Document g9do9Z7vgY2r8Y9x2GD56moV

Coleto Creek Power, LLC Coleto Creek Power, LLC. Coleto Creek Power Station 6555 Sierra Drive Irving, TX 75039 March 31, 2025 Submitted via entail to airaction@epa.gov President Donald J. 'Frump cio Administrator Lee M. Zeldin Office of the Administrator (1101A) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, I.W. Washington, U.C. 20460 Re: Presidential Exemption: National Emission Standardsfor Hazardous Air Pollutants: Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and Technolo;y Review, 89 Fed. Reg. 38,508 (May 7, 2024): Coleto Creek Power Station Unit 1. Dear President Trump: Please accept this letter on behalf of Coleto Creek Power, I,I,C requesting a Presidential exemption under Section 112(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act ("CAA") from compliance with the filterable particulate matter ("IPM") surrogate emission standard for non-mercury metal hazardous air pollutants ("IIAP") and the requirement to install continuous emissions monitoring systems ("CEMS" or "PM CEMS") under the above-referenced rule (the "MATS RTR" or the "Rule") for the Coleto Creek Power Station ("Coleto Creek"). Coleto Creek Power, LLC is requesting a 2year exemption, beginning July 6, 2027, from these requirements for Coleto Creek Unit 1. The MATS RTR amended 40 C.F.R. Part 63 Subpart UUUUU and became effective on July 8, 2024. Under the Rule, Coleto Creek's electric generating unit ("ECM") is required to reduce f-PM emissions from 0.030 lb/MMBtu to 0.010 lb/MMI3tu. Compliance with this revised limit is based on a continuous, 30-day rolling limit. In addition, the Rule requires all coal-fired F.CIUs to install CEMS to implement the revised fPM standard, rather than allowing F.GUs to continue to use stack testing to demonstrate compliance. The compliance deadline for meeting the revised f-PM standard and for installing and using PM CEMS is July 6, 2027, but work to design, finance, and install the necessary controls and the new CEMS would need to begin much sooner. Under Section 1 12(i)(4) of the Clean Air Act, the President may issue exemptions "from compliance with any standard or limitation under this section for a period of not more than 2 ,'ears if the President determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and that it is in the national security interests of the United States to do so." 42 U.S.C.. 7412(i)(4). Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000172-00001 SC_EVERSPLIT0012586 Accordingly. the President is authorized to exercise his discretion to exempt ECUs from complying with the MA FS MR where ( 1) the technology required "to implement" the standard is not available 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 RTR, EPA has announced the potential availability of such exemptions and asked that requests for exemptions be submitted by March 31. See https://www.cpa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollutioniclean-air-actsection-1 12-presidential-exemption-information. Consistent with that announcement, and for the reasons set forth below, Coleto Creek requests a 2-year exemption from the fPM standard and the requirement to install and use PM CEMS. Importantly, EPA has been very clear that the fPM standard and the CEMS requirement arc completely integrated, such that any exemption must cover both requirements in the Rule. Specifically, EPA explained "that a fPM standard of 0.010 lb/MMBtu ... 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." M. 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 1 explains that the technology required to implement the Rule's revised fPM standard is not considered available on a continuous basis, and Section 11 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 III 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 arc technological and operational limits at Coleto Creek 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 r. EPA, No. 24-1119, Doc. 2077742 (Oct. 1, 2024), but not all units can meet the revised limit under all operatin2 conditions. Coleto Creek currently utilizes a ba2house for particulate control. Even though Coleto Creek's ba2house runs efficiently, the revised standard is challenging to meet because not all baghouses were designed to meet a limit this low. In addition, operational limitations could hinder the units' ability to continuously comply with the fPM standard. Although some units may be able to achieve a rate of 0.010 lb/MMBtu under certain conditions, the Rule requires continuous compliance. Even units that can achieve the limit in ideal conditions may not be able to continuously meet that limit during peak load conditions when they cannot do maintenance and cleaning of PM controls. During the summer, most units operate at base load and run at high-capacity factors. It may be difficult to maintain optimal operation of control technologies during peak summer conditions unless there are additional outages scheduled for such maintenance, which may not always be feasible. Moreover, the characteristics of coal vary 2 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000172-00002 SC_EVERSPLIT0012587 depending on location. Ash content of the coal being fired may impact the ability of units to comply with the fPM limit, regardless of the effectiveness of the control technologies in place. Other operational factors such as cleaning frequency, operational duration, and filter change-out frequency of baghouses impact the performance of controls and, thus, the facility's ability to comply with the proposed limit. These concerns are exacerbated by the companion requirement to measure compliance using monitors that have not been demonstrated to be reliable. CENTS Technology is Not Available by the Rule's Compliance Date The MATS R TR also requires coal-fired units to implement the revised IPM limit of 0.010 lb/MMBtu using CEMS. rather than periodic stack testing. There are technological limitations, as well as costs and market limits, that make adoption of CFMS by July 2027 unattainable. PM CFMS does not provide direct measurements; it uses correlation curves to calculate emissions levels. However, the low fPM standard in the Rule makes developing this con-elation curve "virtually impossible." PGLA Comments on EPA Proposed Rule: ATSHAP Coal- and Oil-Fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units Review of the Residual Risk and "Iechiu Review, Docket No. FPA-11Q-OAR-2018-0794-5994, at 22 (June 28, 2023) [hereinafter "PCIF.N Comments"' (citing and attaching Ralph I.. Roberson, lechnical Cointnents on EPA .s Proposed Me: Mercury and Air Toxics .9andards Risk wul Technology Review, at 3 (2023) [hereinafter "PM CEMS Technical Memo"]). Similarly, the QA/QC criterion for CFMS are extremely difficult to meet at such low levels. See Conuncuits ()film? Clas.s of '85 Regulatory Response Group on the PrOpO.SaI on National 1,..nussion ,S'tandards fOr HUIIIYIOUS Aii' Pollutants: Coal- and O11-Fired Electric I 'tilily .9eath Generating Units Review ()film? Residual Risk and Fechnology Review. Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0794-5989, at 16 (June 28, 2024) [hereinafter "Class of '85 Comments"]. In fact, at the time of the proposed MATS RTR, no commercially available PM CEMS would have been able to meet the tight confidence and tolerance intervals associated with the low proposed fPM standard. PGFN Comments at 23 (citing PM CFMS Technical Memo at 5). FPA was, thus, forced to address these issues in the final MATS RTR by adjusting the QA criterion and correlation procedures. See 89 Fed. Reg. at 38,528-29. However, it has not yet been shown that these changes are enough to address the fundamental issue that PM CFMS has difficulty reliably measuring such low fPM levels due to the error rates of the instrument. See PCIFN Comments at 23 (finding insurmountable the "uncertainties inherent the in the measurement device" and the "problems associated with relative size of the uncertainty to the limited data range of IPM concentrations and the confidence levels and tolerances"); see also Class of '85 Comments at 18. And, in reality, units would need to target emissions below 0.010 lb/MMBtu in order to ensure continuous compliance. See Perrs' Brief at 72. Therefore, the CEMS technology to demonstrate compliance with the revised WPM standard is unavailable. Second. there are significant costs and market limitations associated with PM CEMS, which make it "not available." Installing and operating CEMS is more costly than stack testing. See PCiEN Comments at 25-26. Costs include purchasing and installation of CF.MS, as well as potential modifications to the units to accommodate CEMS, extended correlation testing, and annual operational costs. See id. at 26; see also Class of '85 Comments at 18 (estimating $180,000 to 5400,000 for site preparation and engineering analysis, analyzer equipment and installation 3 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000172-00003 SC_EVERSPLIT0012588 costs. and initial PS-11 correlation testing"). Not to mention the costs of maintaining a full-time employee to operate P.M CEMS and the costs of lost generation during testing events for CEMS. I.uminant Comments at 16-17. There arc also market factors which limit the availability of installing and operating CFMS by the compliance deadline. There are a limited number of vendors for CEMS, as well as a limited number of professionals certified to install and test CEMS. Currently. two-thirds of facilities utilize stack testing and would need to install CEMS by July 2027, which would overwhelm the current supply of CEMS and the availability of professionals certified to inspect and test the newly installed systems. See Class of '85 Comments at 16. III. It is in the Interest of National Security to Issue an Exemption for the Rule The requested exemptions from the MATS RTR arc in the national security interests of the United States. The Rule adversely affects the nation's energy generation capacity and threatens grid stability and the supply of affordable, reliable energy. the Rule's stringent limits and the high costs associated with compliance, particularly in combination with other rulemakings impacting coal-fired EGUs, place a considerable burden on the operation of Coleto Creek. And MATS rules have historically resulted in the loss of generation capabilities the 2012 MATS rule resulted in the retirement of approximately 60,000 MW of coal-fired capacity. Pet'rs' Brief at 23. As explained in Lurninant's Comments, coal plants "continue to be of paramount importance for grid reliability during the transition to renewables." Id. at 29. Energy generation and grid reliability have, in turn, been identified by the President as issues of national security and it is, therefore, in the interest of the nation to exempt sources from compliance with the MATS RTR. As set forth in President Trump's Executive Order ("F.0.") 14156, Declaring a /Van-anal Lin.lg). Emergency, the "generation capacity of the United States is . . . far too inadequate to meet our Nation's needs" and "a reliable, diversified, and affordable supply of energy" is necessary to ensure "military preparedness." 90 Fed. Reg. 8,433, 8,433 (Jan. 29, 2025). The E.O. continues, "integrity . . . of our Nation's energy infrastructure--from coast to coast--is an immediate and pressing priority for the protection of the United States' national and economic security," while "insufficient energy production . . . constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to our Nation's economy, national security, and foreign policy." Id. at 8,43334. As explained above, the MATS RTR is one of the "policies" that has been identified as contributing to the "inadequate and intermittent energy supply" and "increasingly unreliable grid." M. at 8,433. Similarly, in E.O. 14154, l nleashing American Energy, President Frump acknowledged that prior regulations--which include this Rule--have "limited the generation of reliable and affordable electricity" and, in turn, "weakenled[ our national security." 90 Fed. Reg. 8,353, 8,353 (Jan. 29, 2025). This E.O. plainly states it is in "the national interest to unleash America's affordable and reliable energy" and that ensuring "an abundant supply of reliable energy" will help "protect the United States's economic and national security and military preparedness." id. Providing an exemption for compliance with the MATS RTR will achieve these goals of ensuring national security through the supply of reliable energy. Moreover, E.O. 14154 specifically calls for the review and potential rescission of rules like this one, which "impose an undue burden on the . use of domestic energy resources." Id. at 8,354. 4 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000172-00004 SC_EVERSPLIT0012589 Thus, in order to ensure a sufficient and reliable supply of energy, President 'Frump should use his lawful authority under Section 1 12(i)(4) of the CAA to grant the requested exemptions from compliance with the standards set forth in the MATS RTR. If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Renee Collins at Rence.Collins(avistracorp.corn. Sincerely, Cynthia Vodopivec Senior Vice President, Environmental, Health & Safety 5 Sierra Club FOIA 2025-EPA-04883 ED_018388_00000172-00005 SC_EVERSPLIT0012590