[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48725-48731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23276]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 49 and 52
[FRL-6432-8]
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo Generating
Station; Navajo Nation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to
promulgate a source-specific Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) to
regulate emissions from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a coal-
fired power plant located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Page,
Arizona.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 8, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to: Douglas K.
McDaniel, Air Division (AIR-8), U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas K. McDaniel, Air Division
(AIR-8), U.S. EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901, (415) 744-1246.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Action
B. Facility
C. Attainment
D. Visibility
E. Jurisdictional Issue
II. Basis for Proposed Action
A. EPA's Authority to Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
B. Relation to Tribal Authority Rule
III. Navajo Generating Station--Facility Description
IV. Summary of FIP Provisions
A. State Standards
B. Visibility FIP
C. Acid Rain Requirements
D. Proposed FIP Standards
E. Summary of Changes from State Standards
F. Compliance Schedule
V. Solicitation of Comments
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Background
A. Action
In today's action, EPA proposes to federalize standards from the
Arizona state implementation plan (SIP) and permits issued pursuant to
the SIP, applicable to the Navajo Generating Station. Where necessary,
EPA's proposed emission standards and associated requirements modify
those extracted from Arizona's regulatory programs to ensure
comprehensive emission control and federal consistency.
B. Facility
NGS is a privately owned and operated coal-fired power plant
located on the Navajo Indian Reservation. Through lease agreements, the
facility utilizes real property held in trust by the federal government
for the Navajo Nation. The facility operates three units, each with a
capacity of 750 megawatts (MW).
NGS is located just east of Page, Arizona, approximately 135 miles
north of Flagstaff. Operations at the facility produce emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and
particulate matter (PM).
C. Attainment
NGS is located in the Northern Arizona Intrastate air quality
control region (AQCR), which is designated attainment for all criteria
pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''). 40 CFR 81.303.
As the NGS proposed FIP merely federalizes the regulatory scheme with
which the plant has been complying, EPA believes that air quality, and
hence the attainment status, in this area will not be negatively
impacted by this action.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A different conclusion may be reached by EPA, however, if,
for example, there were evidence that the source to be regulated by
the FIP is causing or contributing to violations of the applicable
NAAQS, or was located in an area that is designated nonattainment
for such NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Visibility
Sections 169A and 110(c) of the Act require EPA to take appropriate
measures to remedy certified visibility impairments in mandatory Class
I areas where the visibility impairment is reasonably attributed to a
specific source. On September 5, 1989, EPA preliminarily attributed a
significant portion of wintertime visibility impairment in the Grand
Canyon National Park to NGS (54 FR 36948). On October 3, 1991, EPA
revised the visibility FIP for the state of Arizona to include an
SO2 emission limit for NGS to remedy visibility impairment
in the
[[Page 48726]]
Grand Canyon National Park. 56 FR 50172, 40 CFR 52.145. Under the
visibility FIP, NGS is required to phase-in compliance with the
SO2 emission limit, by unit, in 1997, 1998, and 1999.
The visibility FIP is not being amended or changed by today's
action. The visibility FIP remains in full force and effect and this
rulemaking does not provide an opportunity for public comment or
judicial review of EPA's earlier actions promulgating the visibility
FIP.
E. Jurisdictional Issue
Historically, emissions of air pollutants from the NGS facility
have been regulated under provisions of the Arizona air pollution
control program, in accordance with the Arizona SIP. However, States
are generally precluded from enforcing their civil regulatory programs
on Tribal lands, absent an explicit Congressional authorization or
State-Tribal agreement. See California v. Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians, 480 U.S. 202 (1987).
Both the Navajo Nation and members of the regulated community have
queried EPA concerning the jurisdictional issue of who has authority
under the Act to regulate air emissions from NGS. Upon review of the
circumstances surrounding the location and operation of NGS on the
Navajo Indian Reservation, EPA concluded that jurisdiction under the
Act over this facility lies with EPA and the Navajo Nation. EPA met
with representatives of the State of Arizona, the Navajo Nation and NGS
to discuss this jurisdictional issue. All parties have expressed
agreement with this conclusion.
