Revisions to the Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Navajo Generating Station, Navajo Nation, 55994-56002 [2018-24482]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
55994
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
(c) Proof of recruitment. An employer
must retain documentation in
accordance with § 655.167(c)(1)(ii) that
demonstrates compliance with
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section.
Such documentation must include
screen shots of the web page on which
the advertisement appears and screen
shots of the web pages establishing the
path that U.S. workers must follow to
access the advertisement.
(d) Transition period for applications
with dates of need prior to October 1,
2019. (1) All employers submitting an
Application for Temporary Employment
Certification with a date of need on or
after October 1, 2019 must place and
retain documentation of an electronic
advertisement in accordance with
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this
section.
(2) An employer submitting an
Application for Temporary Employment
Certification with a date of need prior to
October 1, 2019 may elect to place two
newspaper advertisements in
compliance with the requirements in
paragraphs (d)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section, in lieu of placing and retaining
documentation of the electronic
advertisement required by paragraphs
(a) through (c) of this section.
(i) The employer must place an
advertisement (in a language other than
English, where the CO determines
appropriate) on 2 separate days, which
may be consecutive, one of which must
be a Sunday (except as provided in
paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section), in a
newspaper of general circulation serving
the area of intended employment and is
appropriate to the occupation and the
workers likely to apply for the job
opportunity. Newspaper advertisements
must satisfy the requirements set forth
in § 655.152.
(ii) If the job opportunity is located in
a rural area that does not have a
newspaper with a Sunday edition, the
CO may direct the employer, in place of
a Sunday edition, to advertise in the
regularly published daily edition with
the widest circulation in the area of
intended employment.
■ 3. Amend § 655.167 by revising
paragraph (c)(1)(ii) to read as follows:
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
§ 655.167 Document retention
requirements.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Advertising as specified in
§ 655.151;
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 655.225 by revising
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
§ 655.225 Post-acceptance requirements
for herding and range livestock.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The employer will not be required
to place an advertisement as required in
§ 655.151.
*
*
*
*
*
Molly E. Conway,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Employment
and Training, Labor.
[FR Doc. 2018–24497 Filed 11–8–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 49 and 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0590; FRL–9986–21–
Region 9]
Revisions to the Source-Specific
Federal Implementation Plan for
Navajo Generating Station, Navajo
Nation
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing limited
revisions to the source-specific federal
implementation plan (FIP) that regulates
emissions from the Navajo Generating
Station (NGS), a coal-fired power plant
located on the reservation lands of the
Navajo Nation near Page, Arizona. We
are proposing to lower the emission
limitation for particulate matter (PM) to
conform to the most stringent emission
limitation currently applicable to NGS
under another EPA regulation, and to
replace the opacity limitation and
annual PM source testing requirement
with a requirement to demonstrate
compliance with the lower PM emission
limitation using a continuous emission
monitoring system for particulate
matter.
SUMMARY:
Any comments on this proposal
must arrive by December 10, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID number EPA–
R09–OAR–2018–0590, at https://
www.regulations.gov, or via email to
lee.anita@epa.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. For either manner of
submission, the EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket.
Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment.
The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to
make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the EPA’s full public comment
policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://
www2.epa.gov/dockets/commentingepa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–
3958, lee.anita@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Action
B. Facility
C. Attainment Status
D. The EPA’s Authority To Promulgate a
FIP in Indian Country
E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP Actions
II. Basis for Proposed Action
III. Summary of FIP Provisions
A. Proposed FIP Revisions
B. Justification for Proposed FIP Revisions
IV. Solicitation of Comments
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing
limited revisions to the FIP for NGS that
we promulgated on October 3, 1991
(‘‘1991 FIP’’), March 5, 2010 (‘‘2010
FIP’’), and August 8, 2014 (‘‘2014
FIP’’).1 The provisions of the 1991
action are codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR
52.145(d), and the 2010 and 2014
regulations are codified at 40 CFR
49.5513. We refer collectively to the
provisions from the 1991, 2010, and
2014 actions as the ‘‘FIP’’ or the ‘‘NGS
FIP.’’ The NGS FIP includes federally
enforceable emission limitations for PM,
opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
Generally, the EPA is proposing to
move provisions from the 1991 FIP to a
different section of the CFR and to
1 See 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), 75 FR 10174
(March 5, 2010), and 79 FR 46552 (August 8, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
update certain provisions in the 1991
FIP to be consistent with recent national
rulemakings. Specifically, we are
proposing to move the 1991 FIP
provisions from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40
CFR 49.5513. If finalized, the effect of
our action will be to move requirements
for NGS from subpart D of part 52,
which contains the state
implementation plan (SIP) provisions
for Arizona, to subpart L of part 49,
which contains source-specific FIP
requirements for NGS, to consolidate all
of the applicable requirements for NGS
in one section of the CFR. We are
proposing to update the definition of
‘‘boiler operating day’’ in the 1991 FIP
to be consistent with the definition in
the 2014 FIP.2
In addition, we are proposing to
revise the PM compliance
demonstration from annual source
testing to the use of PM continuous
emissions monitoring systems (PM
CEMS), which were installed and
calibrated on each of the three units at
the facility in 2016. We are also
proposing to lower the PM emission
limitation in the 2010 FIP from 0.060
pounds per million British thermal
units (lb/MMBtu) to 0.030 lb/MMBtu.
This lower emission limitation already
applies to NGS pursuant to the EPA’s
Mercury and Air Toxics Standard
(MATS) Rule.3 Because the operator of
NGS will be using PM CEMS to
demonstrate compliance with the 0.030
lb/MMBtu emission limitation for PM,
the EPA is also proposing to remove the
opacity emission limitation and
associated continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS)
requirements from the NGS FIP. The
opacity limitation and COMS have
generally functioned as surrogates for
ensuring compliance with PM emission
limitations. This proposed revision is
consistent with the provisions related to
PM CEMS and opacity in the New
Source Performance Standard for
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units
(‘‘NSPS for EGUs’’) and the Acid Rain
Program requirements at 40 CFR
75.14(e), which generally provide that
any owner or operator that elects to
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a PM CEMS for demonstrating
compliance with a sufficiently stringent
PM emission limitation (i.e., 0.030 lb/
MMBtu or lower) need not meet the
opacity limit and monitoring
requirements.4
2 See 40 CFR 52.145(d)(1) and 40 CFR
49.5513(j)(2)(iii).
3 See 77 FR 9303 (February 16, 2012) and 81 FR
20172 (April 6, 2016) (Final Technical Corrections).
4 See NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da and the
Acid Rain Program requirements at 40 CFR part 75.
Subpart Da to part 60 is the ‘‘Standard of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
Finally, we are proposing to clarify
requirements that have already been
satisfied (e.g., a one-time requirement
that has been met to submit a
description of dust suppression
methods to the Regional Administrator)
and update the addresses to which the
owner or operator must submit reports.
