[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 116 (Thursday, June 17, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32458-32464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15435]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FRL-6362-5]
RIN 2060-ZA07
Assessment of Visibility Impairment at the Grand Canyon National
Park: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing advance
notice of proposed rulemaking regarding visibility impairment at the
Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP) and the possibility that the Mohave
Generating Station (MGS) in Laughlin, Nevada may contribute to that
impairment. The purpose of this advance notice is to explain provisions
in the Clean Air Act and EPA regulation for protecting visibility in
national parks and wilderness areas. This notice also describes the
Department of the Interior (DOI) certification of visibility impairment
at the Grand Canyon and the statement made by the Department that it
believes the MGS is contributing to this impairment. This notice also
presents a summary of the methodologies and results of Project MOHAVE,
the study which evaluated the impacts of emissions from the MGS on
visibility at the GCNP. In this notice, EPA is also requesting
additional information that it should consider in determining whether
visibility problems at the GCNP can be reasonably attributed to MGS,
and if so, what, if any, pollution control requirements should be
applied. EPA is not proposing any specific action regarding the MGS at
this time but is providing background information and requesting
additional information that the agency should consider.
DATES: Comments on this advanced notice of proposed rulemaking must be
submitted no later than August 16, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:
EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street (AIR2), San Francisco, CA 94105,
Attn: Regina Spindler (Phone: 415-744-1251).
Docket: EPA has established a docket for this document, Docket
Number A2-99-01. Materials related to the development of this notice
have been placed in this docket. The docket is available for review at:
EPA Region IX, Air Division, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Interested persons may make an appointment with Regina Spindler,
(415) 744-1251, to inspect the docket at EPA's San Francisco office on
weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.
Electronic Availability: This document is also available as an
electronic file on the EPA Region IX Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/
region09.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Spindler (415) 744-1251,
Planning Office (AIR2), Air Division, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Outline
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
1. Clean Air Act Visibility Requirements
2. EPA's Visibility Regulations
3. Federal Implementation Plans for Visibility Protection
4. ``Reasonable Attribution'' Determination for Navajo
Generating Station
B. The Department of the Interior Certification of Visibility
Impairment
[[Page 32459]]
C. The Mohave Generating Station
II. Information Available for ``Reasonable Attribution'' Analysis
A. Project MOHAVE
B. Other Available Information
III. Request for Public Comment
A. ``Reasonable Attribution'' Determination
B. ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' Analysis
IV. Activities Related to the Mohave Generating Station and
Visibility Impairment at the Grand Canyon National Park
A. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
B. Public Meeting
C. Grand Canyon Trust/Sierra Club Lawsuit
D. Environmental Defense Fund Letter
E. Southern California Edison Proposal
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
1. Clean Air Act Visibility Requirements
Section 169A of the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7491,
provides for a visibility protection program and sets forth as a
national goal ``the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' (The terms
``impairment of visibility'' and ``visibility impairment'' are defined
in the Act to include reduction in visual range and atmospheric
discoloration.) Section 169A requires EPA, after consultation with the
Secretary of the Interior, to promulgate a list of ``mandatory Class I
Federal areas'' where visibility is an important value. These areas
include international parks, national wilderness areas and national
memorial parks greater than five thousand acres in size, and national
parks greater than six thousand acres in size, as described in section
162(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Each mandatory Class I Federal
area is the responsibility of a Federal Land Manager (FLM), the
Secretary of the federal department with authority over such lands.
Section 302(i) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). On November 30, 1979, EPA
identified 156 such mandatory Class I Federal areas, including the
Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona. 44 FR 69122.
Section 169A(a)(1) of the Act states that ``Congress declares as a
national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any
existing, impairment of visibility in mandatory class I Federal areas
which impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' Section
169A(a)(4) requires EPA to promulgate regulations to assure reasonable
progress toward meeting these national visibility protection goals.