II. Basis for Proposed Action
A. EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
EPA's conclusion that CAA jurisdiction over NGS lies with EPA and
the Navajo Nation necessarily leads to the conclusion that a regulatory
gap exists with regard to this facility. EPA is thus proposing to
remedy this gap with a source-specific FIP. This FIP will in essence
federalize the Arizona SIP and permit requirements with which the
facility has been complying.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 greatly expanded the role of
Indian tribes in implementing the provisions of the Clean Air Act in
Indian country. Section 301(d) of the Act authorizes EPA to issue
regulations specifying the provisions of the Clean Air Act for which
Indian tribes may be treated in the same manner as states. See CAA
sections 301(d)(1) and (2). EPA promulgated the final rule under
section 301(d) of the Act, entitled ``Indian Tribes: Air Quality
Planning and Management,'' on February 12, 1998. 63 FR 7254. The rule
is generally referred to as the ``Tribal Authority Rule'' or ``TAR''.
In the preamble to the proposed 2 and final rule, EPA
discusses generally the legal basis under the CAA by which EPA and
tribes are authorized to regulate sources of air pollution in Indian
country. EPA concluded that the CAA constitutes a statutory grant of
jurisdictional authority to Indian tribes that allows them to develop
air programs for EPA approval in the same manner as states. 63 FR at
7254-7259; 59 FR 43958-43960.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also concluded that the CAA authorizes EPA to protect air
quality throughout Indian country, including on fee lands. See 63 FR
7262; 59 FR 43960-43961 (citing to CAA sections 101(b)(1), 301(a), and
301(d)). In fact, in promulgating the TAR, EPA specifically provided
that, pursuant to the discretionary authority explicitly granted to EPA
under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the Act, EPA
``shall promulgate without unreasonable delay such federal
implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of sections
304(a) and 301(d)(4), if a tribe does not submit a tribal
implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V, or does not receive EPA approval of a submitted
tribal implementation plan.'' 63 FR at 7273 (codified at 40 CFR
49.11(a)).3
\3\ In the preamble to the final TAR, EPA explained that it
believed it was inappropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as
States with respect to section 110(c) of the Act, which directs EPA
to promulgate a FIP within two years after EPA finds a state has
failed to submit a complete state plan or within two years after EPA
disapproval of a state plan. Although EPA is not required to
promulgate a FIP within the two year period for tribes, EPA
promulgated 40 CFR 49.11(a) to clarify that EPA will continue to be
subject to the basic requirement to issue any necessary or
appropriate FIP provisions for affected tribal areas within some
reasonable time. See 63 FR 7264-7265.
It is EPA's policy to aid tribes in developing comprehensive and
effective air quality management programs by providing technical and
other assistance to them. EPA recognizes, however, that just as it
required many years to develop state and federal programs to cover
lands subject to state jurisdiction, it will also require time to
develop tribal and federal programs to cover reservations and other
lands subject to tribal jurisdiction. 59 FR 43961.
The Navajo Nation has expressed a strong interest in seeking
authority under the TAR to regulate sources of air pollution located on
the Reservation under the Clean Air Act. Based on discussions with the
Tribe, however, EPA believes that it will be at least several months
before the Tribe will be ready to seek authority under the TAR to
assume Clean Air Act planning responsibilities and that, when they do
so, the Tribe intends to build its capacity and seek authority for the
various Clean Air Act programs over time, rather than all at once. The
Tribe has advised EPA that it continues to support EPA's efforts to
impose such controls on NGS as are necessary to ensure continued
compliance with the substantive requirements of the Arizona SIP and
permits, notwithstanding the recent promulgation of the TAR.
Therefore, in this proposed FIP, EPA is exercising its
discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA
and 40 CFR 49.11(a) to promulgate a federal implementation plan in
order to remedy an existing regulatory gap under the Act with respect
to NGS. Although the facility has been historically regulated by
Arizona for the most part since its construction, the state lacks
jurisdiction over the facility or its owners or operators for CAA
compliance or enforcement purposes. The Tribe has not submitted a
tribal implementation plan to address emissions from NGS and has
indicated to EPA that it prefers to have EPA address the emissions from
NGS at this time. Since the Navajo Nation does not presently have a
federally approved TIP, in the absence of a comprehensive FIP the
applicable regulatory requirements arising under state law would not be
enforceable. EPA's FIP will federalize requirements contained in the
Arizona SIP that were applicable to NGS and permits issued pursuant to
the SIP. Given the magnitude of the emissions from the plant, EPA
believes that the proposed FIP provisions are both necessary and
appropriate to protect air quality on the Reservation.