B. Facility
NGS is a coal-fired power plant
located on the reservation lands of the
Navajo Nation, just east of Page,
Arizona, and approximately 135 miles
north of Flagstaff. NGS is co-owned by
several entities and operated by Salt
River Project (SRP).5 The facility
currently operates three units, each with
a capacity of 750 megawatts (MW) net
generation, providing a total capacity of
2250 MW. Operations at the facility
produce air pollutant emissions,
including emissions of SO2, NOX, and
PM. Existing pollution control
equipment at NGS includes wet flue gas
desulfurization units for SO2 and PM
removal, electrostatic precipitators for
PM removal, and low-NOX burners with
separated over-fire air to reduce NOX
formation during the combustion
process. In the future, the owner or
operator of NGS will be taking steps to
reduce emissions of NOX further,
pursuant to the requirements of the
2014 FIP.
C. Attainment Status
The area around NGS is designated
attainment, unclassifiable/attainment or
unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants
under the Act.6
D. The EPA’s Authority To Promulgate
a FIP in Indian Country
When the CAA was amended in 1990,
Congress included a new provision,
section 301(d), granting the EPA
authority to treat tribes in the same
manner as states where appropriate.7 In
1998, the EPA promulgated regulations
known as the Tribal Authority Rule
Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units’’ and applies to units that are capable of
combusting more than 73 MW heat input of fossil
fuel and for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced after September 18,
1978. The units at NGS were constructed prior to
1978 and are not subject to part 60 subpart Da. The
NGS units are subject to the Acid Rain Program
requirements of CAA Title IV, but are eligible for
an exemption from the requirement for COMS in
CAA section 412(a), pursuant to 40 CFR 75.14.
5 Currently, the participants in NGS are the
United States Bureau of Reclamation, SRP, Arizona
Public Service Company, Tucson Electric Company,
and NV Energy. SRP, which serves as the facility
operator, recently increased its ownership share
after it purchased the shares previously owned by
the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.
6 See 40 CFR 81.303.
7 See 40 U.S.C. 7601(d).
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55995
(TAR).8 The EPA’s promulgation of the
TAR clarified, among other things, that
state air quality regulations generally do
not, under the CAA, apply to facilities
located anywhere within the exterior
boundaries of Indian reservations.9 Prior
to the addition of section 301(d) and the
promulgation of the TAR, some states
had mistakenly included emission
limitations in their SIPs that they may
have believed could apply under the
CAA to private facilities operating on
adjacent Indian reservations.
In the preambles to the proposed and
final 1998 TAR, the EPA generally
discussed the legal basis in the CAA
that authorizes the EPA to regulate
sources of air pollution in Indian
country.10 The EPA concluded that the
CAA authorizes the EPA to protect air
quality throughout Indian country.11
The TAR, therefore, provides that the
EPA ‘‘[s]hall promulgate without
unreasonable delay such federal
implementation plan provisions as are
necessary or appropriate to protect air
quality, consistent with the provisions
of sections [301](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.’’ 12
E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP
Actions
On December 2, 1980, EPA issued
regulations addressing visibility
8 See 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81. See also
63 FR 7254 (February 12, 1998).
9 See 63 FR 7254 at 7258 (noting that unless a
state has explicitly demonstrated its authority and
has been expressly approved by the EPA to
implement CAA programs in Indian country, the
EPA is the appropriate entity to implement CAA
programs prior to tribal primacy), Arizona Public
Service Company v. EPA., 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir.
2000), cert. denied sub nom, Michigan v. EPA., 532
U.S. 970 (2001) (upholding the TAR); see also
Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal
Government, 533 U.S. 520, 526 n.1 (1998) (primary
jurisdiction over Indian country generally lies with
federal government and tribes, not with states).
10 See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994); 63 FR 7253
(February 12, 1998).
11 See 63 FR 7253 at 7262 (February 12, 1998); 59
FR 43956 at 43960–43961 (August 25, 1994) (citing,
among other things, to CAA sections 101(b)(1),
301(a), and 301(d)).
12 See 63 FR at 7273 (codified at 40 CFR 49.11(a)).
In the preamble to the final TAR, the EPA explained
that it was inappropriate to treat tribes in the same
manner as states with respect to section 110(c) of
the Act, which directs the EPA to promulgate a FIP
within 2 years after the EPA finds a state has failed
to submit a complete state plan or within 2 years
after the EPA disapproval of a state plan. Although
the EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP within
the 2-year period for tribes, the EPA promulgated
40 CFR 49.11(a) to clarify that the 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 at 7264–65.
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
55996
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
impairment that is traceable or
‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single
source or small group of sources.13
These regulations required a number of
states to submit SIPs no later than
September 2, 1981. Most states,
including Arizona, failed to submit SIPs
as called for by the regulations.
Accordingly, in 1987, the EPA issued
visibility FIPs consisting of general plan
requirements and long-term strategies
for 29 states including Arizona.14
In 1989, based on a report submitted
by the National Park Service, the EPA
proposed to find that a portion of the
visibility impairment in Grand Canyon
National Park was reasonably
attributable to NGS.15 Under the 1991
FIP, NGS was required to phase-in
compliance with the SO2 emission limit,
by installing scrubbers in 1997, 1998,
and 1999.16 In establishing the SO2
emission limit for NGS in the final 1991
FIP, the EPA determined that the FIP
would provide for greater reasonable
progress toward the national visibility
goal than implementation of Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART).17
On September 8, 1999, the EPA
proposed a source-specific FIP for
NGS.18 The 1999 proposed FIP stated:
‘‘Although the facility has been
historically regulated by Arizona since
its construction, the state lacks
jurisdiction over the facility or its
owners or operations for CAA
compliance or enforcement purposes.’’
The EPA intended for the proposed
action in 1999 to ‘‘federalize’’ the
emission limitations that Arizona had
erroneously included in its SIP.19 The
EPA received comments on the
proposed FIP but did not finalize the
proposal.
In 2006, the EPA published a new
proposed rule to promulgate federally
enforceable numerical emission
limitations for PM and SO2 and took
action to finalize it in 2010.20 The 2010
FIP also established an opacity limit and
a requirement for specific control
measures to limit dust emissions. In the
2010 FIP, the EPA determined that the
emission limitations for PM and SO2
were more stringent than, or at least as
stringent as, the emission limitations
13 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980), codified at 40
CFR 51.300–51.307.
14 See 52 FR 45132 (November 24, 1987).
15 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), codified at 40
CFR 52.145.
16 40 CFR 52.145(d)(7).
17 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991).
18 See 64 FR 48725 (September 8, 1999).
19 64 FR 48725 at 48727.
20 75 FR 10179 (March 5, 2010) codified at 40 CFR
49.24(a) through (i) and redesignated to 40 CFR
49.5513(a) through (i). See 76 FR 23879 (April 29,
2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
that had historically applied at NGS
pursuant to an operating permit issued
by Arizona. Therefore, the EPA
concluded that air quality in this area
would be positively impacted by the
2010 FIP.21
On August 8, 2014, the EPA
promulgated a final rule that established
limits for NOX emissions from NGS
under BART provisions of the Regional
Haze Rule.22 We finalized an alternative
to BART based on agreed-upon
recommendations developed by a group
of diverse stakeholders. The 2014 FIP
limits emissions of NOX from NGS by
establishing a long-term facility-wide
cap on total NOX emissions from 2009
to 2044 and requires the
implementation of one of several
alternative operating scenarios to ensure
that the 2009 to 2044 cap is met.
II. Basis for Proposed Action
In this proposed FIP revision, the EPA
is exercising its discretionary authority
under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of
the CAA and 40 CFR 49.11(a). The EPA
is proposing that it is necessary or
appropriate to revise the FIP for NGS to
be more consistent with the MATS Rule
and the NSPS for EGUs. In particular,
we are proposing to require the use of
PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance
with a lower PM emission limitation
and remove the opacity limitation and
COMS monitoring requirement, which
has served as a surrogate for a
compliance demonstration for the PM
emission limitation. As explained in the
preamble to the 2010 FIP establishing
the opacity limitation and COMS
requirement, water droplets, which are
present in the NGS stacks because of the
SO2 scrubbers, can cause inaccurate
excess emission readings from the
COMS.23 Therefore, the PM CEMS
would provide a better continuous
demonstration of compliance with the
PM emission limitation than an opacity
limit and COMS.