EPA's regulations must require each state with a mandatory Class I
Federal area (or states with emissions that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
mandatory Class I Federal area) to revise the applicable implementation
plan for that state (SIP) to contain such emission limits, schedules of
compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward meeting the national visibility protection goal. CAA
section 169A(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2). The SIP revisions for these
subject states must require each existing major stationary source
1 that emits any air pollutant that may reasonably be
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in a
mandatory Class I Federal area to install and operate ``best available
retrofit technology'' (BART) for controlling emissions from such source
to eliminate or reduce visibility impairment. CAA section
169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). Pursuant to section
169A(b)(2)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(B), EPA's regulations
must further require these states to include long term strategies in
their SIP revisions for making reasonable progress toward meeting the
national goal. Section 110(a)(2)(J) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)(J), provides a corollary provision that requires SIPs to
meet the visibility protection requirements of part C of the Clean Air
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of the visibility protection requirements, the
term ``major stationary source'' in the statute generally means any
of a list of 26 different categories of stationary sources of air
pollutants, which has the potential to emit 250 tons per year or
more of any air pollutant. CAA section 169A(g)(7), 42 U.S.C.
7491(g)(7). The statutory provisions apply to such ``major
stationary sources'' which were not in operation prior to August 7,
1962, and were in existence on August 7, 1977. CAA section
169A(b)(2)(A), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A). The term ``existing
stationary facility'' is defined to include these statutory
criteria. In addition, the definition of ``existing stationary
facility'' includes any reconstructed source and provides that
fugitive emissions are included in determining the potential
emissions from a source. 40 CFR 51.301(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. EPA's Visibility Regulations
On December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated what it described as the first
phase of the required visibility regulations, codified at 40 CFR
51.300-307. (45 FR 80084). These visibility regulations apply to 36
states, including Nevada, that contain mandatory Class I Federal areas.
The visibility regulations require these 36 states to comply with the
requirements set forth above, including (1) coordinating development of
SIP requirements with appropriate FLMs; (2) developing a program to
assess and remedy visibility impairment from new and existing sources;
(3) developing a long-term strategy (10-15 years) to assure reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal; (4) developing a
visibility monitoring strategy to collect information on visibility
conditions; and (5) considering in all aspects of visibility protection
any ``integral vistas'' (important views of landmarks or panoramas that
extend outside of the boundaries of the Class I area) identified by the
FLMs as critical to a visitor's enjoyment of the Class I area. 40 CFR
51.300-307.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These visibility regulations only address the type of
visibility impairment that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a
single source or small group of sources. In 1980 when EPA
promulgated these regulations, EPA deferred setting SIP requirements
to address visibility impairment caused by ``regional haze'' (i.e.,
a widespread, regionally homogeneous haze from a multitude of
sources which impairs visibility in every direction over a large
area) due to the complexity and technical limitations inherent in
attempting to identify, measure, and control this type of widespread
visibility impairment. In 1993, the National Academy of Sciences
concluded that ``current scientific knowledge is adequate and
control technologies are available for taking regulatory action to
improve and protect visibility.'' EPA promulgated regulations to
address regional haze on April 22, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An FLM may, at any time, certify to a state that impairment of
visibility exists in a mandatory Class I Federal area. 40 CFR
51.302(c). If the FLM certifies such impairment at least 6 months prior
to submission of a revised SIP, an affected state must (1) identify
each existing stationary facility which may ``reasonably be anticipated
to cause or contribute'' to any impairment which is ``reasonably
attributable to that existing stationary facility,'' and (2) analyze
and determine what emission limitation represents the ``best available
retrofit technology'' at each such facility. 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4).
Visibility impairment is ``reasonably attributable'' to a facility if
it is ``attributable by visual observations or any other technique the
state deems appropriate.'' 40 CFR 51.301(s). The state must also
include in its plan an assessment of visibility impairment and a
discussion of how each element of the plan relates to preventing future
or remedying existing impairment in any mandatory Class I Federal area
in the state. 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(ii). The visibility regulations also
provide for periodic review, and revision as appropriate, of the long-
term strategy for making reasonable progress toward the visibility
goals at a minimum frequency of every three years. 40 CFR 51.306(c).
