Document QJYgDNMLxedoq7OdGRpXOJkbv

is not aN ailable and (2) where it is in the interest of national security. In light of this authority, and in light of the burden imposed on electric generating facilities by the MATS MR, EPA has announced the potential availability of such exemptions and asked that requests for exemptions be submitted by March 31. See https://www.epa.govistationary-sources-air-pollutioniclean-air-actsection-112-presidential-exemption-information. Consistent with that announcement, and for the reasons set forth below, Miami Fort Power Comany requests a 2-year exemption for the Miami Fort units from the fPM standard and from the requirement to install and use PM CEMS. Importantly, EPA has been very clear that the fPM standard and CEMS requirement are completely integrated, such that any exemption must cover both requirements in the Rule. Specifically, EPA explained "that a fPM standard of 0.010 lb/MMI3tu . . . is the lowest fPM emission limit possible at this time with use of PM CEMS." 89 Fed. Reg. at 38,534. And EPA identified the revised fPM standard and the PM CEMS requirement as a combined "two-pronged approach," stating that "requiring PM CEMS in addition to a lower fPM limit . . . is the most stringent option that balances the benefits of using PM CEMS with the emission reductions associated with the tightened fPM emission standard." Id. at 38,530. In other words., EPA's effort "to implement" its revised standard depends equally on both the more stringent numeric standard for fPM and on the obligation to install new monitoring equipment. Section I explains that the technology required to implement the Rule's revised fPM standard is not considered available on a continuous basis, and Section II explains that CEMS arc likewise unavailable. Given the interdependence of these requirements, however, the unavailability of technology as to either component makes "implementation" of the standard likewise unavailable for the other. Section Ill concludes that it is in the national security interest to issue an exemption from compliance with the MATS RTR. I. The Particulate Control Technology Required to Implement the Rule's fPM Standard is Not Available There are technological and operational limits at Miami Fort that make it difficult and expensive to meet the more stringent fPM standard. EPA based its decision to lower the fPM standard on data from only a select few units. see Pet'rs' Brief at 65-68, North Dakota v. EPA, No. 24-1119, Doc. 2077742 (Oct. 1, 2024), but not all units can meet the revised limit under all operating conditions. Miami Fort currently utilizes an electrostatic precipitator ("ESP") for particulate control. To ensure compliance with the revised fPM standard, Miami Fort would need to upgrade the existing emission control equipment and/or install new particulate control. EPA did not consider the availability of upgrades to control technologies that would be required to implement the revised standard on a continuous basis or the costs associated with those controls. Itl. at 68-69. If Miami Fort were to rebuild its ESP in an attempt to meet the revised standard, the capital costs per unit could be from S52 million to S148 million. PGAN Connnents on EPA '.s Proposed Rule: NESHAP Coal- and O11-1:ired Electric .9etein Generating Units Review ()Rile Residual Risk and l'echnology Review, Docket No. FPA-I IQ-OAR-2018-0794-5994, at 12 (June 28, 2023) [hereinafter "PCiFN Comments"]. Such a project is cost ineffective per ton of fPM removed. Id at 17. Moreover, continuous compliance with the revised fPM standard cannot be guaranteed, even with considerable upgrades or a 2 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000163-00002 SC_EVERSPLIT0005936