For the reasons set forth above, we are
proposing to find that limited revisions
to the FIP for NGS are necessary or
appropriate to further protect air quality
on the Navajo Nation.
21 75
FR 10174 (March 5, 2010).
FR 46514 (August 8, 2014).
23 See 75 FR 10175. We also explained that, ‘‘NGS
will continue to have a requirement to operate
COMs on each stack since the COMs do operate
properly during start-up and at other times when
the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance
purposes . . . Therefore, in the final rule excess
opacity due to uncombined water droplets in the
stack does not constitute an exceedance, but it will
be reported on the quarterly excess emissions
reports.’’ 75 FR 10177. See also, 40 CFR
49.5113(f)(4).
22 79
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
III. Summary of FIP Provisions
A. Proposed FIP Revisions
The EPA is proposing the following
limited revisions to the FIP for NGS at
40 CFR 52.145(d) and 40 CFR 49.5513.
We have included two documents in the
docket for this proposed rulemaking
that show the original text of 40 CFR
52.145(d) and 40 CFR 49.5513 and the
EPA’s proposed revisions to those
provisions.24
1. Revisions to 40 CFR 52.145(d)
The EPA is proposing to move the
1991 FIP promulgated at 40 CFR
52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513(k) to
consolidate the NGS FIP requirements
in a single section of the CFR. We are
also proposing to revise 40 CFR
52.145(d) by changing internal citations
referring to paragraph (d) to refer
instead to paragraph (k). For clarity, in
this action we continue to refer to the
1991 FIP as designated in 40 CFR
52.145(d).
In addition, we are proposing to
revise the definition of boiler operating
day in paragraph 52.145(d)(1) to be
consistent with its definition in the
2014 FIP.
2. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(b)
Under paragraph (b) of 40 CFR
49.5513, we are proposing to clarify that
the applicable compliance date for this
section is April 5, 2010, which was the
original effective date for this section,
unless otherwise specified within
specific provisions in 40 CFR 49.5513.
3. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(d)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are
proposing to revise the emission
limitation for PM from 0.060 lb/MMBtu
to 0.030 lb/MMBtu, add a compliance
date for this revised limit, and remove
specifications related to PM testing. In
40 CFR 49.5513(d)(3), we are proposing
to remove the compliance date for
submitting to the EPA a dust
suppression plan and to clarify the
status of this plan, which the owner or
operator submitted on June 4, 2010 and
revised on February 2, 2015.25 The final
revision we are proposing to 40 CFR
49.5513(d) is to remove the opacity limit
and exclusions for water vapor in
paragraph (4).
4. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(e)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1), we are
proposing to delete the requirement to
24 See documents titled ‘‘2018 NGS part 49 FIP
RLSO.docx’’ and ‘‘2018 part 52 FIP RLSO.docx’’ in
the docket for this rulemaking.
25 See Part 71 Federal Operating Permit Draft
Statement Of Basis Navajo Generating Station
Permit No. NN–OP–15–06 (September 2015), p. 15.
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
operate COMS. In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(2),
we are proposing to replace the existing
specifications related to annual PM
testing with a requirement to
demonstrate compliance with the PM
emission limit in 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2)
using PM CEMS in accordance with 40
CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU and add a
compliance date for this requirement.
Under 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(4), we are
proposing to remove the provision
related to COMS. Under 40 CFR
49.5513(e)(8), we are proposing to
correct an outdated reference.
5. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(f)
The EPA is proposing revisions to the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to provide additional
clarity that all reports and notifications
required in 40 CFR 49.5513(f), (f)(2), and
(f)(4), should be reported to the Navajo
Nation Environmental Protection
Agency (NNEPA) and the EPA. We are
also revising 40 CFR 49.5513(f) to
update addresses for reporting to the
EPA. In addition, in 40 CFR
49.5513(f)(4), consistent with the
proposed removal of the opacity
emission limitation and COMS
requirement in 40 CFR 49.5513(d) and
(e), we are proposing to replace a
requirement to submit excess opacity
reports as recorded by COMS with a
requirement to submit excess emission
reports for PM as recorded by CEMS,
and to remove additional provisions
related to the COMS.
6. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(j)
Under 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(8), we are
proposing to remove addresses for the
NNEPA and the EPA that are already
provided in 40 CFR 49.5513(f) and to
require that all reports and notifications
under 40 CFR 49.5513(j) be submitted to
the NNEPA and the EPA in accordance
with 40 CFR 49.5513(f).
B. Justification for Proposed FIP
Revisions
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
1. Revisions to 40 CFR 52.145(d)
We are proposing to move the 1991
FIP from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR
49.5513(k). The 1991 FIP was originally
codified in 40 CFR part 52 subpart D,
which contains the SIP provisions for
the state of Arizona. The provisions at
52.145 relate to visibility protection and
paragraph (d) pertains to the control of
SO2 emissions from NGS based on the
effects of those emissions on visibility at
Grand Canyon National Park. Because
the EPA has subsequently promulgated
FIP requirements for NGS in 40 CFR
part 49 subpart L, for regulatory clarity,
we are proposing to move the SO2
requirements from the 1991 FIP to the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
same part of the CFR as the
implementation plans in Indian
country, including the FIP requirements
for NGS promulgated in 2010 and 2014.
This move will not relax any existing
FIP requirements for NGS and will have
no effect on air quality in the area
surrounding NGS.
Throughout 40 CFR 52.145(d), the
provisions include internal citations
referring to specific subparagraphs in
paragraph (d). Consistent with our
proposal to move the provisions from
the 1991 FIP to 40 CFR 49.5513(k), we
are also proposing to revise the internal
citations that currently refer to
paragraph (d) (i.e., 40 CFR 52.145(d)) to
refer instead to paragraph (k) (i.e., 40
CFR 49.5513(k)). This proposed revision
will not relax any existing FIP
requirements for NGS and will have no
effect on air quality in the area
surrounding NGS.
We are also proposing to revise a
definition of boiler operating day in 40
CFR 52.145(d)(1). The term is currently
defined as a 24-hour calendar day
during which coal is combusted in that
unit for the entire 24-hours. We are
proposing to revise the definition to
mean a 24-hour period between 12
midnight and the following midnight
during which any fuel is combusted at
any time, such that it is not necessary
for fuel to be combusted the entire 24hour period. This revised definition, if
finalized, would be identical to the
definition of boiler operating day
promulgated in the 2014 FIP and would
be consistent with the recent changes to
the definition promulgated by the EPA
elsewhere (e.g., the NSPS for EGUs).
2. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(b)
Under paragraph (b) of 40 CFR
49.5513, we are proposing to add a
statement to the compliance dates
specifying that compliance with the
requirements of the section is required
by April 5, 2010, which was the original
effective date for this section, unless
otherwise specified within specific
provisions in 40 CFR 49.5513. Because
the FIP provisions for NGS promulgated
in 1991, 2010, and 2014 all have
different compliance dates, we are
proposing to revise this provision for
regulatory clarity. The compliance date
for the FIP provisions for NGS
promulgated in 2010 would remain
April 5, 2010, while the deadlines for
the 1991 and 2014 FIPs would remain
as specified in paragraphs 40 CFR
52.145(d)(6) and 49.5513(j) respectively.
The compliance dates for the revised
PM limit and PM CEMS requirements
would be specified in paragraphs 40
CFR 49.5513(d)(2) and (e)(2), as
explained below. This proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55997
revision would not relax any existing
FIP requirements for NGS and would
have no effect on air quality in the area
surrounding NGS.
3. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(d)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are
proposing to revise the PM emission
limitation from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to
0.030 lb/MMBtu for consistency with
the numerical PM emission limitation in
the MATS Rule. The current applicable
emission limitation for PM in the 2010
FIP is higher than the PM emission
limitation in the MATS Rule. Revising
the PM emission limitation in 40 CFR
49.5513(d)(2) to 0.030 lb/MMBtu will
make the PM emission limitation in the
FIP conform to the applicable, more
stringent emission limitation in the
MATS Rule. The EPA anticipates this
will not result in any substantive change
in the applicable requirements or the
method of PM control for this facility.
We propose to require compliance with
this limitation in the FIP by the effective
date of the final FIP. In 40 CFR
49.5513(d)(2), we are also proposing to
delete the current provisions related to
PM emissions testing. The requirements
for demonstrating compliance with the
PM emission limitation are instead
addressed in 40 CFR 49.5513(e). In 40
CFR 49.5513(d)(3), we are proposing to
clarify the requirement for submitting to
the EPA a dust suppression plan.
In 40 CFR 49.5513, we are proposing
to remove paragraph (d)(4), which
contains provisions related to the
opacity limit. In 2016, SRP installed and
calibrated PM CEMS on each unit at
NGS. We are proposing to remove the
opacity limit from the NGS FIP because
in 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(2), we are
proposing to add a new requirement to
operate the PM CEMS on each unit to
demonstrate compliance with the PM
emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu.
This provision is consistent with the
NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da(b)(1)
and the Acid Rain Program
requirements at 40 CFR 75.14(e), which
generally provide that any owner or
operator that elects to install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a PM CEMS for
demonstrating compliance with a
sufficiently stringent PM emission
limitation (i.e., 0.030 lb/MMBtu or
lower) need not meet the opacity limit
and monitoring requirements.26 The PM
26 See NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da and the
Acid Rain Program requirements at 40 CFR part 70.
Subpart Da to part 60 is the ‘‘Standard of
Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units’’ and applies to units that are capable of
combusting more than 73 MW heat input of fossil
fuel and for which construction, modification, or
reconstruction commenced after September 18,
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
Continued
09NOP1
55998
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
CEMS is a monitoring system that
provides a continuous assessment of
compliance with a PM emission
limitation. Generally, opacity limits and
COMS have been used as a surrogate to
ensure compliance with a PM emission
standard that would otherwise be
subject only to periodic source testing.27
NGS is not subject to the NSPS for EGUs
at 40 CFR 60.42Da. However, we are
proposing to follow the same rationale
from Subpart Da to remove the opacity
limit and COMS requirement because
we are concurrently proposing to revise
the NGS FIP to require the installation,
calibration, operation, and maintenance
of PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance
with the lower proposed PM emission
limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. As
explained in the preamble to our 2010
FIP, water droplets, which are present
in the NGS stacks because of the SO2
scrubbers, can cause inaccurate excess
emission readings on the COMS.28
Because the PM CEMS provides a better
continuous demonstration of
compliance with the revised and more
stringent PM emission limitation than
an opacity limit and COMS, this
proposed revision would not relax any
existing requirements in the NGS FIP
with respect to PM emissions and
would not adversely affect air quality in
the surrounding area.
4. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(e)
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1) and (e)(4), we
are proposing changes to remove testing
and monitoring requirements for
opacity, consistent with our proposed
removal of the opacity limit in 40 CFR
49.5513(d)(4). Because we are proposing
to remove the opacity limit, the
requirements in 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1) to
operate COMS and in (e)(4) to maintain
two sets of opacity filters for the COMS
are no longer necessary. In paragraph
(e)(2), we are proposing to replace the
existing specifications related to annual
PM testing with a requirement to install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate PM
1978. The units at NGS were constructed prior to
1978 and are not subject to part 60 subpart Da.
27 See, e.g., discussion of opacity in the 2007 FIP
for the Four Corners Power Plant, 72 FR 25698 at
25701 (May 7, 2007), stating that opacity limits are
generally applied to ensure a unit is meeting its PM
limit.
28 See 75 FR 10175. We also explained that, ‘‘NGS
will continue to have a requirement to operate
COMs on each stack since the COMs do operate
properly during start-up and at other times when
the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance
purposes . . . Therefore, in the final rule excess
opacity due to uncombined water droplets in the
stack does not constitute an exceedance, but it will
be reported on the quarterly excess emissions
reports.’’ 75 FR 10177. See also, 40 CFR
49.5113(f)(4).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
CEMS to demonstrate compliance with
the 0.030 lb/MMBtu emission limit in
accordance with the specifications in
the MATS Rule by the effective date of
the final FIP. The use of PM CEMS is
a continuous measurement and is a
better method for ensuring compliance
with the revised and more stringent PM
emission limit than annual source
testing for the existing less stringent PM
emission limit combined with an
opacity limit and COMS. Therefore,
these combined revisions would not
relax existing requirements with respect
to PM emissions or result in adverse
effects on air quality in the surrounding
area.
Under 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(8), we are
proposing to correct an outdated
reference to ‘‘Section 49.24(d)(3),’’
which has been recodified as 40 CFR
49.5513(d)(3).29
5. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(f)
The EPA is proposing revisions to the
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to specify that all reports
and notifications required in 40 CFR
49.5513 should be sent to the NNEPA
and the Regional Administrator of the
Region IX office of the EPA. Because 40
CFR 49.5513(f)(2) repeats addresses and
other reporting details already provided
in paragraph (f), we are also proposing
to delete the redundant provisions in
paragraph (f)(2). These proposed
administrative changes would not relax
any requirements or have any effect on
air quality in the area surrounding NGS.
In addition, consistent with the
proposed removal of the COMS
requirement in paragraph (e), we are
also proposing to remove the reporting
requirements related to the COMS in
paragraph (f)(4). The use of PM CEMS
is a continuous measurement and is a
better method for ensuring compliance
with the revised and more stringent PM
emission limit than annual source
testing for the existing less stringent PM
emission limit combined with an
opacity limit and COMS. Therefore,
these combined revisions would not
relax existing requirements with respect
to PM emissions or result in adverse
effects on air quality in the surrounding
area.
6. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(j)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(8), we are
proposing to remove addresses for the
NNEPA and the EPA that are already
provided in 40 CFR 49.5513(f) and to
require that all reports and notifications
under paragraph (j) be submitted to the
29 76
PO 00000
FR 23876 (April 29, 2011).
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
NNEPA and the EPA in accordance with
40 CFR 49.5513(f). This proposed
revision removes redundant information
and requires reporting for 40 CFR
49.55153(j) to be consistent with the
reporting requirements in 40 CFR
49.5513(f). Therefore, these proposed
revisions would not adversely affect air
quality in the surrounding area. These
proposed changes to 40 CFR
49.5513(j)(10) do not relax any
requirements or have any effect on air
quality in the area surrounding NGS.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
As described above, the EPA is
proposing the following revisions: (1)
Move the 1991 FIP provisions from 40
CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513; (2)
revise a definition of boiler operating
day; (3) clarify the compliance dates
applicable to the FIP requirements; (4)
lower the PM emission limitation in the
2010 FIP from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to 0.030
lb/MMBtu; (5) revise the PM
compliance demonstration from annual
source testing to the use of PM CEMS;
(6) and replace the existing opacity limit
and COMS requirement with a new
requirement to demonstrate compliance
with the PM emission limitation of
0.030 lb/MMBtu using PM CEMS.
The EPA solicits comments on the
limited provisions of the NGS FIP that
we are proposing to revise in this
rulemaking. We are not accepting
comment on any provisions of the NGS
FIP that we are not proposing to revise.
