasonable high and low per-ton NOX control costs from reactivating an existing but idled SCR across a range of potential uncontrolled NOX rates.  Similar to what was described at proposal, for a hypothetical 500 MW unit with a relatively high uncontrolled NOX rate (e.g., 0.4 lb NOX/mmBtu, 80% removal efficiency, 47.6% capacity factor, and 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate), VOM and FOM costs were around $1,050/ton of NOX removed.  Conversely, a unit with a low uncontrolled NOX rate (e.g., 0.2 lb NOX/mmBtu and 60% removal) experienced a higher cost range revealing VOM and FOM costs about $1,840/ton of NOX removed.
Next, using the Retrofit Cost Analyzer cost equations and same input parameters described above for unit-specific input NOx rate and third best controlled NOx rate, EPA evaluated all of the VOM and FOM costs for the 153 coal-fired units with SCR in the contiguous United States that were operating in 2019 and had minimum "input" NOx emission rates of at least 0.2 lb/mmBtu.  As before, EPA ranked the sum of the VOM and FOM costs for each unit and identified the 90[th] percentile cost.  When rounded, this was $1,600/ton of NOX removed.  EPA also identified the average cost, which rounded to $1,200/ton of NOx removed.  Specifically, this assessment found that 137 of the 153 units demonstrated VOM plus FOM costs lower than $1,600/ton of NOX removed.
Examining the results, the EPA concludes that a cost of $1,600/ton of NOX removed is reasonably representative of the cost to restart and fully operate idled SCRs.
NOX Emission Rate Estimates for Full SCR Operation
EPA examined the ozone season average NOX rates for 250 coal-fired units in the contiguous US with an installed SCR over the time-period 2009-2019, then identified each unit's lowest, second lowest, and third-lowest ozone season average NOX rate.  EPA examined ozone season average NOx rates over this time period since annual NOx programs, rather than just seasonal programs, became widespread in the eastern US with the start of CAIR in 2009, and this regulatory development could affect SCR operation (specifically, annual use of SCR means more-frequent change of catalyst and relative difficulty with scheduling timing when the unit (or just the SCR) is not operating to allow for catalyst replacement and SCR maintenance).  The final CSAPR Update focused on the third-lowest ozone season NOX rates, reasoning that these emission rates may be characteristic of a well-run and well-maintained system and achievable on a routine basis, while avoiding atypical times such as the start of a new regulatory program when several catalyst layers may have been simultaneously refreshed or years when the operation of the unit is not similar to recent or expected operational patterns.  In the CSAPR Update,  EPA focused on the third lowest ozone season rate over the 2009-2015 time period to ensure that the rate represents efficient but routine SCR operation (i.e., the performance of the SCR is not simply the result of being new, or having a highly aggressive catalyst replacement schedule such as may be found at the onset of new emission reduction programs, but is the result of being well-maintained and well-run).  At that time, 2015 represented the most recent year of full ozone-season data available. In the CSAPR Update, EPA found that, between 2009 and 2015, EGUs on average achieved a rate of 0.10 lbs NOX/mmBtu for the third-lowest ozone season rate.  In the CSAPR Update, EPA selected 0.10 lbs NOX/mmBtu as a reasonable representation for full operational capability of an SCR. Here, EPA utilizes the same rationale and methodology for identifying the rate.  However, EPA updates the timeline to include most-recent operational data (i.e., up through 2019).  Considering the emissions data over the full time-period of available data that includes expected annual operation of SCRs (i.e., 2009-2019) results in a third-best rate of 0.080 lb/mmBtu.  EPA notes that half of the EGUs achieved a rate of 0.68 lbs NOX/mmBtu or less over their third-best entire ozone season (see Figure 1).  EPA verified that in prior years, the majority (over 90%) of these same coal-fired units had demonstrated and achieved a NOX emission rate of 0.08 lb/mmBtu or less on a seasonal and/or monthly basis.
After identifying this approach, the Agency examined each ozone season over the time period from 2009-2019 and identified the lowest monthly average NOx emission rates for each year.  Examining the third-lowest historical monthly NOx rate, the EPA found that, on average EGUs achieved a rate of 0.069 lbs NOX/mmBtu. The third-lowest historical monthly NOx rate analysis showed that a large proportion of units displayed NOx rates below 0.08 lb/mmBtu (see Figure 2).
Based on the ozone season emission rates, and supported by the monthly rates, the agency concludes an emission rate of 0.08 lb NOX/mmBtu is widely achievable by the EGU fleet.

Figure 1.  "Frequency" distribution plots for coal-fired units with an SCR showing their seasonal average NOX emission rates (lbs/mmBtu) during ozone seasons from 2009-2019.   For each unit, the lowest, second lowest, and third lowest ozone season average NOX rates are illustrated.

Figure 2.  "Frequency" distribution plots for coal-fired units with an SCR showing their monthly average NOX emission rates (lbs/mmBtu) during ozone seasons from 2009-2019.   For each unit, the lowest, second lowest, third lowest, fourth lowest, and fifth lowest monthly average NOX rates are illustrated.