The 36
[[Page 32460]]
affected states were required to submit revisions to their SIPs to
comply with these requirements by September 2, 1981. 40 CFR
51.302(a)(1).
3. Federal Implementation Plans for Visibility Protection
Most states did not meet the September 2, 1981 deadline for
submitting a SIP revision to address visibility protection. A number of
environmental groups filed a citizen suit seeking to compel EPA to
promulgate its own visibility implementation plans for the states that
had failed to submit SIPs to EPA, pursuant to section 110(c) of the
Act. In the final rule published on November 24, 1987, EPA disapproved
the SIPs of 29 states, including Nevada, for failure to comply with the
visibility SIP requirements of 40 CFR 51.300-307. In order to implement
the visibility protection program, EPA promulgated a federal
implementation plan (FIP) for each state that failed to submit a
visibility plan, including Nevada. 52 FR 45132 (November 24, 1987)
codified at 40 CFR 52.27, 52.29 and 52.1488. See also 40 CFR 52.26 and
52.28.
In the preamble to the proposed FIP, EPA addressed certifications
of existing visibility impairment (i.e., certifications of impairment
that the FLM submitted prior to June 1, 1986) submitted by the FLM. The
FLM certified that there was impairment in all Class I areas in the
lower 48 states. EPA reviewed the certification for each Class I area,
and determined that there was insufficient information or technical
support to determine if the impairment existed within certain Class I
areas, or to positively attribute impairment to any specific source or
sources. In other Class I areas, research was underway but not yet
completed to better characterize and identify the sources of
impairment. In one other area, EPA had approved the SIP for visibility
in that state and assumed that the certification of impairment would be
addressed in the periodic report required by the state's visibility
SIP. 52 FR 7802, 7805-7807 (March 12, 1987). For these reasons, EPA
determined that, as of the final rulemaking (November 24, 1987), states
were not required to include Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
requirements in their implementation plans to address existing
impairment. 52 FR 45132, 45133-45134. The EPA, however, acknowledged
that information could become available in the future indicating
impairment and that the FLM could certify the existence of visibility
impairment at any time. Any future certifications of visibility
impairment would be addressed by either the state or EPA (if the state
SIP remains disapproved for visibility protection). 52 FR 45132, 45136.
In the visibility protection FIP, EPA established requirements for
visibility monitoring, new source review (in attainment and
nonattainment areas) and a long term strategy to make progress toward
the national visibility protection goal. To fulfill these requirements,
EPA is authorized to utilize such monitoring techniques that it deems
appropriate and to promulgate such measures, including control
strategies, that EPA deems necessary to make reasonable progress toward
the national visibility goal. 40 CFR 52.26-52.29. As such, if a FLM
makes a certification of visibility impairment involving a state that
does not have an approved SIP, EPA determines whether visibility
impairment in a mandatory Class I Federal area is reasonably
attributable to an existing stationary facility (defined in footnote 1,
above). As noted above, EPA acknowledged that the FLMs may certify
visibility impairment in a Class I Federal area at any time, and
provided that future certifications of visibility impairment by the
FLMs would be addressed through the general plan requirements and the
periodic review requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.302(c), 51.306(c),
52.26, and 52.29(c). In the preamble to the visibility FIP, EPA noted
that it ``may need to reassess the need for BART or other control
measures'' to remedy future certifications of impairment by the FLM. 52
FR 7802, 7808 (March 12, 1987). In the preamble to the final rule, EPA
noted that ``[A]ny certification of impairment made to a State, or to
EPA in lieu of a State, would then be addressed in the periodic review
of the visibility SIP or FIP.'' 52 FR 45132, 45136 (November 24, 1987).
If the state (or EPA) determines that impairment is reasonably
attributable to an existing stationary facility, then the applicable
plan's strategy for making progress toward the visibility goal would
include a determination of BART for that existing stationary facility.
40 CFR 51.302, 52.26 and 52.29. See also 52 FR 7802, 7808 (March 12,
1987) and 52 FR 45132, 45136 (November 24, 1987). BART must be
installed and operated as expeditiously as practicable, but in no case
later than five years from the date that the state (or EPA) determines
visibility impairment in a Class I Federal area is reasonably
attributable to the source(s). (See discussion of BART in section
III.B., infra.)
