[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48731-48739]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23277]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 49 and 52
[FRL-6432-6]
RIN 2060-AF42
Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners
Power Plant; 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 Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP), a coal-
fired power plant located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near
Farmington, New Mexico.
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. 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. Four Corners Power Plant--Facility Description
IV. Summary of FIP Provisions
A. State Standards
B. Acid Rain Program Requirements
C. Proposed FIP Standards
[[Page 48732]]
D. Summary of Changes From State Standards
E. 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
New Mexico state implementation plan (SIP) applicable to the FCPP.
Where necessary, EPA's proposed emission standards and associated
requirements modify those extracted from New Mexico's regulatory
programs to ensure comprehensive emission control and federal
consistency.
B. Facility
FCPP is a privately owned and operated coal-fired power plant
located on the Navajo Indian Reservation near Farmington, New Mexico.
Through lease agreements, the facility utilizes real property held in
trust by the federal government for the Navajo Nation. The facility
operates five units with a total capacity in excess of 2000 megawatts
(MW). Operations at the facility produce emissions of sulfur dioxide
(SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NOX) and particulate
matter (PM).
C. Attainment
FCPP is located in the Four Corners Interstate air quality control
region (AQCR), which is designated attainment for all criteria
pollutants under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``the Act''). 40 CFR 81.332.
As the proposed FCPP 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. Jurisdictional Issue
Historically, emissions of air pollutants from the FCPP facility
have been regulated under provisions of the New Mexico air pollution
control program, in accordance with the New Mexico 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 FCPP. Upon review of the
circumstances surrounding the location and operation of FCPP 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 New Mexico, the Navajo Nation and
FCPP 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 FCPP 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 New Mexico SIP 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``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.''
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 at 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 FCPP as are necessary to
[[Page 48733]]
ensure continued compliance with the substantive requirements of the
New Mexico SIP, 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 FCPP. Although the facility has been historically regulated by New
Mexico 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 FCPP and has indicated to EPA that it prefers to
have EPA address the emissions from FCPP 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 applicable to FCPP contained in the New Mexico 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 (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 FCPP, 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 FCPP is in place and the FIP is withdrawn.
III. Four Corners Power Plant--Facility Description
The FCPP is a 2040 MW coal-fired power plant located on the Navajo
Indian Reservation near Farmington, New Mexico. The FCPP consists of
three 190 to 253 MW units and two 818 MW units all of which became
operational between 1962 and 1970. The Arizona Public Service Company
(APS) is the operating agent for FCPP which is jointly owned by the
APS, the Southern California Edison Company, the Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), the Public Service
Company of New Mexico, the El Paso Electric Company and the Tucson
Electric Power Company. Existing pollution control equipment at FCPP
units 4 and 5 includes baghouses and lime spray towers for
SO2 control and specific burners designed for NOX
control. Units 1, 2 and 3 each have a venturi scrubber for particulate
and SO2 control.
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 (FCPP must also
continue to comply with all applicable federal requirements). These
standards, derived from the New Mexico SIP, are summarized as follows:
1. SO2 emissions are limited to 28 percent of the
SO2 produced in coal burning or 17,900 pounds per hour based
on an averaged three hour period (AQCR 602).
2. Particulate emissions are limited to 0.05 pounds per million BTU
(AQCR 504).
3. Excess emissions notification requirements are specified (AQCR
801).
B. Acid Rain Program Requirements
The Federal Acid Rain Program requires that low-NOX
burners be installed on all five units. By the year 2000, Units 1, 2
and 3 (wall-fired boilers) must comply with a .46 lb/MMbtu annual
average of NOX. Units 4 and 5 (cell-fired boilers) must meet
a limit of .68 lb/MMbtu.
Emissions of SO2 are regulated through an allowance
system. FCPP has sufficient allowances to cover current emissions.
C. Proposed FIP Standards
1. SO2 emissions are not to exceed 28 percent of the
SO2 produced in the burning of sulfur-bearing coal (averaged
over successive thirty boiler operating day periods station-wide) and
not to exceed 17,900 pounds of total SO2 per hour averaged
over any consecutive three hour period station-wide.
2. Particulate emissions are not to exceed 0.050 pounds per million
BTU of heat input.
3. Opacity is limited to 20 percent averaged over a six minute
period, for Units 4 and 5.
4. APS will develop a plan to monitor, record and report operating
parameters indicative of good operation of the scrubbers for control of
particulate matter on Units 1, 2, and 3.