Cost Estimates for Restarting Idled Existing SNCR
EPA sought to examine costs for full operation of SNCR.  SNCR are post-combustion controls that reduce NOx emissions by reacting the NOX with either ammonia or urea, without catalyst.  Because the reaction occurs without catalyst and is thereby a less efficient reaction, several times more reagent must be injected to achieve a given level of NOx removal with SNCR than would be required to achieve the same level of NOx removal with SCR technology.  Usually, an SNCR system does not achieve the level of emission reductions that an SCR can achieve, even when using large amounts of reagent.   For the SNCR analysis, as with the SCR analyses described above, the agency used the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations to perform a bounding analysis for examining operating expenses associated with a "generic" unit returning an SNCR to full operation.  For units with a mothballed SNCR returning to full operation, the owner incurs the full suite of VOM and FOM costs.  Reagent consumption represents the largest portion of the VOM cost component.  For this bounding analysis, the agency examined two cases: first, a unit with a high input uncontrolled NOx rate 0.40 lb/mmBtu; second, a unit with a low input uncontrolled NOx rate 0.20 lb /mmBtu  -  both assuming a 25% removal efficiency.  For the high rate unit case, VOM and FOM costs were calculated as approximately $2,300/ton NOx with about $1,820/ton of that cost associated with urea procurement.  For the low rate unit case, VOM and FOM costs approached $3,890/ton NOx with nearly $3,040/ton of that cost associated with urea procurement.  Despite equivalent reduction percentages for each unit, the cost dichotomy results from differences in the input NOx rates for the units and the type of boiler, resulting in a modeled step-change difference in urea rate (either a 15% or 25% reagent usage factor).  EPA also examined SNCR cost sensitivity by varying NOX removal efficiency while maintaining the uncontrolled NOX emission rate.  In these studies, SNCR NOX removal efficiency was assumed to be 40% for the first cost estimate and 10% for the second cost estimate.  For a high rate unit with an uncontrolled rate of 0.40 lb NOX/mmBtu, the associated costs were $2,210/ton and $2,600/ton.  For a low rate unit with an uncontrolled rate of 0.20 lb NOX/mmBtu, the associated costs were $3,730/ton and $4,4700/ton.  This analysis illustrates that SNCR costs ($/ton) are more sensitive to a unit's uncontrolled input NOX rate than the potential NOX removal efficiency of the SNCR itself.  Examining the results across all the simulations, but focusing on the 25% removal efficiency scenario for the low input uncontrolled NOX rate, which is more representative of typical removal efficiency, EPA finds that costs for fully operating idled SNCR are substantially higher than for SCR.  We conclude that a cost of $3,900/ton of NOX removed is representative of the cost to restart and fully operate idled SNCRs.
NOX Emission Rate Estimates for Full SNCR Operation
As EPA notes above, both in the CSAPR Update Rule and in the agency's power sector modeling up to 25% removal potential for SNCR was assumed. In order to translate what this optimized value would be for each unit, and compare that to 2019 baseline emission rates, EPA utilized the mode 2 rate from the NEEDS database (June 2020). As described in EPA's power sector IPM Modeling Documentation (Chapter 3), these unit-specific NOx mode rates are calculated from historical data and reflect operation of existing post-combustion controls.  Four modes are identified for each unit to, among other things, identify their emission rates with and without their post-combustion controls operating.  Mode 2 for SNCR-controlled coal units is intended to reflect the operation of that unit's post combustion control based on prior years when that unit operated its control. As noted above, SNCRs are more sensitive to a unit's uncontrolled input NOX rate than the potential NOX removal efficiency. Consequently, the "optimized" SNCR emission rate identified through mode 2 has more variability than the optimized rate assumed for SCR installations (which typically begin to approximate an emission rate floor due to the 90% reduction). The optimized SNCR emission rates assumed for each controlled unit are identifiable in the NEEDS file "Mode 2 NOx rate (lb/mmBtu)" column. If a unit's 2019 emission rate was at or lower than its "optimized" SNCR rate, than no additional reductions are expected from "optimizing" that unit's post-combustion control.
Cost Estimates for Installing Low NOx Burners and / or Over Fire Air
Combustion control technology has existed for many decades.  The technology generally limits NOX formation during the combustion process by extending the combustion zone.  Over time, as the technology has advanced, combustion controls have become more efficient at achieving lower NOX rates than those installed years ago.  Modern combustion control technologies routinely achieve rates of 0.20  -  0.25 lb NOX/mmBtu and, for some units, depending on unit type and fuel combusted, can achieve rates below 0.16 lb NOX/mmBtu.  Table 1 shows average NOX rates from coal-fired units with various combustion controls for different time periods.
Table 1: Ozone Season NOX Rate (lb/mmBtu) Over Time for Coal-fired Units with Various Combustion Controls*

                         Years Between 2003 and 2008
                         Years Between 2009 and 2018
                                Year = 2019
                           NOx Control Technology
                             NOx Rate (lb/mmBtu)
                            Number of Unit-Years
                             NOx Rate (lb/mmBtu)
                            Number of Unit-Years
                             NOx Rate (lb/mmBtu)
                            Number of Unit-Years
Overfire Air
                                                                          0.384
                                                                            476
                                                                          0.294
                                                                            603
                                                                          0.221
                                                                             30
Low NOx Burner Technology (Dry Bottom only)
                                                                          0.351
                                                                          1,062
                                                                          0.270
                                                                          1,126
                                                                          0.209
                                                                             46
Low NOx Burner Technology w/ Overfire Air
                                                                          0.306
                                                                            464
                                                                          0.228
                                                                            672
                                                                          0.202
                                                                             41
Low NOx Burner Technology w/ Closed-coupled OFA
                                                                          0.266
                                                                            341
                                                                          0.223
                                                                            326
                                                                          0.187
                                                                             20
Low NOx Burner Technology w/ Separated OFA
                                                                          0.222
                                                                            451
                                                                          0.191
                                                                            584
                                                                          0.159
                                                                             33
Low NOx Burner Technology w/ Closed-coupled/Separated OFA
                                                                          0.207
                                                                            460
                                                                          0.169
                                                                            773
                                                                          0.147
                                                                             59
* Source: Air Markets Program Data (AMPD), ampd.epa.gov, EPA, 2020