B. Relation to Tribal Authority Rule
As discussed above, under section 301(d) of the Act, a tribe may
develop and implement one or more of its own air quality programs under
the Act through a Tribal Air Program. On February 12, 1998, EPA
promulgated regulations under Section 301(d) of the Act which provide
the framework for tribes to obtain authority to administer federally-
approved and federally-enforceable programs under the Act, including
tribal implementation plans. See 59 FR 43956, August 25, 1994
[[Page 48727]]
(proposed rule) and 63 FR 7254, February 12, 1998 (final rule).
The Navajo Nation now has the option of assuming responsibility for
the development and implementation of federally enforceable air quality
programs under the Clean Air Act. Until a federally approved Navajo
Nation TIP is in place with regulations which cover NGS, however, EPA
has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate the source under the Act. Once
final, the regulations proposed today will remain in effect until a TIP
governing NGS is in place and the FIP is withdrawn.
III. Navajo Generating Station--Facility Description
The NGS is a 2250 MW coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo
Indian Reservation near Page, Arizona. The NGS is a baseload generating
station consisting of three 750 MW units which became operational
between 1974 and 1976. The Salt River Project (SRP) is the operating
agent for NGS which is jointly owned by SRP, the Los Angeles Department
of Water and Power, the Arizona Public Service, the Nevada Power
Company, and the Tucson Electric Power Company. Existing pollution
control equipment at NGS includes electrostatic precipitators for PM
removal and specific burners designed for NOX control.
Furthermore, the visibility FIP for the State of Arizona includes an
SO2 emission limit for the NGS. NGS installed limestone wet
scrubbers on each unit to reduce SO2 emissions by 90%. These
scrubbers are now fully operational. Compliance with the SO2
emission limit in the visibility FIP will be determined on a plant-wide
annual rolling average basis (see 40 CFR 52.145).
IV. Summary of FIP Provisions
A. State Standards
The standards in this FIP proposal are generally based on the state
standards under which the facility has been operating (NGS must also
continue to comply with all other applicable federal requirements).
These standards, derived from the Arizona SIP and operating permit, are
summarized as follows:
1. Particulate matter emissions were limited to 17.0 times
Q0.4320 pounds per hour where Q is million BTU per hour of
heat input to the boilers.
2. Opacity was limited to 40 percent.
3. Sulfur oxides emissions were limited to one pound per million
BTU, per unit, three-hour average.
B. Visibility FIP
Under the visibility FIP, SO2 emissions are limited to
0.1 pounds per million BTU on a plant-wide rolling annual basis, and
scrubbers must be installed and operable on all three units by August
19, 1999. The scrubbers were installed and operating on the last of the
three units in February, 1999.
The SO2 scrubbers will substantially lower the
SO2 emissions from Navajo Generating Station. When the
scrubbers are operating, SO2 emissions will be less than .1
pounds per million BTU. The visibility FIP standards are an annual
average, as this was determined to be protective of visibility
resources in the Grand Canyon.
The visibility FIP is not being amended or changed by today's
action. The visibility FIP remains in full force and effect and this
rulemaking does not provide an opportunity for public comment or
judicial review of EPA's earlier actions promulgating the visibility
FIP.
C. Acid Rain Requirements
NGS is subject to Acid Rain requirements. They elected to comply
early as a Phase I NOX facility; this means they have a
NOX limit of .45 pounds per million BTU, per unit, on an
annual basis. This limit applies until 2008, when it will be lowered to
.40 pounds per million BTU. NGS also has specific SO2
allowances per unit.
D. Proposed FIP Standards
1. Particulate matter is limited to 0.060 pounds per million BTU
averaged over a six hour period, on a plant-wide basis.
2. Opacity is limited to 40 percent averaged over a six minute
period, excluding water vapor.
3. SO2 emissions are limited to 1 pound per million BTU
averaged over a three hour period, on a plant-wide basis.
E. Summary of Changes From State Standards
1. The particulate emissions standard was changed from 17.0
Q0.4320 pounds per hour (where Q is million BTU per hour) to
0.060 pounds per million BTU because this standard is a generally
recognized form for the particulate standard and it is more reliably
measured. The stringency of the new standard approximates the old
standard: Using EPA policy of conducting emissions tests at 90 percent
to 100 percent of the facility's full load, the original Arizona
equation yields estimated allowable emissions of between .057 and 0.061
pounds per million BTU. Thus, a limit of.060 lb/MMbtu is appropriate.
