Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Four Corners Power Plant; Navajo Nation

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