Current combustion control technology reduces NOX formation through a suite of technologies.  Whereas earlier generations of combustion controls focused primarily on either Low NOx Burners (LNB) or Overfire Air (OFA), modern controls employ both, and sometimes include a second, separated overfire air system.  Further advancements in fine-tuning the burners and overfire air system(s) as a complete assembly have enabled suppliers to obtain better results than tuning individual components.  For this regulation, the agency evaluated EGU NOX reduction potential based on upgrading units to modern combustion controls.  Combustion control upgrade paths are shown in Table 3-11 of the IPM version 6 documentation (see Chapters 3 and 5 of the IPM documentation for additional information, and Table 2 below).  The fully upgraded configuration for units with wall-fired boilers is LNB with OFA.  For units with tangential-fired boilers, the fully upgraded configuration is LNC3 (Low NOx burners with Close-Coupled and Separated Overfire Air).  For each unit, EPA's understanding of the current NOx control configuration can be found in the "NOx Comb Control" column of the National Electric Energy Data System v6 (NEEDS) database file.  EPA identified whether a unit has combustion control upgrade potential by comparing the Mode 1 NOx Rate (lbs/mmBtu) with the Mode 3 NOx Rate (lbs/mmBtu) within NEEDS.  If the Mode 3 value is lower than the Mode 1 value, than the unit's combustion control configuration does not match the state-of-the-art configuration outlined in Table 2. For these units, EPA assumed a combustion control upgrade is possible based on the technology configurations identified in the NOx post combustion control column.
With the wide range of LNB configurations and furnace types present in the fleet, the EPA decided to assess compliance costs based on an illustrative unit.  The agency selected this illustrative unit because its attributes (e.g., size, input NOX emission rate) are representative of the EGU fleet, and, thus, the cost estimates are also representative of the EGU fleet.  The EPA estimated costs for various combustion control paths. The cost estimates utilized the equations found in Table 5-4 "Cost (2011$) of NOX Combustion Controls for Coal Boilers (300 MW Size)" from Chapter 5 of the IPM 5.13 documentation.  For these paths, EPA found that the cost ranges from $420 to $1140 per ton NOX removed ($2011).  EPA examined slightly lower capacity factors (i.e., 70%) and found the costs increased from $510 to $1,370 per ton.   At lower capacity factors (i.e., 47.6%), costs increased to a max of $1,970 per ton for one type of installation.  Examining the estimates for all the simulations, the agency finds that the costs of combustion control upgrades for units operating in a baseload fashion are typically comparable to the costs for returning a unit with an inactive SCR to full operation (i.e., $1,600/ton). Consequently, EPA identifies $1,600/ton as the cost level where upgrades of combustion controls would be widely available and cost-effective.
NOx Emission Rate Estimates for LNB upgrade
EPA first identified the current boiler type of a given unit, and then applied the information shown below in Table 2 regarding state-of-the-art configurations compared to a unit's reported combustion control figuration to determine whether the unit had combustion control upgrade potential.  If so, then EPA assumed the combustion control upgrade configuration would yield an emission rate of 0.1549 lb/mmBtu for dry-bottom wall fired boilers that were upgrading their combustion controls.  EPA assumed a rate of 0.1390 lb/mmBtu for tangentially-fired coal boilers that were upgrading their controls.  These estimates were derived from an assessment of historical data where EPA reviewed similar boiler configurations with fully upgraded combustion controls and their resulting emission rates.  Specifically, EPA examined two types of coal steam units  -  dry bottom wall-fired boilers and tangentially fired boilers  -  with state-of-the-art combustion controls (SOA CC). EPA estimated the average 2016 ozone season NOx emission rates for all such units by firing type. For dry bottom wall-fired coal boilers with "Low NOx Burner" and "Overfire", there were 148 units averaging 0.1549 lb/mmBtu. For tangentially-fired coal boilers with "Low NOx Burner" and "Closed-coupled/Separated OFA", there were 105 units averaging 0.1390 lb/mmBtu.
Table 2: State-of-the-Art Combustion Control Configurations by Boiler Type