Accordingly, please limit your
comments to those specific provisions
listed above that we are proposing to
revise in today’s action.
V. Environmental Justice
Considerations
The Navajo Generating Station is
located on the reservation lands of the
Navajo Nation, and the EPA recognizes
there is significant community interest
in the emissions and environmental
effects of this facility. As discussed
elsewhere in this document, the
proposed revisions to the NGS FIP
would strengthen the FIP by requiring
the use of PM CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the lower PM emission
limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. Because
the proposed revisions strengthen the
NGS FIP, the EPA considers this action
to be beneficial for human health and
the environment, and to have no
potential disproportionately high and
adverse effects on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations.
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
This action is not a significant
regulatory action and was therefore not
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) for review. This rule
applies to only one facility and is
therefore not a rule of general
applicability.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulations and Controlling Regulatory
Costs
This action is not expected to be an
Executive Order 13771 regulatory action
because this action is not significant
under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule
applies to only one facility. Therefore,
its recordkeeping and reporting
provisions do not constitute a
‘‘collection of information’’ as defined
under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this proposed action will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. This action will not impose any
requirements on small entities. Firms
primarily engaged in the generation,
transmission, and/or distribution of
electric energy for sale are small if,
including affiliates, the total electric
output for the preceding fiscal year did
not exceed four million megawatt-hours.
Each of the owners of the facility
affected by this rule, Salt River Project,
the Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona
Public Service, Tucson Electric Power,
and NV Energy, exceed this threshold.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
This action does not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531–1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045
as applying only to those regulatory
actions that concern health or safety
risks that the EPA has reason to believe
may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ‘‘covered regulatory
action’’ in section 2–202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an
environmental health risk or safety risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 because it is not a
significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175. Although this proposed
action affects a facility located in Indian
country, the proposed limited revisions
to existing provisions in the NGS FIP
will not have substantial direct effects
on any Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the federal government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
federal government and Indian tribes.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action. However, we note
that we have engaged in numerous
discussions with the NNEPA during the
development of this proposed rule and
continue to invite consultation on this
proposed action.
This action involves technical
standards. The technical standards in
this action are based on the technical
standards used in other rulemakings
promulgated by the EPA. We refer to the
discussion of the technical standards
and voluntary consensus standards in
the final rule for 40 CFR part 60 subpart
Da and 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU
at 77 FR 9304 at 9441 (February 16,
2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
55999
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or
environmental risk addressed by this
action will not have potential
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority, low-income or indigenous
populations. If this rule is finalized as
proposed, we expect that the limited
revisions to the FIP will strengthen
requirements for PM compliance
demonstrations with a lower PM
emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu,
and will not relax any other existing
requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Indians, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Visibility.
Dated: October 26, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of
Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 49—INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR
QUALITY PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT
1. The authority citation for part 49
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart L—Implementation Plans for
Tribes—Region IX
2. Section 49.5513 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (b);
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3);
c. Removing paragraph (d)(4);
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2);
e. Removing and reserving paragraph
(e)(4);
■ f. Revising paragraph (8);
■ g. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory
text and (f)(2) and (4);
■ h. Revising paragraphs (j)(8)
introductory text; and
■ i. Adding paragraph (k).
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
■
■
■
■
■
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
56000
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
§ 49.5513 Federal Implementation Plan
Provisions for Navajo Generating Station,
Navajo Nation.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Compliance dates. Compliance
with the requirements of this section is
required no later than April 5, 2010,
unless otherwise indicated by
compliance dates contained in specific
provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) Particulate matter. By [DATE 30
DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL
REGISTER], no owner or operator shall
discharge or cause the discharge of
particulate matter into the atmosphere
in excess of 0.030 lb/MMBtu, on a plantwide basis.
(3) Dust. Each owner or operator shall
operate and maintain the existing dust
suppression methods for controlling
dust from the coal handling and storage
facilities, as documented in the dust
suppression plan submitted on February
2, 2015, or any subsequent revision
thereto. Each owner or operator shall
not emit dust with an opacity greater
than 20% from any crusher, grinding
mill, screening operation, belt conveyor,
truck loading or unloading operation, or
railcar unloading station, as determined
using 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A–4
Method 9.
(e) Testing and monitoring. (1) On and
after the effective date of this regulation,
the owner or operator shall maintain
and operate Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for NOX
and SO2 on Units 1, 2, and 3 in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and
60.13(e), (f), and (h), 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.
(2) By [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE
OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN
THE FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner
or operator shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate particulate matter
CEMS on Units 1, 2, and 3 to assure
continuous compliance with the
particulate matter limits in paragraph
(d)(2) of this section, in accordance with
40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU.
*
*
*
*
*
(8) A certified EPA Reference Method
9 of Appendix A–4 of 40 CFR part 60
observer shall conduct a weekly visible
emission observation for the equipment
and activities described under
paragraph (d)(3) of this section. If visible
emissions are present at any of the
equipment and/or activities, a 6-minute
EPA Reference Method 9 observation
shall be conducted. The name of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
observer, date, and time of observation,
results of the observations, and any
corrective actions taken shall be noted
in a log.
(f) Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. All requests, reports,
submittals, notifications and other
communications to the EPA, Regional
Administrator, or Administrator
required by this section and references
therein shall be submitted to the
Director, Navajo Environmental
Protection Agency, P.O. Box 339,
Window Rock, Arizona 86515, (928)
871–7692, (928) 871–7996 (facsimile);
and to the Regional Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, to the attention of Mail Code:
ORA–1, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105, (415) 947–
8000. For each unit subject to the
emissions limitations in this section the
owner or operator shall:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) For excess emissions, notify the
Regional Administrator by telephone or
in writing within one business day. A
complete written report of the incident
shall be submitted to the Regional
Administrator within ten (10) working
days after the event. This notification
shall include the following information:
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Submit quarterly excess emissions
reports for sulfur dioxide and PM as
recorded by CEMS together with a
CEMS data assessment report to the
Regional Administrator no later than 30
days after each calendar quarter. The
owner or operator shall complete the
excess emissions reports according to
the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d)
and include the Cylinder Gas Audit.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) * * *
(8) Reporting. All reports and
notifications under this paragraph (j)
must be submitted as required by
paragraph (f) of this section to the
Director, Navajo Nation Environmental
Protection Agency and to the Regional
Administrator.
*
*
*
*
*
(k) This paragraph (k) is applicable to
the fossil fuel-fired, steam-generating
equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and
3 at the Navajo Generating Station in the
Northern Arizona Intrastate Air Quality
Control Region 40 CFR 81.270).
(1) Definitions—(i) Administrator
means the Administrator of EPA or his/
her designee.
(ii) Affected unit(s) means the steamgenerating unit(s) at the Navajo
Generating Station, all of which are
subject to the emission limitation in
paragraph (k)(2) of this section, that has
accumulated at least 365 boiler
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
operating days since the passage of the
date defined in paragraph (k)(6) of this
section applicable to it.
(iii) Boiler operating day means a 24hour period between 12 midnight and
the following midnight during which
any fuel is combusted at any time in the
steam-generating unit. It is not
necessary for fuel to be combusted the
entire 24-hour period.
(iv) Owner or operator means the
owner, participant in, or operator of the
Navajo Generating Station to which this
paragraph (k) is applicable.
(v) Unit-week of maintenance means a
period of 7 days during which a fossil
fuel-fired steam-generating unit is under
repair, and no coal is combusted in the
unit.