5. Nitrogen oxides are not to exceed 0.85 pounds per million BTU of
input for Units 1 and 2, and 0.65 pounds per million BTU of input for
Units 3, 4, and 5, averaged over any successive 30 boiler operating day
period; nor shall they exceed 335,000 lb per 24-hour period on a
station-wide basis. When any one unit is not operating, the limits are
reduced by 1542 pounds per hour for units 1, 2, and 3, and by 4667
pounds per hour for units 4 and 5.
D. Summary of Changes From State Standards
1. The NOX requirements are more stringent than those
contained in the New Mexico SIP. These requirements were submitted to
EPA, Region 6, on November 4, 1991 as a New Mexico SIP revision, and
were not acted on as the SIP has no effect over FCPP.
2. The SIP particulate emissions sampling methods, which were based
in part on an analysis of fine particulates, have been changed to EPA
methods referenced in federal code (40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods
1-5). The fine particulate analysis was not being routinely performed
and the EPA methods were in use at the facility. Further, EPA believes
that the particulate matter limit is the more stringent of the two
emission limits.
3. The standard for opacity has been added in order to confirm
Units 4 and 5 are in continuous compliance and are properly operated
and maintained. These units operate with baghouses for particulate
control and therefore are able to meet this limit.
4. The opacity limit is not being applied to Units 1, 2 and 3. The
scrubbers currently in operation on Units 1, 2 and 3 were designed for
control of particulate, and were later redesigned to also control
sulfur dioxide. However, FCPP cannot currently meet a continuous
opacity limit of 20 percent at Units 1, 2 and 3. EPA is proposing that
FCPP design and enact a plan to monitor operating parameters such as
pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow for the scrubbers. This will
yield information about continuous proper operation of the
[[Page 48734]]
scrubbers for particulate control. This information could then be used
to determine appropriate parameters, which could be included in FCPP's
Title V permit as indicators for good particulate matter control
practice.
5. The standard for SO2 is unchanged but the method of
compliance determination has been changed to a method based on CEM
rather than on stack sampling.
6. A number of other changes were made relative to the New Mexico
SIP making the FIP specific to FCPP, and to conform to EPA excess
emissions and other reporting and quality assurance procedures.
E. 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 FCPP. Interested
parties should submit comments to the address listed in the front of
this proposed rule. Public comments postmarked by October 8, 1999 will
be considered in the final action taken by EPA.
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 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. 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. 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 Four
Corners Power Plant 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, Public Law
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
[[Page 48735]]
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 FCPP 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
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 FCPP. Accordingly,
the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply
to this rule.
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 (10 (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
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.
Consistent with the NTTAA, the Agency conducted a search to
identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards (VCS).
For the measurement of the sulfur in the coal for calculating the
efficiency of the SO2 scrubbers for FCCP, EPA proposes to
require use of ASTM standards. FCCP would have the ability to choose an
applicable ASTM standard for both the coal sample collection and the
sulfur in coal analysis.
Another 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 through 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.
NOX--EPA Method 7E and Performance Specification 2 for
Continuous NOX Monitoring and Performance Specification 6
for Flow Monitoring.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
[[Page 48736]]
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. 49.21 to read
as follows:
Sec. 49.21 Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Four Corners
Power Plant, Navajo Nation.
(a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall apply to
each owner or operator of the coal burning equipment designated as
Units 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 at the Four Corners Power Plant (``the Plant'')
in the Navajo Indian Reservation located in the Four Corners Interstate
Air Quality Control Region (see 40 CFR 81.121).
(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 (EPA) or his/her authorized representative.
(2) Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a 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) Air pollution control equipment includes baghouses, particulate
or gaseous scrubbers, and any other apparatus utilized to control
emissions of regulated air contaminants which would be emitted to the
atmosphere.
(4) Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period during which coal
is combusted in a Unit for the entire 24 hours.
(5) Daily average means the arithmetic average of the hourly values
measured in a 24-hour period.
(6) Excess emissions means the emissions of air contaminants in
excess of an applicable emissions limitation or requirement.
(7) Heat input means heat derived from combustion of fuel in a Unit
and does not include the heat input from preheated combustion air,
recirculated flue gases, or exhaust gases from other sources.
(8) 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.
(9) Owner or Operator means any person who owns, leases, operates,
controls, or supervises the Plant or any of the coal burning equipment
designated as Units 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 at the Plant.
(10) Oxides of nitrogen (NOX) means the sum of nitric
oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the flue gas,
expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
(11) Shutdown means the cessation of operation of any air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or process for any purpose.
Specifically, for Units 1, 2, or 3, shutdown begins when the unit drops
below 40 MW net load with the intent to remove the unit from service.