Note: Low LNB =NOx Burner Technology, LNC1=Low NOx coal-and-air nozzles with close-coupled overfire air, LNC2= Low NOx Coal-and-Air Nozzles with Separated Overfire Air, LNC3 = Low NOx Coal-and-Air Nozzles with Close-Coupled and Separated Overfire Air, OFA = Overfire Air
Cost and Emission Rate Performance Estimates for Retrofitting with SNCR and Related Costs
SNCR technology is an alternative method of NOX emission control that incurs a lower capital cost compared with an SCR, albeit at the expense of greater operating costs and less NOX emission reduction.  Some units with anticipated shorter operational lives or with low utilization may benefit from this control technology. The higher cost per ton of NOX removed reflects this technology's lower removal efficiency which necessitates greater reagent consumption, thereby escalating VOM costs.  The agency examined the costs of retrofitting a unit with SNCR technology using the Retrofit Cost Analyzer.  The agency conservatively set the NOX emission reduction rate at 25%  -  the same assumption used in the CSAPR Update Rule and in EPA's power sector modeling. For the unit examined above (500 MW, 0.2 lbs NOX/mmBtu) with a 47.6% capacity factor, the cost is $6,680/ton of NOX removed.  When the capacity factor is 27.3%, the costs increase to $9,000/ton.  At higher capacity factors (e.g., 70% and 85%), the costs decrease, going to $5,680 and $5,310/ton, respectively.
Next, EPA examined the remaining coal-fired fleet that lack SNCR or other NOx post-combustion control to estimate a median cost of SNCR installation (on a $/ton basis).  Costs were estimated for units that had a minimum input NOx rate of at least 0.2 lb/mmBtu and an assumed NOx removal rate of 25%, assumed to use bituminous coal, assumed annual operation of the control, and an assumed capacity factor of 59.3% (the fleet-wide coal capacity factor from the January 2020 IPM reference case).  In this instance, the median value is $5,800/ton.
Cost and Emission Rate Performance Estimates for Retrofitting with SCR and Related Costs
For coal-fired units, an SCR retrofit is the state-of-the-art technology used to achieve the greatest reductions in NOX emissions.  The agency examined the cost for newly retrofitting a unit with SCR technology.  EPA conservatively assumed 0.07 lb/mmBtu emission rate performance for a new state-of-the-art SCR retrofit. The same assumption used in the CSAPR Update Rule and in EPA's power sector modeling along with the Retrofit Cost Analyzer. Historically, reported unit-level emission rate data further supports this assumption, as many of the recently installed SCRs achieve this emission rate or lower on a yearly basis.
First, to better understand the effect of input NOX rate on costs, using the Retrofit Cost Analyzer equations, the EPA performed a bounding analysis to identify reasonable high and low per-ton NOX control costs for adding SCR post-combustion controls across a range of potential uncontrolled NOX rates.  For a hypothetical unit 500 MW in size with a relatively low uncontrolled NOX rate (e.g., 0.2 lb NOX/mmBtu, 60% removal efficiency, 47.6% capacity factor, and 10,000 Btu/kWh heat rate), the capital cost was about $143,000,000.  For a similar unit with an input NOx rate of 0.4 lb/mmBtu and 80% NOx removal efficiency, the total capital cost was $152,000,000.  The cost on a per-ton basis varies with the assumptions concerning the operation of the unit and the book life of the loan (or lifetime of the equipment).  Assuming an annual capital recovery factor of 0.143, NOx rate of 0.2 lb/mmBtu and removal efficiency of 60% and annual operation, the cost per ton was $18,210/ton ($16,373/ton for the capital cost, $290/ton for the FOM cost, and $1,546/ton for the VOM cost).  For the unit with the NOx rate of 0.4 and removal efficiency of 80%, the costs were $7,562/ton ($6,515/ton for the capital cost, $115/ton for the FOM cost, and $932/ton for the VOM cost).
In CSAPR Update, using a higher capacity factor assumption, EPA used the Retrofit Cost Analyzer to examine the costs of SCR retrofit for an illustrative unit, a 500 MW unit operating at an 85% capacity factor with an uncontrolled rate of 0.35 lb NOX / mmBtu, retrofitted with an SCR to a lower emission rate of 0.07 lb NOX / mmBtu, results in a compliance cost of $5,000 / ton of NOX removed. For this illustrative unit, as annual capacity factor increased, costs per ton decreased (because the capital cost is constant, but the number of tons of emissions decreases).
For this proposal, EPA examined the remaining coal-fired fleet that lack SCR to estimate a median cost of SCR installation (on a $/ton basis).  Costs were estimated for units that had uncontrolled NOx rates of at least 0.2 lb/mmBtu prior to installation of the post-combustion control and decreasing to rates of 0.07 lb/mmBtu following control installation and were assumed to use bituminous coal.   Furthermore, we assumed annual operation of the control and assumed a capacity factor of 59.3% (the capacity factor for coal units from the January 2020 IPM v.6 reference case).  In this instance, we get a median value of $9,600/ton and a 90[th] percentile value of $13,700/ton. For a typical baseload coal capacity factor of 80%, the 90[th] percentile is less than the $9,600/ton value.[2]
Feasibility Assessment: Implementation Timing for Each EGU NOX Control Strategy
The agency evaluated the implementation time required for each compliance option to assess the feasibility of achieving reductions during the 2021 ozone season.
EPA evaluated the feasibility of turning on idled SCRs for the 2021 ozone season.  The EGU sector is very familiar with restarting SCR systems. Based on past practice and the possible effort to restart the controls (e.g., re-stocking reagent, bringing the system out of protective lay-up, performing inspections), returning these idled controls to operation is possible within the compliance timeframe of this rule. This timeframe is informed by many electric utilities' previous, long-standing practice of utilizing SCRs to reduce EGU NOX emissions during the ozone season while putting the systems into protective lay-up during non-ozone season months when the EGUs did not have NOX emission limits that warranted operation of these controls. For example, this was the long-standing practice of many EGUs that used SCR systems for compliance with the NOX Budget Trading Program. Based on the seasonality of EGU NOX emission limits, it was typical for EGUs to turn off their SCRs following the September 30 end of the ozone season control period. They would then lay-up the pollution control for seven months of non-use. By May 1 of the following ozone season, the control would be returned to operation. In the 22 state CSAPR Update region, 2005 EGU NOX emission data suggest that 112 EGUs operated SCR systems in the summer ozone season, likely for compliance with the NOX Budget Trading program, while idling these controls for the remaining seven non-ozone season months of the year. In order to comply with the seasonal NOX limits, these SCR controls regularly were taken out of and put back into service within seven months. Therefore, EPA believes this SCR optimization mitigation strategy is available for the 2021 ozone season.
EPA assessed the number of coal-fired units with SCR that are currently operating with ozone-season emission rates greater than or equal to 0.2 lb/mmBtu suggesting that their units may not be operating their NOx post-combustion control equipment.  EPA finds that only 14 units in the contiguous United States (of which eight  are in states that are "linked" at or above 1% in this Revised CSAPR Update Rule) fit this criterion.  EPA's assumptions that this mitigation technology is available for the 2021 ozone-season is further bolstered given that the previous rulemaking (i.e., CSAPR Update) identified turning on and operating existing SCR as a cost-effective control technology, many sources successfully implemented that technology requirement, and it appears that only a low number of units in the region may have turned off these controls.