(2) Emission limitation. The following
emission limitation shall apply at all
times. No owner or operator shall
discharge or cause the discharge of
sulfur oxides into the atmosphere in
excess of 42 nanograms per Joule (ng/J)
[0.10 pound per million British thermal
units (lb/MMBtu)] heat input.
(3) Compliance determination. Until
at least one unit qualifies as an affected
unit, no compliance determination is
appropriate. As each unit qualifies for
treatment as an affected unit, it shall be
included in the compliance
determination. Compliance with this
emission limit shall be determined daily
on a plant-wide rolling annual basis as
follows:
(i) For each boiler operating day at
each steam generating unit subject to the
emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2)
of this section, the owner or operator
shall record the unit’s hourly SO2
emissions using the data from the
continuous emission monitoring
systems, required in paragraph (k)(4) of
this section, and the daily electric
energy generated by the unit (in
megawatt-hours) as measured by the
megawatt-hour meter for the unit.
(ii) Compute the average daily SO2
emission rate in ng/J (lb/MMBtu)
following the procedures set out in
method 19, appendix A, 40 CFR part 60
in effect on October 3, 1991.
(iii) For each boiler operating day for
each affected unit, calculate the product
of the daily SO2 emission rate
(computed according to paragraph
(k)(3)(ii) of this section) and the daily
electric energy generated (recorded
according to paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this
section) for each unit.
(iv) For each affected unit, identify
the previous 365 boiler operating days
to be used in the compliance
determination. Except as provided in
paragraphs (k)(9) and (k)(10) of this
section, all of the immediately
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
preceding 365 boiler operating days will
be used for compliance determinations.
(v) Sum, for all affected units, the
products of the daily SO2 emission rateelectric energy generated (as calculated
according to paragraph (k)(3)(iii) of this
section) for the boiler operating days
identified in paragraph (k)(3)(iv) of this
section.
(vi) Sum, for all affected units, the
daily electric energy generated
(recorded according to paragraph
(k)(3)(i) of this section) for the boiler
operating days identified in paragraph
(k)(3)(iv) of this section.
(vii) Calculate the weighted plantwide annual average SO2 emission rate
by dividing the sum of the products
determined according to paragraph
(k)(3)(v) of this section by the sum of the
electric energy generated determined
according to paragraph (k)(3)(vi) of this
section.
(viii) The weighted plant-wide annual
average SO2 emission rate shall be used
to determine compliance with the
emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2)
of this section.
(4) Continuous emission monitoring.
The owner or operator shall install,
maintain, and operate continuous
emission monitoring systems to
determine compliance with the
emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2)
of this section as calculated in
paragraph (k)(3) of this section. This
equipment shall meet the specifications
in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60 in
effect on October 3, 1991. The owner or
operator shall comply with the quality
assurance procedures for continuous
emission monitoring systems found in
appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 in effect
on October 3, 1991.
(5) Reporting requirements. For each
steam generating unit subject to the
emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2)
of this section, the owner or operator:
(i) Shall furnish the Administrator
written notification of the SO2, oxygen,
and carbon dioxide emissions according
to the procedures found in 40 CFR 60.7
in effect on October 3, 1991;
(ii) Shall furnish the Administrator
written notification of the daily electric
energy generated in megawatt-hours;
(iii) Shall maintain records according
to the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7 in
effect on October 3, 1991; and
(iv) Shall notify the Administrator by
telephone or in writing within one
business day of any outage of the
control system needed for compliance
with the emission limitation in
paragraph (k)(2) of this section and shall
submit a follow-up written report
within 30 days of the repairs stating
how the repairs were accomplished and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
justifying the amount of time taken for
the repairs.
(6) Compliance dates. The
requirements of this paragraph shall be
applicable to one unit at the Navajo
Generating Station beginning November
19, 1997, to two units beginning
November 19, 1998, and to all units
beginning on August 19, 1999.
(7) Schedule of compliance. The
owner or operator shall take the
following actions by the dates specified,
but the interim deadlines will be
extended if the owner or operators can
demonstrate to the Administrator that
compliance with the deadlines in
paragraph (k)(6) of this section will not
be affected:
(i) By June 1, 1992, award binding
contracts to an architectural and
engineering firm to design and procure
the control system needed for
compliance with the emission limitation
in paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(ii) By January 1, 1995, initiate on-site
construction or installation of a control
system for the first unit.
(iii) By May 1, 1997, initiate start-up
testing of the control system for the first
unit.
(iv) By May 1, 1998, initiate start-up
testing of the control system for the
second unit.
(v) By February 1, 1999, initiate startup testing of the control system for the
third unit.
(8) Reporting on compliance
schedule. Within 30 days after the
specified date for each deadline in the
schedule of compliance in paragraph
(k)(7) of this section, the owner or
operator shall notify the Administrator
in writing whether the deadline was
met. If it was not met, the notice shall
include an explanation why it was not
met and the steps which shall be taken
to ensure future deadlines will be met.
(9) Exclusion for equipment failure
during initial operation. (i) For each
unit, in determining compliance for the
first year that such unit is required to
meet the emission limitation in
paragraph (k)(2) of this section, periods
during which one of the following
conditions are met shall be excluded.
(A) Equipment or systems do not meet
designer’s or manufacturer’s
performance expectations.
(B) Field installation including
engineering or construction precludes
equipment or systems from performing
as designed.
(ii) The periods to be excluded shall
be determined by the Administrator
based on the periodic reports of
compliance with the emission limitation
in paragraph (k)(2) of this section which
shall identify the times proposed for
exclusion and provide the reasons for
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
56001
the exclusion, including the reasons for
the control system outage. The report
also shall describe the actions taken to
avoid the outage, to minimize its
duration, and to reduce SO2 emissions
at the plant to the extent practicable
while the control system was not fully
operational. Whenever the time to be
excluded exceeds a cumulative total of
30 days for any control system for any
affected unit, the owner or operators
shall submit a report within 15 days
addressing the history of and prognosis
for the performance of the control
system.
(10) Exclusion for catastrophic failure.
In addition to the exclusion of periods
allowed in paragraph (d)(9) of this
section, any periods of emissions from
an affected unit for which the
Administrator finds that the control
equipment or system for such unit is out
of service because of catastrophic failure
of the control system which occurred for
reasons beyond the control of the owner
or operators and could not have been
prevented by good engineering practices
will be excluded from the compliance
determination. Events which are the
consequence of lack of appropriate
maintenance or of intentional or
negligent conduct or omissions of the
owner or operators or the control system
design, construction, or operating
contractors do not constitute
catastrophic failure.
(11) Equipment operation. The owner
or operator shall optimally operate all
equipment or systems needed to comply
with the requirements of this paragraph
consistent with good engineering
practices to keep emissions at or below
the emission limitation in paragraph
(k)(2) of this section, and following
outages of any control equipment or
systems the control equipment or
system will be returned to full operation
as expeditiously as practicable.
(12) Maintenance scheduling. On
March 16 of each year starting in 1993,
the owner or operator shall prepare and
submit to the Administrator a long-term
maintenance plan for the Navajo
Generating Station that accommodates
the maintenance requirements for the
other generating facilities on the Navajo
Generating Station grid covering the
period from March 16 to March 15 of
the next year and showing at least 6
unit-weeks of maintenance for the
Navajo Generating Station during the
November 1 to March 15 period, except
as provided in paragraph (k)(13) of this
section. This plan shall be developed
consistent with the criteria established
by the Western States Coordinating
Council of the North American Electric
Reliability Council to ensure an
adequate reserve margin of electric
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with PROPOSAL
56002
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 218 / Friday, November 9, 2018 / Proposed Rules
generating capacity. At the time that a
plan is transmitted to the Administrator,
the owner or operator shall notify the
Administrator in writing if less than the
full scheduled unit-weeks of
maintenance were conducted for the
period covered by the previous plan and
shall furnish a written report stating
how that year qualified for one of the
exceptions identified in paragraph
(k)(13) of this section.
