Assessment of Visibility Impairment at the Grand Canyon National Park: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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