Document ZB7v7G23m7D1yJvxzKaVDvZ5Y

r TALEN ell MONTANA A. EPA Has Not Established a Sufficient Basis for Tightening the fPM Limit. Existing coal-fired EGUs currently can demonstrate compliance with the emission limits for non-11g metal IIAPs by meeting: (i) the individual emission limits for each of the 10 non-11g metals; (ii) an emission standard for total non-11g metals; or (iii) a surrogate fPM emission standard of. 0.030 lb/MMBtu.13 EPA is proposing to eliminate the non-Hg HAP metals standards, leaving only the surrogate fl'M standard. Further, EPA is proposing to tighten the surrogate fl'M standard to 0.010 lb/MMBtu, which is comparable to the MATS new source standard of 0.09 lb/MWh fPM (equivalent to a new coal-tired ECU with a heat rate of 9.0 MMBtu/MWh). [4 EPA also is soliciting comment on whether to revise the f-PM standard to an even more stringent level of 0.006 lbs/MMI3tu EPA's proposal to tighten the fPM limit is based on its evaluation that "most-existing coalfired EGUs arc reporting fl'M well below the current f-PM emission limit of 3.OE-02 lb/MMI3tu" and that "the fleet is achieving these performance levels at lower costs than assumed during promulgation of the original MATS fPM emission limit."[(' EPA acknowledged that it did not identify any new practices, processes, or control technologies for non-11g metal IIAPs. [7 For the reasons discussed below, this rationale is not a sufficient basis for tightening the f-PM 1. EPA exceeds its statutory authority' in 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6). 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) requires EPA to "review, and revise as necessary (taking into account developments in practices, processes, and control technologies) emission standards . . . every eight years."`' Among other considerations, EPA deems "[a]ny improvements in add-on control technology or other equipment (that were identified and considered during development of the original MACT [Maximum Achievable Control Technology] standards) that could result in additional emission reductions" as such "development" under 7412(d) But EPA has identified no such "developments" or "improvements." Rather, EPA is revising the fi'M limit because the Agency says it now has more information about the cost and performance of existing technology than it did when promulgating the original MATS rule.-'0 According to EPA's evaluation of such information, existing controls are cheaper and perform better than anticipated, and as discussed below, EPA's evaluation is flawed.'' I ' Sc'c' Table 1. Emission Limits for Neu or Reconstructed EGUs, Subpart UUUULT, 40 C.F.R. Part 63. I' 88 Fed. Reg. at 24.856. Id. at 24,857. I' hi at 24,868 Ici at 24,867-68 "1 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(6) (emphasis added). I' 88 Fcd Reg at 24,863 See id at 24,863 fn 15 See also National Emission Standards for Iia7ardous Air Pollutants From Coal- and OilFired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards of Performance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units, 77 Fcd Reg. 9304 (Feb 16, 2012) 88 Fed Rcg at 24,867-68 8 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000307-00009 SC_EVERSPLIT0006105