4. ``Reasonable Attribution'' Determination for Navajo Generating
Station
The threshold for determining whether visibility impairment is
reasonably attributable to a stationary facility was reviewed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Central Arizona Water
Conservation District, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 990
F.2d 1531, 1541, cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 94 (1993). In CAWCD, the
petitioners challenged a final rule by EPA that visibility impairment
was reasonably attributable to the Navajo Generating Station (NGS). EPA
had found that visibility impairment in the Grand Canyon National Park
could in part be reasonably attributed to sulfur dioxide emissions from
the NGS and required installation and operation of pollution controls
at the plant as part of the long term strategy for addressing
visibility impairment. EPA acknowledged that NGS was not the only
source of visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon. The petitioners
argued, among other things, that EPA was limited to certain techniques
for attributing impairment to a particular source, and that EPA
overestimated the improvement in visibility expected from installing
and operating controls at NGS. The Ninth Circuit denied the petition
for review. The Court concluded that the record more than adequately
supported EPA's conclusion that visibility impairment was attributable
to NGS. The Court noted that the facts showing the existence of other
sources of impairment
hardly mean that EPA is without statutory authority to remedy the
impairment attributable to NGS. Even if the Final Rule addresses
only a small fraction of the visibility impairment at the Grand
Canyon, EPA still has the statutory authority to address that
portion of the visibility impairment problem which is, in fact,
`reasonably attributable' to NGS. Congress mandated an extremely low
triggering threshold, requiring the installment of stringent
emission controls when an individual source `emits any air pollutant
which may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to any
impairment of visibility' in a class I Federal area.
CAWCD, 990 F 2d at 1541. The Court further agreed that EPA had broad
latitude to determine whether visibility impairment is ``reasonably
attributable'' to a given source, and referred to a report by the
National Research Council noting that ``Congress has not required
ironclad scientific certainty establishing the precise relationship
between a source's emissions and resulting visibility impairment.'' Id.
[[Page 32461]]
B. The Department of the Interior Certification of Visibility
Impairment
As discussed above, a Federal Land Manager may at any time certify
the existence of visibility impairment at a Class I Federal area. On
November 14, 1985, the Department of the Interior certified to EPA the
existence of visibility impairment in all Class I Federal areas within
the Department's jurisdiction in the lower 48 states. On August 19,
1997, DOI sent a letter to EPA that reaffirmed the Department's 1985
certification of visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon National
Park and stated DOI's belief that there is sufficient information
available to support a ``reasonable attribution'' finding concerning
the Mohave Generating Station (MGS). The DOI provided, as an attachment
to its August 1997 letter, a document prepared by the National Park
Service which summarizes published studies which DOI believes
demonstrate that emissions from MGS contribute to visibility impairment
at GCNP. The DOI requested that if EPA agreed with DOI's assessment of
``reasonable attribution,'' EPA comply with its statutory obligation to
determine the best available retrofit technology for MGS. The DOI
recommended that in doing so, EPA discuss the environmental, energy,
and economic factors relevant to MGS with key interested parties and
emphasized that the interests of the Navajo and Hopi tribes be fairly
represented and protected in the decision-making process. Should EPA
find that the MGS is reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment at the GCNP, it must consider several factors,
including available technology, costs of compliance, energy impacts,
and non-air quality environmental impacts in determining appropriate
pollution control requirements.
C. Mohave Generating Station
The Mohave Generating Station is a 1580 MW coal-fired power plant
located in Laughlin, Nevada, approximately 75 miles southwest of the
Grand Canyon National Park. It was built between 1967 and 1971. It
currently emits over 40,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) per
year. MGS is operated by Southern California Edison, the majority owner
of the plant. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Nevada
Power Company, and Salt River Project also own interests in the plant.