The FIP we are proposing specifically states that the particulate
standard will be measured on a plant-wide basis. Although the Arizona
permit did not state this explicitly, this was the way that Arizona
determined compliance at the NGS historically.
2. The proposed opacity standard specifically excludes water vapor.
NGS has opacity monitors on each of its stacks; water vapor, which will
be present in all stacks because of the SO2 scrubbers,
causes inaccurate excess emission readings on the opacity monitors.
3. The standard for SO2 is slightly changed. The method
of compliance determination has been changed from one based on the
sulfur content of coal to one based on continuous emission monitoring
(CEM). The facility has experienced difficulty with the analysis of the
sulfur content of coal, and the federal acid rain regulations require
CEM monitoring. CEM monitoring is generally recognized as being more
accurate and precise than monitoring the sulfur content of coal.
Compliance with the Arizona permit limits was determined on a per-
unit basis. NGS complied with these limits by using very low sulfur
coal. Now, because of the presence of the scrubbers, NGS will be able
to comply with its short-term limits by removing sulfur from the
exhaust stream. This will allow them to purchase slightly higher sulfur
coal; additionally, the plant-wide average allows one scrubber to be
down for periodic maintenance (lasting usually 30 to 40 days) without
requiring the purchase of specific low sulfur coal for use during the
maintenance. Nevertheless, the actual emissions will remain 90% lower
on an annual basis than they were before the scrubbers were installed.
4. A number of other changes were made relative to the Arizona SIP
making the FIP specific to NGS and to conform to EPA excess emissions
and other reporting and quality assurance procedures.
F. Compliance Schedule
The EPA proposes that the requirements contained in this proposal
become effective upon promulgation of these regulations, since the
emission limits established by the proposed FIP are presently being
achieved at the facility.
V. Solicitation of Comments
The EPA solicits comments on all aspects of today's proposal to
promulgate a FIP to regulate air emissions from NGS. Interested parties
should submit comments to the address cited in the front of this
proposed rule. Public comments postmarked by
[[Page 48728]]
October 8, 1999 will be considered in the final action taken by EPA.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866
Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993),
all ``regulatory actions'' that are ``significant'' are subject to
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. A ``regulatory action'' is defined as ``any
substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal
Register) that promulgates or is expected to result in the promulgation
of a final rule or regulation, including * * * notices of proposed
rulemaking.'' A ``regulation or rule'' is defined as ``an agency
statement of general applicability and future effect, * * *.''
The proposed FIP is not subject to OMB review under E.O. 12866
because it applies to only a single, specifically named facility and is
therefore not a rule of general applicability. Thus, it is not a
``regulatory action'' under E.O. 12866.
B. Regulatory Flexibility
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. section 601 et.
seq., EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the
impact of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.
sections 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000. The federal implementation plan for the Navajo
Generating Station proposed today does not impose any new requirements
on small entities. See Mid-Tex Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773
F.2d 327 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (agency's certification need only consider
the rule's impact on entities subject to the requirements of the rule).
Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), EPA certifies that today's
action does not have a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities within the meaning of those terms for RFA purposes.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub.L. 04-4,
establishes requirements for federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and
the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA generally must
prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for
proposed rules and for final rules for which EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking, if those rules contain ``federal mandates'' that
may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in
any one year. If section 202 requires a written statement, section 205
of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives. Under section 205, EPA must adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule, unless the Administrator
publishes with the final rule an explanation why EPA did not adopt that
alternative. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are
inconsistent with applicable law. Section 204 of UMRA requires EPA to
develop a process to allow elected officers of state, local, and tribal
governments (or their designated, authorized employees), to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals containing significant Federal intergovernmental mandates.
EPA has determined that the proposed FIP contains no federal
mandates on state, local or tribal governments, because it will not
impose any enforceable duties on any of these entities. EPA further has
determined that the proposed FIP is not likely to result in the
expenditure of $100 million or more by the private sector in any one
year. Although the proposed FIP would impose enforceable duties on an
entity in the private sector, the costs are expected to be minimal.