(13) Exceptions for maintenance
scheduling. The owner or operator shall
conduct a full 6 unit-weeks of
maintenance in accordance with the
plan required in paragraph (k)(12) of
this section unless the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that a
full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance during
the November 1 to March 15 period
should not be required because one of
the conditions in paragraph (k)(13)(i)
through (iv) of this section are met. If
the Administrator determines that a full
6 unit-weeks of maintenance during the
November 1 to March 15 period should
not be required, the owner or operator
shall nevertheless conduct that amount
of scheduled maintenance that is not
precluded by the Administrator.
Generally, the owner or operator shall
make best efforts to conduct as much
scheduled maintenance as practicable
during the November 1 to March 15
period.
(i) There is no need for 6 unit-weeks
of scheduled periodic maintenance in
the year covered by the plan;
(ii) The reserve margin on any
electrical system served by the Navajo
Generating Station would fall to an
inadequate level, as defined by the
criteria referred to in paragraph (k)(12)
of this section;
(iii) The cost of compliance with this
requirement would be excessive. The
cost of compliance would be excessive
when the economic savings to the
owner or operator of moving
maintenance out of the November 1 to
March 15 period exceeds $50,000 per
unit-day of maintenance moved; and
(iv) A major forced outage at a unit
occurs outside of the November 1 to
March 15 period, and necessary
periodic maintenance occurs during the
period of forced outage.
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
3. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:11 Nov 08, 2018
Jkt 247001
Subpart D—Arizona
§ 52.145
[Amended]
4. Section 52.145 amended by
removing and reserving paragraph (d).
■
[FR Doc. 2018–24482 Filed 11–8–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0625; FRL–9986–36–
Region 4]
Air Plan Approval; Kentucky;
Attainment Plan for Jefferson County
SO2 Nonattainment Area
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision, submitted under a cover letter
dated June 23, 2017, by the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, through
the Kentucky Division for Air Quality
(KDAQ) on behalf of the Louisville
Metro Air Pollution Control District
(District or Jefferson County) to EPA, for
attaining the 1-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2)
primary national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for the Jefferson
County SO2 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ‘‘Jefferson
County nonattainment area,’’
‘‘nonattainment Area’’ or ‘‘Area’’). The
Jefferson County nonattainment area is
comprised of a portion of Jefferson
County in Kentucky surrounding the
Louisville Gas and Electric Mill Creek
Electric Generating Station (hereafter
referred to as ‘‘Mill Creek’’ or ‘‘LG&E’’).
This plan (hereafter called a
‘‘nonattainment plan’’ or ‘‘SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment SIP’’) includes Kentucky’s
attainment demonstration and other
elements required under the Clean Air
Act (CAA or Act). In addition to an
attainment demonstration, the plan
addresses the requirement for meeting
reasonable further progress (RFP)
toward attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonably available control measures
and reasonably available control
technology (RACM/RACT), base-year
and projection-year emissions
inventories, enforceable emission limits,
nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) and contingency measures. EPA
proposes to conclude that Kentucky has
appropriately demonstrated that the
nonattainment plan provisions provide
for attainment of the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS in the Jefferson
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
County nonattainment area by the
applicable attainment date and that the
nonattainment plan meets the other
applicable requirements under CAA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before December 10, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2017–0625 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
EPA may publish any comment received
to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Wong, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta,
Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Wong can be
reached via telephone at (404) 562–8726
or via electronic mail at wong.richard@
epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Requirement for Kentucky to Submit an
SO2 Attainment Plan for the Jefferson
County Area
II. Requirements for SO2 Attainment Plans
III. Attainment Demonstration and Longer
Term Averaging
IV. Review of Attainment Plan Requirements
A. Emission Inventory
B. Attainment Modeling Demonstration
1. Model Selection
2. Meteorological Data
3. Emissions Data
4. Emission Limits
i. Enforceability
ii. Longer Term Average Limits
5. Background Concentration
6. Summary of Modeling Results
C. RACM/RACT
D. New Source Review (NSR)
E. Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)
E:\FR\FM\09NOP1.SGM
09NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 218 (Friday, November 9, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55994-56002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-24482]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 49 and 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0590; FRL-9986-21-Region 9]
Revisions to the Source-Specific Federal Implementation Plan for
Navajo Generating Station, Navajo Nation
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing limited
revisions to the source-specific federal implementation plan (FIP) that
regulates emissions from the Navajo Generating Station (NGS), a coal-
fired power plant located on the reservation lands of the Navajo Nation
near Page, Arizona. We are proposing to lower the emission limitation
for particulate matter (PM) to conform to the most stringent emission
limitation currently applicable to NGS under another EPA regulation,
and to replace the opacity limitation and annual PM source testing
requirement with a requirement to demonstrate compliance with the lower
PM emission limitation using a continuous emission monitoring system
for particulate matter.
DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by December 10, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-
R09-OAR-2018-0590, at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, the EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
EPA's full public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anita Lee, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3958, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Action
B. Facility
C. Attainment Status
D. The EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP Actions
II. Basis for Proposed Action
III. Summary of FIP Provisions
A. Proposed FIP Revisions
B. Justification for Proposed FIP Revisions
IV. Solicitation of Comments
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
A. Action
In this action, the EPA is proposing limited revisions to the FIP
for NGS that we promulgated on October 3, 1991 (``1991 FIP''), March 5,
2010 (``2010 FIP''), and August 8, 2014 (``2014 FIP'').\1\ The
provisions of the 1991 action are codified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.145(d), and the 2010 and 2014
regulations are codified at 40 CFR 49.5513. We refer collectively to
the provisions from the 1991, 2010, and 2014 actions as the ``FIP'' or
the ``NGS FIP.'' The NGS FIP includes federally enforceable emission
limitations for PM, opacity, sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
oxides of nitrogen (NOX).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), 75 FR 10174 (March 5,
2010), and 79 FR 46552 (August 8, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally, the EPA is proposing to move provisions from the 1991
FIP to a different section of the CFR and to
[[Page 55995]]
update certain provisions in the 1991 FIP to be consistent with recent
national rulemakings. Specifically, we are proposing to move the 1991
FIP provisions from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513. If finalized,
the effect of our action will be to move requirements for NGS from
subpart D of part 52, which contains the state implementation plan
(SIP) provisions for Arizona, to subpart L of part 49, which contains
source-specific FIP requirements for NGS, to consolidate all of the
applicable requirements for NGS in one section of the CFR. We are
proposing to update the definition of ``boiler operating day'' in the
1991 FIP to be consistent with the definition in the 2014 FIP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See 40 CFR 52.145(d)(1) and 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(2)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we are proposing to revise the PM compliance
demonstration from annual source testing to the use of PM continuous
emissions monitoring systems (PM CEMS), which were installed and
calibrated on each of the three units at the facility in 2016. We are
also proposing to lower the PM emission limitation in the 2010 FIP from
0.060 pounds per million British thermal units (lb/MMBtu) to 0.030 lb/
MMBtu. This lower emission limitation already applies to NGS pursuant
to the EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) Rule.\3\ Because
the operator of NGS will be using PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance
with the 0.030 lb/MMBtu emission limitation for PM, the EPA is also
proposing to remove the opacity emission limitation and associated
continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) requirements from the NGS
FIP. The opacity limitation and COMS have generally functioned as
surrogates for ensuring compliance with PM emission limitations. This
proposed revision is consistent with the provisions related to PM CEMS
and opacity in the New Source Performance Standard for Electric Utility
Steam Generating Units (``NSPS for EGUs'') and the Acid Rain Program
requirements at 40 CFR 75.14(e), which generally provide that any owner
or operator that elects to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
PM CEMS for demonstrating compliance with a sufficiently stringent PM
emission limitation (i.e., 0.030 lb/MMBtu or lower) need not meet the
opacity limit and monitoring requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 77 FR 9303 (February 16, 2012) and 81 FR 20172 (April 6,
2016) (Final Technical Corrections).