For Units 4 or 5, shutdown begins when the unit drops below 300 MW net
load with the intent to remove the unit from service.
(12) Startup means the setting into operation of any air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or process for any purpose.
Specifically, for Units 1, 2,or 3, startup ends when the unit reaches
40 MW net load. For Units 4 or 5, startup ends when the unit reaches
400 MW net load.
(13) Station-wide basis means total stack emissions of any
particular pollutant from all coal burning equipment at the Plant.
(14) 24-hour period means the period of time between 12:01 a.m. and
12:00 midnight.
(d) Emissions Standards.--(1) Sulfur Dioxide. No owner or operator
shall discharge or cause the discharge of sulfur dioxide
(SO2) into the atmosphere in excess of:
(i) 28% of that which is produced by the Plant's coal burning
equipment, averaged over any successive thirty (30) boiler operating
day period, determined on a station-wide basis; and
(ii) 17,900 pounds of total sulfur dioxide emissions per hour
averaged over any consecutive three (3) hour period, determined on a
station-wide basis.
(2) Particulate Matter. No owner or operator shall discharge or
cause the discharge of particulate matter from any coal burning
equipment into the atmosphere in excess of 0.050 pound per million
British thermal unit (lb/MMBtu) of heat input (higher heating value),
as averaged over six (6) hours of sampling.
(3) Opacity. No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the
discharge of emissions from the stacks of Units 4 and 5 into the
atmosphere exhibiting greater than 20% opacity, excluding water vapor,
averaged over any six (6) minute period (except for one six (6) minute
period per hour of not more than 27% opacity, excluding water vapor).
(4) Oxides of nitrogen. No owner or operator shall discharge or
cause the discharge of NOX into the atmosphere:
(i) From either Unit 1 or 2 in excess of 0.85 lb/MMBtu of heat
input per unit, and from either Units 3, 4, or 5 in excess of 0.65 lb/
MMBtu of heat input per unit averaged over any successive thirty (30)
boiler operating day period;
(ii) In excess of 335,000 lb per 24-hour period when coal burning
equipment is operating, on a station-wide basis; for each hour when
coal burning equipment is not operating, this limitation shall be
reduced. If the unit which is not operating is Unit 1, 2, or 3, the
limitation shall be reduced by 1,542 lb per hour for each unit which is
not operating. If the unit which is not operating is Unit 4 or 5, the
limitation shall be reduced by 4,667 lb per hour for each unit which is
not operating.
(e) Testing and monitoring. Upon completion of the installation of
continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS) software as required in
this section, compliance with the emissions limits set for
SO2 and NOX shall be determined by using data
from a CEMS unless otherwise specified in paragraphs (e)(2) and (e)(4)
of this section. Compliance with the emissions limit set for
particulate matter shall be determined annually, or at such other time
as requested by the Administrator, based on data from testing conducted
in accordance with 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, Methods 1 through 5, or
any other method receiving prior approval from the Administrator. Upon
completion of the installation of continuous opacity monitoring systems
(COMS) software as required in this regulation, compliance with the
emissions limits set for opacity shall be determined by using data from
a COMS except during saturated stack conditions (condensed water
vapor). If the baghouse is operating within its normal operating
parameters and a high opacity reading occurs it will be presumed that
the occurrence was caused by saturated stack conditions and shall not
be considered an excess emission.
[[Page 48737]]
(1) The owner or operator shall maintain and operate CEMS for
SO2, NO or NOX, a diluent and, for Units 4 and 5
only, COMS, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13, and appendix B of
40 CFR part 60. Within six (6) months of promulgation of this
regulation, the owner or operator shall install CEMS and COMS software
which complies with the requirements of this regulation. The owner or
operator of the Plant may petition the Administrator for extension of
the six (6) month period for good cause shown. Completion of 40 CFR
part 75 monitor certification requirements shall be deemed to satisfy
the requirements under 40 CFR 60.8 and 60.13 and appendix B of part 60.
The owner or operator shall comply with the quality assurance
procedures for CEMS found in 40 CFR part 75, and all reports required
thereunder shall be submitted to the Administrator. The owner or
operator shall provide the Administrator notice in accordance with 40
CFR 75.61.
(2) Sulfur Dioxide. (i) For the purpose of determining compliance
with this section, the sulfur dioxide inlet rate (in lb/MMBtu) shall be
calculated using the daily average percent sulfur and Btu content of
the coal combusted. The inlet sulfur concentration and Btu content
shall be determined in accordance with American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) methods or any other method receiving prior approval
from the Administrator. The analyses shall be done on as fired daily
fuel samples collected before the coal pulverizers using ASTM methods
or any other method receiving prior approval from the Administrator.