Consequently, sections 202, 204, and 205 of UMRA do not apply to the
proposed FIP.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments, it must have
developed under section 203 of UMRA a small government agency plan. The
plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments,
enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and
timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with
significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the
regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that the proposed FIP will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, because it imposes no requirements
on small governments. Therefore, the requirements of section 203 do not
apply to the proposed FIP. Nonetheless, EPA worked closely with
representatives of the Tribe in the development of today's proposed
action.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines
``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * *
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or
more persons * * *.'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP
only applies to one company, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not
apply.
E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This executive order applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to
be ``economically significant'' as that term is defined in E.O. 12866,
and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has
reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If
the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children,
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to
influence the regulation. The NGS FIP is not subject to E.O. 13045
because it implements previously promulgated health or safety-based
federal standards.
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, any written communications
from the governments, and EPA's position supporting the need to issue
[[Page 48729]]
the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
As stated above, the proposed FIP will not create a mandate on
state, local or tribal governments because it will not impose any
enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of
section 1(a) of Executive Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.
Nonetheless, EPA worked closely with representatives of the Tribe
during the development of today's proposed action.
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.''
The proposed FIP does not impose substantial direct compliance
costs on the communities of Indian tribal governments. The proposed FIP
imposes obligations only on the owner or operator of NGS. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.
As discussed above, EPA worked closely with representatives of the
Tribe during the development of today's proposed action.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, 12 (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards (VCS) are
technical standards (e.g. materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by the voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
A consensus standard, ASTM D6216-98, appears to be practical for
use in lieu of EPA Performance Specification 1 (see 40 CFR part 60,
appendix B) for the opacity monitoring to be required for this
facility. On September 23, 1998, EPA proposed incorporating by
reference ASTM D6216-98 into Performance Specification 1 under a
separate rulemaking (63 FR 50824) that would allow broader use and
application of this consensus standard. EPA plans to complete this
action in the near future. As it would be impractical for EPA to act
independently from rulemaking activity already undergoing notice and
comment, EPA defers taking action in the current rulemaking that would
immediately adopt D6216-98, and we will therefore require use of EPA
Performance Specification 1 in the interim.
In regard to the remaining measurement needs as listed below, there
are a number of voluntary consensus standards that appear to have
possible use in lieu of the EPA test methods and performance
specifications (40 CFR part 60 appendices A and B) noted next to the
measurement requirements. It would not be practical to specify these
standards in the current rulemaking due to a lack of sufficient data on
equivalency and validation and because some are still under
development. However, EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards is in the process of reviewing all available VCS for
incorporation by reference into the test methods and performance
specifications of 40 CFR Part 60, Appendices A and B. Any VCS so
incorporated in a specified test method or performance specification
would then be available for use in determining the emissions from this
facility. This will be an ongoing process designed to incorporate
suitable VCS as they become available.
Particulate Matter Emissions--EPA Methods 1 though 5
Opacity--EPA Method 9 and Performance Specification Test 1 for
Opacity Monitoring
SO2--EPA Method 6C and Performance Specification 2 for
Continuous SO2 Monitoring
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping.
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: August 27, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
Title 40, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 49--TRIBAL CLEAN AIR ACT AUTHORITY
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. Part 49 is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 49.20 to read
as follows:
Sec. 49.20 Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Navajo
Generating Station, Navajo Nation.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator of the fossil fuel-fired, steam-generating
equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and 3, and the two auxiliary steam
boilers at the Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in the Navajo Indian
Reservation located in the Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region (see 40 CFR 81.270).
(b) Compliance Dates. Compliance with the requirements of this
section is required upon promulgation unless otherwise indicated by
compliance dates contained in specific provisions.
(c) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
(1) Administrator means the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency or his/her authorized representative.
(2) Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
[[Page 48730]]
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding.
(3) Malfunction means any sudden and unavoidable failure of air
pollution control equipment or process equipment or of a process to
operate in a normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused entirely
or in part by poor maintenance, careless operation, or any other
preventable upset condition or preventable equipment breakdown shall
not be considered malfunctions.
(4) Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls or supervises NGS, any of the fossil fuel-fired, steam-
generating equipment at NGS, or the auxiliary steam boilers at NGS.