Full operation of existing SCRs that are already operating to some extent involves increasing reagent (i.e., ammonia or urea) flow rate, and maintaining and replacing catalyst to sustain higher NOX removal rate operations. As with restarting idled SCR systems, EGU data demonstrate that operators have the capability to fully idle SCR systems during winter months and return these units to operation in the summer to comply with ozone season NOX limits.[21] The EPA believes that this widely demonstrated behavior also supports our finding that fully operating existing SCR systems currently being operated, which would necessitate fewer changes to SCR operation relative to restarting idled systems, is also feasible for the 2021 ozone season. Increasing NOX removal by SCR controls that are already operating can be implemented by procuring more reagent and catalyst. EGUs with SCR routinely procure reagent and catalyst as part of ongoing operation and maintenance of the SCR system. In many cases, where the EPA has identified EGUs that are operating their SCR at non-optimized NOX removal efficiencies, EGU data indicate that these units historically have achieved more efficient NOX removal rates. Therefore, the EPA finds that optimizing existing and SCR systems currently being operated could generally be done by reverting to previous operation and maintenance plans. Regarding full operation activities, existing SCRs that are only operating at partial capacity still provide functioning, maintained systems that may only require increased chemical reagent feed rate up to their design potential and catalyst maintenance for mitigating NOX emissions.  Units must have adequate inventory of chemical reagent and catalyst deliveries to sustain operations.  Considering that units have procurement programs in place for operating SCR, this may only require updating the frequency of deliveries.  This may be accomplished within a few weeks. The vast majority of existing units with SCRs covered in this action fall into this category.
Combustion controls, such as LNB and/or OFA, represent mature technologies requiring a short installation time  -  typically, four weeks to install along with a scheduled outage (with order placement, fabrication, and delivery occurring beforehand and taking a few months).  Construction time for installing combustion controls was examined by the EPA during the original CSAPR development and is discussed in the TSD for that rulemaking entitled, "Installation Timing for Low NOX Burners (LNB)", Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-0051.  Industry has demonstrated retrofitting LNB technology controls on a large unit (800 MW) in under six months.  This TSD is in the docket for the CSAPR Update and for this rulemaking. EPA is providing until 2022 to implement these controls as the limited time available between the estimated signature date of this rule and start of the 2021 ozone season would not be sufficient to install LNBs on a regional level.
This rule does not consider retrofitting SCR or SNCR technology as a viable compliance option in the 2021 compliance timeframe.  The time requirements for a single boiler SCR retrofit exceed 18 months from contract award through commissioning (not including permitting).  SNCR is similar to activated carbon injection (ACI) and dry sorbent injection (DSI) installation and requires about 12 months from award through commissioning (not including permitting) at a single boiler.  Conceptual design, permitting, financing, and bid review require additional time.  A detailed analysis for a single SCR system can be found in Exhibit A-3 and an ACI system (equivalent timeline to a SNCR) in Exhibit A-5 in: "Final Report: Engineering and Economic Factors Affecting the Installation of Control Technologies for Multipollutant Strategies" located in the Docket for this Rulemaking.  On a regional scale, the estimate for installing SCR at multiple boilers on multiple plants is in excess of 39 months.  EPA assumes these technologies would not be available at regional scale prior to the start of the of the 2025 ozone season. See preamble section VII.C for more discussion on post combustion control retrofit timing.
This proposed rule, like prior interstate transport rules, takes into account the potential for shifting generation among electric power producers, depending on the price-signal of the allowances in a trading program. Shifting generation to lower NOX-emitting or zero-emitting EGUs occurs in response to economic factors, including the costs of pollution control.  As the cost of emitting NOX increases, combined with all other costs of generation, it becomes increasingly cost-effective for units with lower NOX rates to increase generation, while units with higher NOX rates reduce generation.  Because the cost of generation is unit-specific, this generation shifting occurs incrementally on a continuum.  Consequently, there is more generation shifting at higher cost NOX levels.  Because we have identified discrete cost thresholds resulting from the full operation of particular types of emission controls, it is reasonable to simultaneously quantify the reduction potential from generation shifting strategy associated with operating controls at each cost level.  Including these reductions is important, ensuring that  cost-effective full operation of controls can be expected to occur.
As described in the preamble, EPA modeled generation shifting to units with lower NOX emission rates only within the same state as a proxy for estimating the amount of generation that could be shifted in the near-term (i.e., 2021).  We further assume that such generation shifting only occurs within and among generators that are already in operation and connected to the grid in EPA's baseline. Under these circumstances, shifting generation to lower NOX- or zero-emitting EGUs, similar to operating existing post-combustion controls, uses investments that have already been made, and can significantly reduce EGU NOX emissions relatively quickly. For example, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) facilities can achieve NOX emission rates of 0.0095 lb/mmBtu, compared to existing coal steam facilities, which emitted at an average rate of 0.12 lb/mmBtu of NOX across the 22 states included in the CSAPR Update in 2019. Similarly, generation could shift from uncontrolled coal units to SCR-controlled or SNCR controlled coal units.  Shifting generation to lower NOX-emitting EGUs would be a cost-effective, timely, and readily available approach for EGUs to reduce NOX emissions, and EPA analyzed EGU NOX reduction potential from this control strategy for the CSAPR Update.  EPA considers that the amount of generation shifting modeled to occur within each particular linked state in response to the selected control strategy represented by $1600/ton reflects the generation shifting that can occur in the 2021 ozone season and is thus incorporated into the emission budgets. Table 3 and Table 4 below illustrate the low amount of generation assumed in EPA's analysis relative to historical levels.
Table 3: Regional Coal and Gas Summer Generation Changes Base to Cost Threshold Case (2021, GWh)
Region
Coal Adj. Base Case
Coal ($1600/ton)
Coal Change
Coal Percent Change
Combined Cycle Adj. Base Case
Combined Cycle ($1600/ton)
Combined Cycle Change
Combined Cycle Percent Change
MISO
                                                                        104,670
                                                                        101,791
                                                                         -2,879
                                                                          -2.8%
                                                                         82,672
                                                                         85,044
                                                                          2,372
                                                                           2.9%
NY
                                                                              7
                                                                              7
                                                                              0
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                         29,193
                                                                         29,205
                                                                             12
                                                                          0.04%
PJM
                                                                         72,435
                                                                         71,393
                                                                         -1,041
                                                                          -1.4%
                                                                        138,672
                                                                        140,267
                                                                          1,595
                                                                           1.2%
SERC
                                                                         62,963
                                                                         62,797
                                                                           -166
                                                                          -0.3%
                                                                        120,689
                                                                        120,779
                                                                             90
                                                                           0.1%