The inlet sulfur dioxide concentration shall be calculated using the
following formula:
Is = 2(%Sf)/GCV x 10\4\ English units
Where:
Is = sulfur dioxide inlet concentrations in pounds per
million Btu;
%Sf = weight percent sulfur content of the fuel; and
GCV = Gross calorific value for the fuel in Btu per pound.
(ii) The outlet SO2 emissions shall be determined from
CEMS data gathered in accordance with this section.
(3) Particulate Matter. Particulate matter testing shall be
conducted annually and at least six (6) months apart, with the
equipment within 90% of maximum operation in accordance with 40 CFR
60.8 and appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. The owner or operator may test
Units 1 and 2 together when both units are operating or may test them
separately when one unit is out of service since Units 1 and 2 share a
common stack. The owner or operator shall submit written notice of the
date of testing no later than 21 days prior to testing. Testing may be
performed on a date other than that already provided in a notice as
long as notice of the new date is provided either in writing or by
telephone or other means acceptable to the Administrator, and the
notice is provided as soon as practicable after the new testing date is
known, but no later than 7 days (or a shorter period as approved by the
Administrator) in advance of the new date of testing.
(4) Oxides of nitrogen. The total daily station-wide oxides of
nitrogen emissions in pounds of NO2 per day shall be
calculated using the following formula:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP08SE99.007
Where:
TE = total station-wide nitrogen dioxide emissions (lb NO2/
day);
Eij = hourly average emissions rate of each unit (lb
NO2/MMBtu);
Hij = hourly total heat input for each unit (MMBtu);
n = the number of units of coal burning equipment operating during the
hour;
m = the number of operating hours in a day, from midnight to midnight.
(5) Continuous emissions monitoring shall apply during all periods
of operation of the coal burning equipment, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, except for CEMS breakdowns,
repairs, calibration checks, and zero and span adjustments. Continuous
monitoring systems for measuring sulfur dioxide, NOX, and
diluent gas shall complete a minimum of one cycle of operation
(sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute
period. The one-hour averages shall be calculated using these data
points. At least two data points must be used to calculate the one-hour
averages. When emission data are not obtained because of continuous
monitoring system breakdowns, repairs, calibration checks, or zero and
span adjustments, emission data must be obtained by using other
monitoring systems approved by the EPA to provide emission data for a
minimum of 18 hours in at least 22 out of 30 successive boiler
operating days. NOX emissions rates and quantities shall be
reported as NO2 concentrations. When CEMS data is not
available because of malfunctions, the unavailable NOX data
will be replaced with a calculated value based on the average of the
last valid data point and the next valid data point for purposes of
calculating total station-wide nitrogen dioxide emissions.
(6) 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.
(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. 7414, and
enforce against any violation.
(8) In order to provide reasonable assurance that the scrubbers for
control of particulate matter from Units 1, 2, and 3 are being
maintained and operated in a manner consistent with good air pollution
control practice for minimizing emissions, the owner or operator shall
comply with the following provisions:
(i) The owner or operator shall develop a plan to monitor, record,
and report parameter(s) indicative of the proper operation of the
scrubbers to provide a reasonable assurance of compliance with the
particulate matter limits in paragraph (d)(2) of this section. The
owner or operator shall submit this plan to the Administrator no later
than December 31, 1999. The owner or operator shall implement this plan
within 30 days of approval by the Administrator and shall commence
reporting the data generated pursuant to the monitoring plan in
accordance with the schedule in paragraph (e)(8)(v) of this section.
(ii) In the event that the owner or operator is unable to develop
the plan required in paragraph (e)(8)(i) of this section due to
technical difficulties, fails to submit the plan by December 31, 1999,
or the Administrator disapproves the plan, the owner or operator shall
install and operate devices to measure the pressure drop across each
scrubber module and the total flow of scrubbing liquid to the venturi
section of each scrubber module. The data from these instruments shall
be monitored and recorded electronically. A minimum of one reading
every 15 minutes shall be used to calculate an hourly average which
shall be recorded and stored for at least a five-year period. The owner
or operator shall report in an electronic format either all hourly
data, or one-hour averages deviating by more than 30% from the levels
measured during the last particulate matter stack test that
demonstrated compliance with the limit in this regulation. The owner or
operator shall implement this requirement no later than February 28,
2000 if it fails to submit the plan by December 31, 1999; or no later
than 60 days after the Administrator's disapproval of the plan.