The coal for the plant comes from the Black Mesa Coal Mine on the Hopi
and Navajo Reservations via a 273-mile coal slurry pipeline. The mine,
operated by Peabody Western Coal Company, is jointly owned by the
Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe. Groundwater from an aquifer
underlying the Navajo and Hopi reservations provides the water for the
slurry pipeline.
II. Information Available for ``Reasonable Attribution'' Analysis
A. Project MOHAVE
As a result of EPA regulatory action on the Navajo Generating
Station, described elsewhere in this notice, Congress directed EPA to
conduct a tracer study to ascertain the extent to which the Mohave
Generating Station contributes to visibility impairment at the Grand
Canyon National Park. Congress created this directive through a budget
line item in EPA's fiscal year 1991 budget. The tracer study was
developed as a cooperative effort among EPA, the National Park Service,
and the majority owners and operators of the MGS, Southern California
Edison Company. This cooperative effort was named Project Measurement
Of Haze And Visibility Effects, more commonly referred to as Project
MOHAVE.
Project MOHAVE was an extensive monitoring, modeling, and data
assessment project designed to estimate the contributions of the MGS to
haze at the GCNP. The field study component of the project was
conducted in 1992 and contained two intensive monitoring periods
(approximately 30 days in the winter and approximately 50 days in the
summer). Tracer materials were continuously released from the MGS stack
during the two intensive periods to enable the tracking of emissions
specifically from MGS. Tracer, ambient particulate composition and
SO2 concentrations were measured at about 30 locations in a
four-state region. Two of these monitoring sites, Hopi Point near the
main visitor center at the south rim of the canyon and Meadview near
the far western end of the national park, were used as key receptor
sites representative of GCNP.
The process of identifying and quantifying the impact of MGS's
emissions on visibility in GCNP used two types of assessment
methodologies. The first method, known as receptor modeling, is an
empirical assessment of the extensive data collected during the study
to estimate the presence of pollutants and tracer emitted from MGS, and
to estimate increases in particulate sulfur and light scattering. The
advantage of this method is that it provides for modeled predictions to
be verified with measured data. The disadvantage of this method is that
measurements can only be taken at monitored locations during a limited
time period. The second method relies on the application of
mathematical models that attempt to estimate the transport and
chemistry of MGS's emissions. The advantage of such models is that they
can provide predictions at all locations for all times. The
disadvantage of these models is that they can provide uncertain results
due to the models' inability to accurately replicate the complex
atmospheric chemical processes involved in the formation of visibility-
impairing aerosols.
From the tracer data and the known ratio of tracer to
SO2 emission rates for MGS, we know that SO2
emitted by MGS often reaches Meadview in sufficiently high
concentrations to have the potential to cause impairment. The magnitude
of the impairment that is attributable to MGS depends on how much of
the SO2 from the plant is converted to particulate sulfate.
Sulfate particles in the atmosphere cause light to scatter which
creates hazy conditions and poor visibility. Conversion of
SO2 to sulfate occurs by two different mechanisms: dry
chemistry and wet chemistry. The rate of dry conversion is slow and
greatest during the daylight hours. Wet chemistry is relatively fast
but its occurrence is harder to predict since it requires interaction
of the SO2 emissions with cloud or fog droplets.
With one exception, the methods used in Project MOHAVE had to
explicitly determine or use assumed rates of SO2 to sulfate
conversion for each time period during transport from MGS to GCNP. The
models, therefore, relied in part on assumptions regarding how quickly
emissions move through the atmosphere and how emissions interact with
clouds, and yielded different results in terms of the amount of
SO2 converted to sulfate, which in turn produced different
results regarding the magnitude of Mohave's impact on the Grand Canyon.
The conclusions from the various modelling methods were not always
consistent as to which time periods during the study were most
influenced by emissions from MGS. There is no consensus concerning
which of the methods is more likely to be correct for any particular
time period. Therefore, EPA intends to use these estimates to define a
range for long-term and short-term impacts of the plant on visibility
at GCNP.