(5) Startup shall mean the period from start of fires in the boiler
with fuel oil, to the time when the electrostatic precipitator is
sufficiently heated such that the temperature of the air preheater
inlet reaches 400 degrees Fahrenheit. Proper startup procedures shall
include energizing the electrostatic precipitator prior to the
combustion of coal in the boiler.
(6) Shutdown shall be the period from cessation of coal fires in
the boiler until the electrostatic precipitator is de-energized. The
precipitator shall be maintained in service until boiler fans are
disengaged.
(d) Emissions Standards--(1) Sulfur Oxides--No owner or operator
shall discharge or cause the discharge of sulfur oxides into the
atmosphere from Units 1, 2 or 3 in excess of 1.0 pound per million
British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) averaged over any three (3) hour
period, on a plant-wide basis.
(2) Particulate Matter--No owner or operator shall discharge or
cause the discharge of particulate matter into the atmosphere in excess
of 0.060 lb/MMBtu averaged over a six (6) hour period, on a plant-wide
basis.
(3) Fugitive Dust--Each owner or operator shall operate and
maintain the existing dust suppression methods for controlling fugitive
dust from the coal handling and storage facilities. Within ninety (90)
days after promulgation of these regulations the owner or operator
shall submit to the Administrator a description of the dust suppression
methods for controlling fugitive dust from the coal handling and
storage facilities, fly ash handling and storage, and road sweeping
activities.
(4) Opacity--No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the
discharge of emissions into the atmosphere exhibiting greater than 40%
opacity, excluding water vapor, averaged over any six (6) minute
period.
(e) Testing and Monitoring. (1) Effective sixty (60) days after
promulgation of this section, the owner or operator shall maintain and
operate CEMS and COMS in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13(e), (f),
and (h), and appendix B of 40 CFR part 60. The owner or operator shall
comply with the quality assurance procedures for CEMS and COMS found in
40 CFR part 75.
(2) The owner or operator shall conduct annual mass emissions tests
for particulate matter on Units 1, 2, and 3, operating at rated
capacity, using coal that is representative of that normally used. The
tests shall be conducted using the appropriate test methods in 40 CFR
part 60, appendix A.
(3) The owner or operator shall conduct an initial mass emissions
tests for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter on the
two auxiliary steam boilers, operating at rated capacity, using oil
that is representative of that normally used. The test shall then be
conducted annually or after 720 hours of operation, whichever is later.
The tests shall be conducted using the appropriate test methods in 40
CFR part 60, appendix A.
(4) The owner or operator shall maintain two sets of opacity
filters for each type of COMS, one set to be used as calibration
standards and one set to be used as audit standards. At least one set
of filters shall be on site at all times.
(5) All emissions testing and monitor evaluation required pursuant
to this section shall be conducted in accordance with the appropriate
method found in 40 CFR part 60, appendices A and B.
(6) The owner or operator shall install, maintain and operate
ambient monitors at Glen Canyon Dam for particulate matter
(PM2.5 and PM10), nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and ozone. Operation, calibration and maintenance of the
monitors shall be performed in accordance with 40 CFR part 58,
manufacturer's specification, and ``Quality Assurance Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurements Systems'', Volume II, U.S. EPA as applicable to
single station monitors. Data obtained from the monitors shall be made
available to the Administrator upon request. All particulate matter
samplers shall operate at least every third day, coinciding with the
national particulate sampling schedule.
(7) Nothing herein shall limit EPA's ability to ask for a test at
any time under section 114 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7413, and
enforce against any violation of the Clean Air Act or this section.
(f) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Unless otherwise
stated all requests, reports, submittals, notifications and other
communications to the Administrator required by this section shall be
submitted to the Director, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code: AIR-5, at 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105, (415) 744-1138,
(415) 744-1076 (facsimile). For each unit subject to the emissions
limitations in this section the owner or operator shall:
(1) Comply with the notification and recordkeeping requirements for
testing found in 40 CFR 60.7. All data/reports of testing results shall
be submitted to the Administrator and postmarked within 60 days of
testing.