Table 4: Historical Rate of Generation Change for Coal and Combined Cycle Units

                             Coal Generation (GWh)
                        Combined Cycle Generation (GWh)

                                     2016
                                     2017
                                     2018
                                     2019
                             Average annual change
                                     2016
                                     2017
                                     2018
                                     2019
                             Average annual change
Total for 12 linked states
                                                                        235,218
                                                                        211,145
                                                                        206,053
                                                                        167,880
                                                                         10.39%
                                                                        132,404
                                                                        131,081
                                                                        149,124
                                                                        179,518
                                                                        -11.05%

Additional Mitigation Technologies Assessed but Not Proposed in this Action
Mitigation Strategies at Small Units that Operate on High Electricity Demand Days (HEDD).
In previous rules, stakeholders have commented that emissions on the days that are conducive to ozone matter the most for attainment of the NAAQS.  The seasonal trading programs have been highly effective, ensuring that the large units install and operate efficient post-combustion controls.  However, the days that are conducive to ozone in the summer tend to have high temperatures, and as a result, are associated with substantial additional electricity demand from air conditioning (among other reasons).  To meet this incremental demand, particularly in some areas where there are noted transmission constraints, small units that have relatively high emission rates initiate operation.  These units are often simple cycle combustion turbines or oil-fired boilers.  They are usually small and only operate a few hours out of the summer.  The generation they provide is likely critical to ensuring grid stability during these high-demand times.  Having sufficient generation available to meet demand is essential for health and safety.  At the same time, emissions from these sources can help cause or exacerbate exceedances of the NAAQS.
In the 12 states affected by the CSAPR Update Revision, EPA identified a total of 1,096 units that operated during the 2019 ozone season. Of these, 102 units exhibited capacity factors that fell below 10% for the period. The majority of these units (94 out of 102) were combustion turbine units -- 29 of which were fueled by oil and 65 were fueled by natural gas. While the 102 identified units, called "peaker units" here, operated in relatively few hours during the 2019 ozone season, an average of 13% of gross generation from these units occurred in higher energy demand hours, which we define as the top 1% of hours with the highest regional electric load. For 18 of these units, electricity production in higher energy demand hours accounted for at least 20% of their total generation for the 2019 ozone season.
With their relatively high emission rates, relatively small seasonal capacity factors, and tendency to operate on HEDD, the emissions could have substantial emissions and air quality impacts on high ozone days.  An assessment of emissions intensities for the units relative to the state and regional average emission rate indicates that the emission rates of these units can be up to 118 times their respective state averages. In the 12-state region, 50 units across 17 facilities had emission intensity values substantially higher than the state average. Dividing the unit-level 2019 ozone season NOx rate by the average 2019 ozone season NOx rate for the state, indicated that the emission rates for these units were at least 20 times that of their respective state averages for the 2019 ozone season.
In a separate analysis, EPA identified six states located in the northeastern US in which significant air quality problems may persist on HEDD -- Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Delaware, Connecticut, and Maryland. For a better understanding of the emissions impact of combustion turbine unit operations, we compared the peak hour generation and emissions activities of natural gas and oil units located in these states on sample HEDD and low energy demand days (LEDD). The sample days were chosen from a selection of 15 days in the 2019 ozone season with the highest and lowest cumulative daily gross load for all EGUs in CAMD in the six states. The exemplary HEDD and LEDD days and peak hours used in the analysis are July 30, 16:00, and May 18, 18:00, respectively.
When comparing gross generation between the two days, we observe that combustion turbine natural gas and oil units generate more in days and hours of higher energy demand. On the exemplary LEDD, combustion turbine natural gas and oil units in the six northeastern states provided a total of 3,953 MWh of electricity over the course of the day -- 673 MWh of which was produced in the peak hour (Figure 3), contributing to 539 lbs, or 9% of the total peak hour NOx emissions in the six states (Figure 4). Comparatively, on the HEDD, gross generation from combustion turbine units amounted to 28,263 MWh over the course of the day. Generation in the peak hour reached 2,207 MWh (Figure 3), and contributed to 4,881 lbs, or 19% of total peak hour NOx emissions (Figure 5).
For the example HEDD day, the largest shares of peak hour NOx emissions from combustion cycle units originate in New York and Pennsylvania (Figure 5). A unit-level assessment of peakers in New York state indicates that while these units are highly emissions-intensive, they provide relatively minimal generation in peak hours. Specifically, combustion cycle natural gas and oil units in New York contribute to 1,359 lbs, or 19%, of the state's total peak hour NOx emissions on the sample HEDD, while only providing 1,186 MWh, or 8%, of generation. On this sample HEDD, the Glenwood and Holtsville facilities, in particular, account for 4% of total peak hour oil generation in New York but contribute to 31% of the total peak hour NOx emissions from oil units (Figure 6). With peak hour NOx rates of 0.44 lb/mmBtu and 0.58 lb/mmBtu, respectively, the Glenwood and Holtsville facilities are relatively emissions intensive; however, these units only dispatch in hours and days with higher energy demand. In 2019, Glenwood operated a total of 31 hours, 19 of which fell in the ozone season, while Holtsville ran a total of 403 hours. Of these, 222 hours fell in the ozone season.
Increasingly, states have focused on regulation of these sources, tightening emissions standards for them (see NJ regs and NY regs). For example, in January of 2020 the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY-DEC) adopted a rule to limit emissions from combustion turbines that operate as peaking units. New York's adopted Subpart 227-3, entitled "Ozone Season NOx Emission Limits for Simple Cycle and Regenerative Combustion Turbines." The regulation applies to simple cycle combustion turbines (SCCTs) with a nameplate capacity of 15 MW or greater that supply electricity to the grid.  The regulation contains two compliance dates with increasingly stringent NOx limits, as follows: by May 1, 2023, all SCCTs subject to the rule must meet a NOx emission limit of 100 ppmvd, and; by May 1, 2025, gas-fired SCCTs must meet a NOx emission limit of 25 ppmvd, and distillate or other liquid-fueled units must a limit of 42 ppmvd.  In lieu of meeting these limits directly, New York's rule offers two alternative compliance options.  The first compliance option allows owners and operators to elect an operating permit condition that would prohibit the source from operating during the ozone season.  The second option allows owners and operators to adhere to an output-based NOx daily emission rate that includes electric storage and renewable energy under common control with the SCCTs with which they would be allowed to average.
      The EPA previously promulgated NOx emission standards for combustion turbines, which are found in New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) located at 40 CFR Part 60, Subparts GG and KKKK. Subpart GG covers turbine engines that commenced constructed after October 3, 1977 and before February 18, 2005. Subpart KKKK covers both the combustion turbine engine and any associated heat recovery steam generator for units that commenced construction after February 18, 2005. SO2 emission limits are also contained within these requirements.  Several states within the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) have adopted NOx emission limits for combustion turbines.

Figure 3.  Hourly gross generation by combustion turbine natural gas and oil units in the six northeastern states on an exemplary LEDD and HEDD

Figure 4.  Percentage share of peak hour NOx emissions by unit type across region and states on an exemplary LEDD
Figure 5.  Percentage share of peak hour NOx emissions by unit type across region and states on an exemplary HEDD (Source: Air Markets Program Data (AMPD), ampd.epa.gov, EPA, 2020)
Figure 6.  Peak hour generation and emissions on HEDD by oil units in NY as a percentage (Source: Air Markets Program Data (AMPD), ampd.epa.gov, EPA, 2020)
Mitigation Strategies at Small Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Units
EPA is also inviting comment on whether other EGUs not covered by the existing CSAPR programs should be considered.  Stakeholders have pointed out that grid-connected Municipal Solid Waste combustors (MSW) are often located near problematic receptors and have high emission rates.  Due to their small size (less than 25 MW) and non-electric load driven operation decisions, EPA has not typically considered these units to be viable sources for cost-effective reductions under the CSAPR framework and therefore excluded them from its regional programs. However, EPA does include their emissions estimates in its EGU inventory and invites comment in the preamble on their relevance and emission reduction potential in an interstate transport rulemaking context going forward.
      As additional background, data from EPA's 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database reports NOx emissions of 15,758 tons from MWCs in the eleven states that EPA's modeling indicates significantly contribute to ozone levels in the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area.  EPA regulates emissions of nine pollutants, including NOx, under Section 111 of the CAA for four types of solid waste incineration units, including MSWs.  These requirements are contained within new source performance standards (NSPS) and emission guidelines promulgated by states pursuant to requirements codified within 40 CFR Part 60.  Additionally, some states have adopted more restrictive NOx emission limits, primarily through requirements adopted to meet reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements.  Information assembled by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) indicates that SNCR is a common control equipment choice for MSW units, as all 9 of the OTC states with MSW units contain at least one facility that controls NOx emissions using that technology.  Connecticut and New Jersey have adopted the following NOx emission limits, which are among the most restrictive NOx emission limits for MSWs adopted via state requirements: Connecticut has adopted a NOx emission limit of 150 ppm for mass burn waterwall units, and a limit of 146 ppm for processed-municipal solid waste combustors, and New Jersey has adopted a NOx emission limit of 150 ppm applicable to MSW units of any size.  Table 3 below illustrates the projected share of state-level ozone-season NOx EGU emissions expected to come from MSW units in 2023.
           Table 5: IPM Projected 2023 OS NOx Emissions (1000 tons)