EPA believes that the results of the Project MOHAVE study indicate
that the Mohave Generating Station contributes to visibility impairment
at the Grand Canyon National Park. The empirical data from the tracer
study show that
[[Page 32462]]
emissions from MGS reach the Meadview site at the western end of GCNP
in sufficient concentrations to, under certain meteorological
conditions, convert to sulfate and cause visibility impairment. EPA
notes that the study results show that the Mohave Generating Station is
not the major cause of visibility impairment at the GCNP. However, the
study indicates that because of the quantity of SO2 emitted
from the Mohave Generating Station and its proximity to the Grand
Canyon, no other single point source is likely to have as great an
impact on visibility in the Park.
The final Project MOHAVE report is available on the EPA, Region IX
Web Page at http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/mohave.html and in Docket
Number A2-99-01. Project MOHAVE operated under the joint technical and
program management of the EPA and Southern California Edison Company in
close partnership with the National Park Service. Numerous other
organizations contributed to the operations and assessment work of the
project. Since the end of the field study component of the project,
data assessment and modeling efforts have been undertaken by the many
participants and have lead to numerous papers and reports. By design
these efforts have been the products of their respective authors and
have not been endorsed as findings of Project MOHAVE.
B. Other Available Information
There are other studies pertaining to the Mohave Generating
Station's impact on visibility at the Grand Canyon National Park. In
its August 1997 letter to EPA reaffirming visibility impairment at the
Grand Canyon and indicating that Mohave Generating Station is suspected
of contributing to that impairment, DOI referenced several published
papers on this topic as well as the 1993 summary of monitoring data
from the IMPROVE network, the inter-agency visibility monitoring
system. The papers referenced included ``Comparison of Two Back
Trajectory Techniques for Source Apportionment'' by Gebhart, Malm, and
Iyer, June 1993; ``Receptor Model Applied to Patterns in Space (RMAPS)
Part II--Apportionment of Airborne Particulate Sulfate from Project
Mohave'' by Henry, 1997; and ``Examining the Relationship Among
Atmospheric Aerosols and Light Scattering and Extinction in the Grand
Canyon Area'' by Malm, Molenar, Eldred, and Sisler, August 1996. The
general 1993 review of IMPROVE monitoring data and trends showed that
sulfur-containing particles are an important component of the human-
caused visibility impairment at Grand Canyon National Park (20 to 30
percent on average). The August 1996 paper confirms this by finding
that sulfur is responsible for approximately 30 percent of visibility
impairment. Finally, the June 1993 paper, which analyzes data collected
over a 13-year period, indicates that the majority of impairment at the
Grand Canyon is due to transport from the southwest. These papers are
available in Docket Number A2-99-01.
III. Request for Public Comment
EPA is requesting public comment on two matters. The Agency is
seeking information that it should consider in determining whether
visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon National Park is ``reasonably
attributable'' to emissions from the Mohave Generating Station. EPA is
also seeking information that it should consider in conducting a ``Best
Available Retrofit Technology'' analysis, should it find that
impairment is ``reasonably attributable'' to the MGS.
Any determination that impairment at the GCNP is ``reasonably
attributable'' to MGS, and any analysis of BART for the facility would
occur through a future EPA rulemaking, including an opportunity for the
public to comment on EPA's proposed actions.
A. ``Reasonable Attribution'' Determination
In determining whether to propose that visibility impairment at the
Grand Canyon National Park is ``reasonably attributable'' to the Mohave
Generating Station, EPA will consider all available information,
including the results of the Project MOHAVE study and the papers
referenced in the August 1997 letter from DOI to EPA. With today's
notice, EPA is soliciting any additional information to be considered
in assessing the MGS impact on visibility at GCNP. This may be
additional analyses of Project MOHAVE data, or new information related
to assessing impacts over other time periods.
B. ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' Analysis
``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' means an emission limitation
based on the degree of reduction achievable through the application of
the best system of continuous emission reduction for each pollutant
which is emitted by an existing stationary facility. The emission
limitation must be established on a case-by-case basis, taking into
consideration (1) the technology available, (2) costs of compliance,
(3) the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance,
(4) any pollution control equipment in use or in existence at the
source, (5) the remaining useful life of the source, and (6) the degree
of improvement in visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to
result from the use of such technology. 40 CFR 51.301(c) and
52.26(b)(2), and CAA section 169A(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(g)(2). Pursuant
to section 169A(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7491(b), and 40 CFR
51.302(c)(4)(iii), the emission limitation representing BART for fossil
fuel-fired power plants with a generating capacity in excess of 750
megawatts (MW) must be determined pursuant to guidelines set forth by
the Administrator of EPA. The procedures for conducting a BART analysis
are set forth in ``Guidelines for Determining Best Available Retrofit
Technology Analysis for Coal Fired Power Plants and Other Stationary
Facilities' (``BART Guidance''), EPA publication EPA-450-3-8-009b.
With today's notice, EPA is soliciting information to be considered
in establishing BART for MGS, should EPA determine that visibility
impairment at the GCNP is ``reasonably attributable'' to the facility.
Information that EPA is seeking includes analyses of information
related to the six factors listed in the paragraph above.
IV. Activities Related to the Mohave Generating Station and
Visibility at the Grand Canyon National Park
A. Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission
Congress directed EPA to establish the Grand Canyon Visibility
Transport Commission to assess information pertaining to adverse
impacts on visibility at the GCNP and to make recommendations to EPA on
measures that should be taken to remedy such adverse impacts. The
Commission, which was established in 1991, conducted an extensive
review of the scientific, technical, and other information with
assistance from a range of governmental, business, tribal, and
environmental interests. On June 10, 1996, the Commission issued a
report to EPA containing its recommendations for protecting and
improving visibility in Class I areas of the Colorado Plateau,
including the GCNP. The recommendations covered a wide range of control
strategy approaches, planning and tracking activities, and technical
findings. Regarding stationary sources, the Commission recommended that
EPA establish SO2 emissions targets for the year 2000 and
the year 2040, with interim targets to ensure steady and
[[Page 32463]]
continuing emission reductions. The Commission also recommended
development of market-based regulatory programs if emission targets are
not met. While the Commission report did not make any specific
recommendation regarding emission reductions from any specific
stationary source, such as the Mohave Generating Station, it did
strongly encourage EPA to complete the Project MOHAVE source
attribution study and to take action consistent with the results of
that study within twelve months of its completion.
B. Public Meeting
The EPA has been working in close partnership with the Secretary's
Office of the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service
Air Resources Division to address issues concerning the Mohave
Generating Station. During the past year and a half, EPA and DOI have
met with various parties with an interest in the future of the Mohave
Generating Station. On January 8 and 9, 1998, EPA and DOI held a public
meeting in Las Vegas, Nevada to present information and seek input on
the issues, interests, and concerns related to the Mohave Generating
Station and visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon National Park.
Several informational panels outlined the issues, provided background
on visibility science and EPA's visibility regulations, discussed
issues associated with utility restructuring that affect the plant, and
outlined options for reducing emissions at the plant.
Approximately 90 people representing a variety of affected groups
attended the meeting. Representatives from local governments and
businesses stressed the importance of MGS to the local economy and
characterized MGS as a good corporate citizen that supported schools
and civic projects. One private citizen expressed concern about the
health effects of emissions from the plant, noting that a plume of
smoke was always visible from the plant. Speakers for environmental
groups stated that MGS is a significant contributor to haze at the
Grand Canyon National Park, emits pollutants at a higher level than
other power plants, and is at a competitive advantage to other plants
that have installed pollution controls. The environmental groups
believe that there is enough information available currently to show
that MGS is affecting visibility at the Grand Canyon National Park and
that EPA should act immediately to require pollution controls. The
Navajo Nation expressed concerns about air and water quality but
highlighted the importance of MGS to the Navajo economy, which depends
significantly on revenues from coal sales to the plant. Southern
California Edison stated that it wants to protect the environment while
maintaining the economic viability of the plant. SCE stated that at the
current market price for electricity, the cost of installing control
equipment at the plant would make the plant unprofitable. Union
representatives, MGS employees, and companies that provide raw
materials to MGS highlighted their reliance on MGS and emphasized that
continued operation of the plant is important to state, local, and
tribal economies and living standards.