(2) For excess emissions or a malfunction, notify the Administrator
by telephone or in writing within one business day. A complete written
report of the incident shall be submitted to the Administrator within
fifteen (15) working days after the event. This notification shall
include the following information:
(i) The identity of the stack and/or other emissions points where
excess emissions occurred;
(ii) The magnitude of the excess emissions expressed in the units
of the applicable emissions limitation and the operating data and
calculations used in determining the magnitude of the excess emissions;
(iii) The time and duration or expected duration of the excess
emissions;
(iv) The identity of the equipment causing the excess emissions;
(v) The nature and cause of such excess emissions;
(vi) If the excess emissions were the result of a malfunction, the
steps taken to remedy the malfunction and the steps taken or planned to
prevent the recurrence of such malfunction; and
(vii) The steps than were taken or are being taken to limit excess
emissions.
(3) Notify the Administrator verbally within one business day
whenever an exceedance of the NAAQS has been measured by a monitor
operated in accordance with this section. The notification to the
Administrator shall include the time, date, and location of the
exceedance, and the pollutant and concentration of the exceedance. The
verbal notification shall be followed within fifteen (15) days by a
letter containing the following information:
(i) The time, date, and location of the exceedance;
(ii) The pollutant and concentration of the exceedance;
[[Page 48731]]
(iii) The meteorological conditions existing 24 hours prior to and
during the exceedance;
(iv) For a particulate matter exceedance, the 6-minute average
opacity monitoring data greater than 40% for the 24 hours prior to and
during the exceedance; and
(v) Proposed plant changes such as operation or maintenance, if
any, to prevent future exceedances. Compliance with this paragraph
(f)(3)(v) shall not excuse or otherwise constitute a defense to any
violations of this section or of any law or regulation which such
excess emissions or malfunction may cause.
(4) Submit quarterly excess emissions reports for sulfur dioxide
and opacity as recorded by CEMS and COMS together with a CEMS data
assessment report to the Administrator no later than 30 days after each
calendar quarter. The owner or operator shall complete the excess
emissions reports according to the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7 (c) and
(d) and appendix F of 40 CFR part 60. Excess opacity due to uncondensed
water vapor in the stack does not constitute a reportable exceedence.
(g) Compliance Certifications. Notwithstanding any other provision
in this implementation plan, the owner or operator may use any credible
evidence or information relevant to whether a source would have been in
compliance with applicable requirements if the appropriate performance
or compliance test had been performed, for the purpose of submitting
compliance certifications.
(h) Equipment operations. The owner or operator shall operate all
equipment or systems needed to comply with this section in accordance
with 40 CFR 60.11(d) and consistent with good engineering practices to
keep emissions at or below the emissions limitations in this section,
and following outages of any control equipment or systems the control
equipment or system will be returned to full operation as expeditiously
as practicable.
(i) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant to
whether a source would have been in compliance with applicable
requirements if the appropriate performance or compliance test had been
performed, can be used to establish whether or not a person has
violated or is in violation of any standard in the plan.
(2) During periods of start-up and shutdown the otherwise
applicable emission limits or requirements for opacity and particulate
matter shall not apply provided that:
(i) At all times the facility is operated in a manner consistent
with good practice for minimizing emissions, and the owner or operator
uses best efforts regarding planning, design, and operating procedures
to meet the otherwise applicable emission limit;
(ii) The frequency and duration of operation in start-up or
shutdown mode are minimized to the maximum extent practicable; and
(iii) The owner or operator's actions during start-up and shutdown
periods are documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence.
(3) Emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission
limit or requirement that occur due to a malfunction shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission limit. However, it shall be an
affirmative defense in an enforcement action seeking penalties if the
owner or operator has met with all of the following conditions:
(i) The malfunction was the result of a sudden and unavoidable
failure of process or air pollution control equipment and did not
result from inadequate design or construction of the process or air
pollution control equipment;
(ii) The malfunction did not result from operator error or neglect,
or from improper operation or maintenance procedures;
(iii) The excess emissions were not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance;
(iv) Steps were immediately taken to correct conditions leading to
the malfunction, and the amount and duration of the excess emissions
caused by the malfunction were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable;
(v) All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
excess emissions on ambient air quality;
(vi) All emissions monitoring systems were kept in operation if at
all possible; and
(vii) The owner or operator's actions in response to the excess
emissions were documented by properly signed, contemporaneous operating
logs, or other relevant evidence.
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671, et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
2. Subpart D is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 52.141 to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.141 Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo Generating Station,
Navajo Nation.
The Federal Implementation Plan regulating emissions from the
Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona is codified at 40 CFR
49.20.
[FR Doc. 99-23276 Filed 9-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