MSW
All EGU Sources
MSW Share of Emissions
MSW Emission Rate (lb/mmBtu)
California
                                     0.26
                                     2.37
                                      11%
                                     0.18
Connecticut
                                     1.46
                                     1.94
                                      76%
                                     0.34
Florida
                                     5.05
                                     17.14
                                      29%
                                     0.43
Indiana
                                     0.01
                                     17.82
                                      0%
                                     0.39
Maine
                                     0.47
                                     1.05
                                      44%
                                     0.40
Maryland
                                     1.51
                                     2.83
                                      53%
                                     0.54
Massachusetts
                                     1.76
                                     2.54
                                      69%
                                     0.26
Michigan
                                     0.27
                                     13.96
                                      2%
                                     0.30
Minnesota
                                     0.64
                                     7.97
                                      8%
                                     0.38
New Hampshire
                                     0.12
                                     0.30
                                      42%
                                     0.32
New Jersey
                                     0.95
                                     2.55
                                      37%
                                     0.22
New York
                                     3.43
                                     7.29
                                      47%
                                     0.49
Oregon
                                     0.18
                                     0.69
                                      25%
                                     0.50
Pennsylvania
                                     2.45
                                     13.61
                                      18%
                                     0.40
Virginia
                                     1.01
                                     4.31
                                      24%
                                     0.29
Washington
                                     0.22
                                     0.51
                                      44%
                                     0.38
Appendix A:  Historical Anhydrous Ammonia and Urea Costs and their Associated Cost per NOX ton Removed in a SCR

Minimum Cost to Operate

Anhydrous NH3 & Urea costs ($/ton) [from USDA]

                                     year
NH3 (anh)
Cost  / ton NOx

Urea cost
Cost  / ton NOx
                                     2009
                                     $ 562
                                     $ 320

                                     $ 425
                                     $ 425
                                     2010
                                     $ 548
                                     $ 312

                                     $ 424
                                     $ 424
                                     2011
                                     $ 801
                                     $ 457

                                     $ 543
                                     $ 543
                                     2012
                                     $ 808
                                     $ 461

                                     $ 746
                                     $ 746
                                     2013
                                     $ 866
                                     $ 494

                                     $ 508
                                     $ 508
                                     2014
                                     $ 739
                                     $ 421

                                     $ 533
                                     $ 533
                                     2015
                                     $ 729
                                     $ 416

                                     $ 472
                                     $ 472
                                     2016
                                     $ 588
                                     $ 335

                                     $ 354
                                     $ 354
                                     2017
                                     $ 501
                                     $ 286

                                     $ 328
                                     $ 328
                                     2018
                                     $ 517
                                     $ 295

                                     $ 357
                                     $ 357
                                     2019
                                     $ 612
                                     $ 349

                                     $ 433
                                     $ 433
                                     2020
                                     $ 499
                                     $ 284

                                     $ 375
                                     $ 375
Average price from the first reporting period in July of each year.
Source: Illinois Production Cost Report (GX_GR210)USDA-IIL, Dept of Ag Market News Service, Springfield, IL
www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/gx_gr210.txt
www.ams.usda.gov/LPSMarketNewsPage


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40727-40728]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17354]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0332; FRL-8879-6]

Methyl Parathion; Rescission of Previously Issued Cancellation
Orders and Issuance of Revised Cancellation Orders for Certain
Pesticide Registrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's rescission of two previously
issued cancellation orders, and the issuance of a revised cancellation
order, pursuant to a voluntary request by the registrant and accepted
by the Agency, of products containing methyl parathion, pursuant to
section 6(f)(1) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA), as amended. Specifically, this notice rescinds two
previously issued Cancellation Orders, a February 25, 2011 Federal
Register Notice and a March 23, 2011 Federal Register Notice to the
extent they are applicable to methyl parathion products because the
orders did not correctly reflect the terms and conditions of the
registrant's 6(f)(1) voluntary cancellation request with respect to the
effective date as well as conditions governing the disposition of
existing stocks for the affected methyl parathion products. This
revised order correctly identifies the effective date of cancellation
for the affected product registrations as well as the corrected dates
associated with the disposition of existing stocks. These are the last
products containing methyl parathion registered for use in the United
States. The rescission and revised order only applies to methyl
parathion registrations. All other product registrations for all other
chemicals that were included in the above mentioned cancellation orders
and are not rescinded or otherwise affected by this action.

DATES: The methyl parathion cancellations are effective December 31,
2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kelly Ballard, Pesticide Re-evaluation
Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0332. Publicly available
docket materials are available either in the electronic docket at
http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard copy, at the
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-
4400, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington,
VA. The hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
Facility telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is rescinding two previously issued Cancellation Orders, a
February 25, 2011 Federal Register Notice (76 FR 10587) (FRL-8663-4)
and a March 23, 2011 Federal Register Notice (76 FR 16419) (FRL-8667-8)
to the extent they are applicable to methyl parathion products because
the orders did not correctly reflect the terms and conditions of the
registrant's 6(f)(1)

voluntary cancellation request with respect to the effective date as
well as conditions governing the disposition of existing stocks for the
affected methyl parathion products. EPA is also hereby issuing a
corrected order identifying the correct effective date of cancellation
for the affected product registrations as well as the corrected dates
associated with the disposition of existing stocks.
    The cancellation orders for methyl parathion products, issued in
the Federal Register on February 25, 2011 and March 23, 2011 are
rescinded. The rescission only applies to methyl parathion
registrations. The above mentioned cancellation orders remain in full
force and effect with respect to all other product registrations and
chemicals contained in those cancellation orders. This notice also
announces the issuance of a cancellation order, as requested by a
registrant, of methyl parathion products registered under section 24(c)
Special Local Needs (SLN). The affected registrations are listed in
sequence by registration number in Table 1 of this unit.

                                 Table 1--Methyl Parathion Product Cancellations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          EPA registration No.                                         Product name
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL000001...............................  PENNCAP-M Microencapsulated Insecticide.
AR000006...............................  PENNCAP-M Microencapsulated Insecticide.
CA000001...............................  PENNCAP-M Microencapsulated Insecticide.
LA040013...............................  PENNCAP-M Microencapsulated Insecticide.
LA090005...............................  PENNCAP-M Microencapsulated Insecticide.
MS000009...............................  PENNCAP-M Microencapsulated Insecticide.
TX990012...............................  PENNCAP-M Microencapsulated Insecticide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 of this unit includes the names and addresses of record for
all registrants of the products in Table 1 of this unit, in sequence by
EPA company number. This number corresponds to the first part of the
EPA registration numbers of the products listed above.