In addition to the comments made at the public meeting in Las
Vegas, EPA has received hundreds of letters from people expressing
concern about visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon and urging EPA
to require installation of pollution controls at the Mohave Generating
Station.
C. Grand Canyon Trust/Sierra Club Lawsuit
On February 19, 1998, Grand Canyon Trust (GCT) filed a citizen suit
in the federal district court for the District of Nevada against the
owners of the Mohave Generating Station. GCT alleged that the defendant
had violated several SIP provisions that apply to the Mohave Generating
Station. GCT included allegations that the Mohave Generating Station
had exceeded emission limits in the Nevada and Clark County SIPs for
opacity and sulfur dioxide, and had failed to conduct necessary
reporting. Sierra Club and the National Parks and Conservation
Association subsequently joined GCT as plaintiffs in the citizen suit.
The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the suit and a motion for
partial summary judgement. The plaintiffs have filed an opposition to
the motion to dismiss and a motion for partial summary judgment. These
motions are currently pending before the court.
D. Environmental Defense Fund Letter
The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) submitted a letter to the
Regional Administrator of EPA Region IX in November 1998 noting its
concern over EPA's failure to conduct a review of the visibility
protection plan for the state of Nevada. As part of the long term
strategy to address visibility protection, EPA is required to conduct a
review of the visibility protection plan every three years to determine
whether the plan is sufficient or if additional measures are necessary
for visibility protection. 40 CFR 52.29(c)(4). (Because the state of
Nevada does not have an approved SIP for visibility, EPA is required to
assume responsibility for visibility protection until such time as the
State submits, and EPA approves, a SIP that adequately provides for
visibility protection.) Pursuant to 40 CFR 52.29, EPA must include in
its triennial report an assessment of the progress made in remedying
existing impairment, changes in visibility since the last report,
whether additional measures are necessary to assure reasonable progress
toward the national visibility goal and any progress achieved in
implementing BART. EDF notes that EPA has not updated the visibility
protection plan or conducted any of the required reviews, even though
the Department of the Interior has notified EPA of visibility
impairment at the Grand Canyon National Park and has submitted
information indicating that such impairment is attributable to
emissions from the Mohave Generating Station. EDF further refers to
studies that have been conducted (including Project MOHAVE) which EDF
believes indicate that emissions from the Mohave Generating Station
contribute to visibility impairment. On April 20, 1999, EDF sent EPA
notice of its intent to sue the Agency, pursuant to section 304(b)(1)
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7604(b)(1), and 40 CFR part 54. EDF's notice of
intent to sue made the same claims as contained in its November 1998
letter to EPA.
E. Southern California Edison Proposal
On December 11, 1998, Southern California Edison and the other
owners of the Mohave Generating Station announced that by 2008, they
would either install emission control equipment at the plant or shut
the plant down. The control equipment would include sulfur-dioxide
scrubbers and bag houses, devices designed to reduce particulate matter
emissions. The MGS owners stated that installations could begin by 2005
and that work would be completed no later than 2008. The owners noted
that the plant must be able to operate economically with additional
emission control devices; otherwise the plant would not operate beyond
2008. The announcement indicated that the MGS owners would participate
in collaborative discussions with interest groups, including the Hopi
tribe, the Navajo Nation, environmental organizations, communities near
the plant, plant employees, and state and federal agencies to ``speed
resolution of key environmental issues regarding the Mohave plant.''
[[Page 32464]]
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a
rule that may:
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Due to potential policy issues this action is considered a
significant regulatory action and therefore was reviewed by OMB.
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations have
been documented in the public record.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.,
EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact
of any rule on small entities unless the Agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604 and 605(b). Small entities include
small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and government
entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000. This
advance notice of proposed rulemaking will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities because it will not
create any new requirements for any entity. The notice merely presents
background information and requests input from the public. Therefore, I
certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, this advance notice
of proposed rulemaking does not require a regulatory flexibility
analysis.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: June 11, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 99-15435 Filed 6-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P