[[Page 48738]]
(iii) The monitoring required under paragraphs (e)(8)(i) and
(e)(8)(ii) of this section shall apply to each Unit at all times that
the Unit is operating, except for monitoring malfunctions, associated
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and
span adjustments). A monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent,
not reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid
data. Monitoring failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not malfunctions.
(iv) The owner or operator may petition the Administrator for an
extension of the December 31, 1999 deadline. Such extension shall be
granted only if the owner or operator demonstrates to the satisfaction
of the Administrator that:
(A) The delay is due to technical infeasibility beyond the control
of the owner or operator; and
(B) The requested extension, if granted, will allow the owner or
operator to successfully complete the plan.
(v) The owner or operator shall submit to the Administrator reports
of the monitoring data required by this regulation quarterly. The
reports shall be postmarked within 30 days of the end of each calendar
quarter.
(vi) The owner or operator shall develop and document a quality
assurance program for the monitoring and recording instrumentation.
This program shall be updated or improved as requested by the
Administrator.
(vii) In the event that a program for parameter monitoring on Units
1, 2, and 3 is approved pursuant to the Compliance Assurance Monitoring
rule, 40 CFR part 64, such program will supersede the provisions
contained in paragraph (e)(8) of 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
limitation in this regulation and upon completion of the installation
of CEMS and COMS as required in this regulation, the owner or operator
shall comply with the following requirements:
(1) For each emissions limit in this regulation, comply with the
notification and recordkeeping requirements for CEMS compliance
monitoring in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d), and the CEMS data assessment
report requirements of 40 CFR part 75.
(2) Furnish the Administrator with reports describing the results
of the annual particulate matter emissions tests postmarked within
sixty (60) days of completing the tests. Each report shall include the
following information:
(i) The test date;
(ii) The test method;
(iii) Identification of the coal burning equipment tested;
(iv) Values for stack pressure, temperature, moisture, and
distribution of velocity heads;
(v) Average heat input;
(vi) Emissions data, identified by sample number, and expressed in
pounds per MMBtu;
(vii) Arithmetic average of sample data expressed in pounds per
MMBtu; and
(viii) A description of any variances from the test method.
(3) Excess emissions report. (i) For excess emissions, the owner or
operator shall notify the Administrator by telephone or in writing
within one business day (``initial notification''). A complete written
report of the incident shall be submitted to the Administrator within
ten (10) business days of the initial notification. The complete
written report shall include:
(A) The name and title of the person reporting;
(B) The identity and location of the Plant and Unit(s) involved,
and the emissions point(s), including bypass, from which the excess
emissions occurred or are occurring;
(C) The time and duration or expected duration of the excess
emissions;
(D) 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;
(E) The nature of the condition causing the excess emissions and
the reasons why excess emissions occurred or are occurring;
(F) 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;
(G) For an opacity exceedance, the 6-minute average opacity
monitoring data greater than 20% for the 24 hours prior to and during
the exceedance for Units 4 and 5; and
(H) The efforts taken or being taken to minimize the excess
emissions and to repair or otherwise bring the Plant into compliance
with the applicable emissions limit(s) or other requirements.
(ii) If the period of excess emissions extends beyond the submittal
of the written report, the owner or operator shall also notify the
Administrator in writing of the exact time and date when the excess
emissions stopped. Compliance with the excess emissions notification
provisions of this secton 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.
(g) Equipment Operations. At all times, including periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, the owner or operator shall, to the
extent practicable, maintain and operate the Plant including associated
air pollution control equipment in a manner consistent with good air
pollution control practices for minimizing emissions. Determination of
whether acceptable operating and maintenance procedures are being used
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, opacity
observations, review of operating and maintenance procedures, and
inspection of the Plant. With regard to the operation of the baghouses
on Units 4 and 5, placing the baghouses in service before coal fires
are initiated will constitute compliance with this paragraph. (If the
baghouse inlet temperature cannot achieve 185 degrees Fahrenheit using
only gas fires, the owner or operator will not be expected to place
baghouses in service before coal fires are initiated; however, the
owner or operator will remain subject to the requirements of this
paragraph.)
(h) Enforcement. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision in this
implementation plan, any credible evidence or information relevant to
whether the Plant 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 the owner or
operator 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;
[[Page 48739]]
(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, et seq.
Subpart GG--New Mexico
2. Subpart GG is proposed to be amended by adding Sec. 52.1641 to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.1641 Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant,
Navajo Nation.
The Federal Implementation Plan regulating emissions from the Four
Corners Power Plant near Farmington, New Mexico is codified at 40 CFR
49.21.
[FR Doc. 99-23277 Filed 9-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P