                Table 2--Registrant of Cancelled Products
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              EPA company No.                 Company name and address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70506.....................................  United Phosphorus, Inc., 630
                                             Freedom Business Center,
                                             Suite 402, King of Prussia,
                                             PA 19406.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Cancellation Order

    Pursuant to FIFRA section 6(f), EPA hereby approves the
cancellations of methyl parathion registrations identified in Table 1
of Unit II, as originally requested by the registrant. Accordingly, the
Agency hereby orders that the product registrations identified in Table
1 of Unit II are canceled. The effective date of the methyl parathion
cancellations that are subject of this cancellation order is December
31, 2012. Any distribution, sale, or use of existing stocks of the
products identified in Table 1 of Unit II in a manner inconsistent with
any of the provisions for disposition of existing stocks set forth in
Unit V will be a violation of FIFRA.

IV. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    Section 6(f)(1) of FIFRA provides that a registrant of a pesticide
product may at any time request that any of its pesticide registrations
be canceled or amended to terminate one or more uses. FIFRA further
provides that, before acting on the request, EPA must publish a notice
of receipt of any such request in the Federal Register. Thereafter,
following the public comment period, the EPA Administrator may approve
such a request. The notices of receipts for this action were published
for comment on September 22, 2010 (75 FR 57787) (FRL-8846-2) and
January 26, 2011 (76 FR 4692) (FRL-8856-9). The comment periods closed
on October 22, 2010 and February 25, 2011, respectively. No comments
were received from either notice. However, EPA mistakenly issued a
cancellation order with respect to the product listed in Table 1 that
was inconsistent with the terms and conditions of the registrant's
request. EPA is therefore rescinding its earlier cancellation order
with respect to these methyl parathion products and issuing a corrected
cancellation order.

V. Provisions for Disposition of Existing Stocks

    Existing stocks are those stocks of registered pesticide products
which are currently in the United States and which were packaged,
labeled, and released for shipment prior to the effective date of the
action. The existing stocks provision for the products subject to this
order is as follows.
    Registrants are prohibited from selling and distributing end-use
products as of December 31, 2012. Persons other than the registrants
are prohibited from selling or distributing end-use products as of
August 31, 2013. All sales and distributions of end-use products shall
be prohibited as of August 31, 2013, except for exports consistent with
section 17 of FIFRA or for proper disposal. Additionally, all use of
existing stocks of the end-use products shall be prohibited as of
December 31, 2013.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 30, 2011.
Richard P. Keigwin, Jr.,
Director, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-17354 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 212)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 62110-62111]
[DOCID:fr02no07-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2005-22493; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-021]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Philipsburg, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule, request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E Airspace at Philipsburg, PA, to
provide adequate airspace for a new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global
Positioning System (GPS) Special Instrument Approach Procedure (IAP)
that has been developed to serve the Philipsburg Area Hospital,
Philipsburg, PA.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, December 20, 2007. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before December 5, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this rule to Docket Management Facility,
U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey, SE., West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: 1-
800-647-5527; Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-
2005-22493; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-021, at the beginning of your
comments.
    You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
 You may review the public docket containing the

rule, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the
Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number)
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
Holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal
Aviation Administration, Room C210, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park,
Georgia 30337.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daryl Daniels, System Support
Specialist, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Direct Final Rule Procedure

    The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comments, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment or a written notice of
intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the
comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date
specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will
publish a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the effective date.
If the FAA receives, within the comment period, an adverse or negative
comment, or written notice of intent to submit such a comment, a
document withdrawing the direct final rule will be published in the
Federal Register, and a notice of proposed rulemaking may be published
with a new comment period.

Comments Invited

    Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify both
docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified
under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on or before
the closing date for comments will be considered, and this rule may be
amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
    Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. Factual information that supports
the commenter's ideas and suggestions is extremely helpful in
evaluating the effectiveness of this action and determining whether
additional rulemaking action would be needed. All comments submitted
will be available, both before and after the closing date for comments,
in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. Those
wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in
response to this rule must submit a self-addressed, stamped postcard on
which the following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-
2005-22493; Airspace Docket No. 05-AEA-021.'' The postcard will be date
stamped and returned to the commenter.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 amends Class E airspace at Philipsburg, PA establishing the
required controlled airspace to supply the newly developed Copter RNAV
(GSP) 238 Point in Space (PinS) approach at the Philipsburg Area
Hospital. Controlled airspace extending upward from 700 feet Above
Ground Level (AGL) is required to contain the IAP and for Instrument
Flight Rule (IFR) operations to the extent practical, therefore, the
FAA is amending Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71
to establish additional Class E5 Airspace at Philipsburg, PA. The
controlled airspace at Philipsburg is not adequate to support this new
approach. This action provides the required controlled airspace.
Designations for Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700 feet
or more above the surface of the Earth are published in FAA Order
7400.9R, signed August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, which is
incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E designations
listed in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

Agency Findings

    The regulations adopted herein will not have a substantial direct
effect 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. Therefore, it
is determined that this final rule does not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a

routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes controlled airspace at Philipsburg Area Hospital,
Philipsburg, PA.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9R, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 15, 2007 effective September 15, 2007, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Philipsburg, PA [AMENDED]

Mid-State Airport, Philipsburg, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]53'04'' N., long. 78[deg]05'14'' W.)
Philipsburg VORTAC
    (Lat. 40[deg]54'59'' N., long. 77[deg]59'34'' W.)
Philipsburg Area Hospital [ADDED]
Point in Space Coordinates
    (Lat. 40[deg]55'06'' N., long. 78[deg]12'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.6-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise
from a 261[deg] bearing to a 012[deg] bearing from the airport and
within a 7.4-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise
from a 012[deg] bearing to 098[deg] bearing from the airport and
within a 6.6-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise
from a 098[deg] bearing to a 183[deg] bearing from the airport and
within a 8.3-mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending clockwise
from a 183[deg] bearing to a 261[deg] bearing from the airport and
within 3.1 miles each of the Philipsburg VORTAC 067[deg] radial
extending from the VORTAC to 10 miles northeast of the VORTAC and
within 3.5 miles each side of the 327[deg] bearing from a point at
lat. 40[deg]53'09'' N., long. 78[deg]05'06'' W., extending from said
point to a point 7.4 miles northwest and within 2.2 miles each side
of the Philipsburg VORTAC 330[deg] radial extending from the VORTAC
to 5.3 miles northwest of the VORTAC and within 3.1 miles each side
of the Philipsburg VORTAC 301[deg] radial extending from the VORTAC
to 10 miles northwest of the VORTAC; and that airspace within a 6-
mile radius of the point in space (lat. 40[deg]55'06'' N., long.
78[deg]12'06'' W.) serving the Philipsburg Area Hospital.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on October 15, 2007.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, System Support Group, Eastern Service Center.
[FR Doc. 07-5421 Filed 11-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M