\4\ See NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da and the Acid Rain
Program requirements at 40 CFR part 75. Subpart Da to part 60 is the
``Standard of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units'' and applies to units that are capable of combusting more
than 73 MW heat input of fossil fuel and for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction commenced after September 18, 1978.
The units at NGS were constructed prior to 1978 and are not subject
to part 60 subpart Da. The NGS units are subject to the Acid Rain
Program requirements of CAA Title IV, but are eligible for an
exemption from the requirement for COMS in CAA section 412(a),
pursuant to 40 CFR 75.14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we are proposing to clarify requirements that have already
been satisfied (e.g., a one-time requirement that has been met to
submit a description of dust suppression methods to the Regional
Administrator) and update the addresses to which the owner or operator
must submit reports.
B. Facility
NGS is a coal-fired power plant located on the reservation lands of
the Navajo Nation, just east of Page, Arizona, and approximately 135
miles north of Flagstaff. NGS is co-owned by several entities and
operated by Salt River Project (SRP).\5\ The facility currently
operates three units, each with a capacity of 750 megawatts (MW) net
generation, providing a total capacity of 2250 MW. Operations at the
facility produce air pollutant emissions, including emissions of
SO2, NOX, and PM. Existing pollution control
equipment at NGS includes wet flue gas desulfurization units for
SO2 and PM removal, electrostatic precipitators for PM
removal, and low-NOX burners with separated over-fire air to
reduce NOX formation during the combustion process. In the
future, the owner or operator of NGS will be taking steps to reduce
emissions of NOX further, pursuant to the requirements of
the 2014 FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Currently, the participants in NGS are the United States
Bureau of Reclamation, SRP, Arizona Public Service Company, Tucson
Electric Company, and NV Energy. SRP, which serves as the facility
operator, recently increased its ownership share after it purchased
the shares previously owned by the Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Attainment Status
The area around NGS is designated attainment, unclassifiable/
attainment or unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants under the
Act.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See 40 CFR 81.303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The EPA's Authority To Promulgate a FIP in Indian Country
When the CAA was amended in 1990, Congress included a new
provision, section 301(d), granting the EPA authority to treat tribes
in the same manner as states where appropriate.\7\ In 1998, the EPA
promulgated regulations known as the Tribal Authority Rule (TAR).\8\
The EPA's promulgation of the TAR clarified, among other things, that
state air quality regulations generally do not, under the CAA, apply to
facilities located anywhere within the exterior boundaries of Indian
reservations.\9\ Prior to the addition of section 301(d) and the
promulgation of the TAR, some states had mistakenly included emission
limitations in their SIPs that they may have believed could apply under
the CAA to private facilities operating on adjacent Indian
reservations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See 40 U.S.C. 7601(d).
\8\ See 40 CFR parts 9, 35, 49, 50, and 81. See also 63 FR 7254
(February 12, 1998).
\9\ See 63 FR 7254 at 7258 (noting that unless a state has
explicitly demonstrated its authority and has been expressly
approved by the EPA to implement CAA programs in Indian country, the
EPA is the appropriate entity to implement CAA programs prior to
tribal primacy), Arizona Public Service Company v. EPA., 211 F.3d
1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom, Michigan v. EPA., 532
U.S. 970 (2001) (upholding the TAR); see also Alaska v. Native
Village of Venetie Tribal Government, 533 U.S. 520, 526 n.1 (1998)
(primary jurisdiction over Indian country generally lies with
federal government and tribes, not with states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the preambles to the proposed and final 1998 TAR, the EPA
generally discussed the legal basis in the CAA that authorizes the EPA
to regulate sources of air pollution in Indian country.\10\ The EPA
concluded that the CAA authorizes the EPA to protect air quality
throughout Indian country.\11\ The TAR, therefore, provides that the
EPA ``[s]hall promulgate without unreasonable delay such federal
implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of sections
[301](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.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994); 63 FR 7253 (February 12,
1998).
\11\ See 63 FR 7253 at 7262 (February 12, 1998); 59 FR 43956 at
43960-43961 (August 25, 1994) (citing, among other things, to CAA
sections 101(b)(1), 301(a), and 301(d)).
\12\ See 63 FR at 7273 (codified at 40 CFR 49.11(a)). In the
preamble to the final TAR, the EPA explained that it was
inappropriate to treat tribes in the same manner as states with
respect to section 110(c) of the Act, which directs the EPA to
promulgate a FIP within 2 years after the EPA finds a state has
failed to submit a complete state plan or within 2 years after the
EPA disapproval of a state plan. Although the EPA is not required to
promulgate a FIP within the 2-year period for tribes, the EPA
promulgated 40 CFR 49.11(a) to clarify that the 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 at 7264-65.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Historical Overview of NGS FIP Actions
On December 2, 1980, EPA issued regulations addressing visibility
[[Page 55996]]
impairment that is traceable or ``reasonably attributable'' to a single
source or small group of sources.\13\ These regulations required a
number of states to submit SIPs no later than September 2, 1981. Most
states, including Arizona, failed to submit SIPs as called for by the
regulations. Accordingly, in 1987, the EPA issued visibility FIPs
consisting of general plan requirements and long-term strategies for 29
states including Arizona.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 1980), codified at 40 CFR 51.300-
51.307.
\14\ See 52 FR 45132 (November 24, 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1989, based on a report submitted by the National Park Service,
the EPA proposed to find that a portion of the visibility impairment in
Grand Canyon National Park was reasonably attributable to NGS.\15\
Under the 1991 FIP, NGS was required to phase-in compliance with the
SO2 emission limit, by installing scrubbers in 1997, 1998,
and 1999.\16\ In establishing the SO2 emission limit for NGS
in the final 1991 FIP, the EPA determined that the FIP would provide
for greater reasonable progress toward the national visibility goal
than implementation of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991), codified at 40 CFR 52.145.
\16\ 40 CFR 52.145(d)(7).
\17\ 56 FR 50172 (October 3, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 8, 1999, the EPA proposed a source-specific FIP for
NGS.\18\ The 1999 proposed FIP stated: ``Although the facility has been
historically regulated by Arizona since its construction, the state
lacks jurisdiction over the facility or its owners or operations for
CAA compliance or enforcement purposes.'' The EPA intended for the
proposed action in 1999 to ``federalize'' the emission limitations that
Arizona had erroneously included in its SIP.\19\ The EPA received
comments on the proposed FIP but did not finalize the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 64 FR 48725 (September 8, 1999).
\19\ 64 FR 48725 at 48727.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2006, the EPA published a new proposed rule to promulgate
federally enforceable numerical emission limitations for PM and
SO2 and took action to finalize it in 2010.\20\ The 2010 FIP
also established an opacity limit and a requirement for specific
control measures to limit dust emissions. In the 2010 FIP, the EPA
determined that the emission limitations for PM and SO2 were
more stringent than, or at least as stringent as, the emission
limitations that had historically applied at NGS pursuant to an
operating permit issued by Arizona. Therefore, the EPA concluded that
air quality in this area would be positively impacted by the 2010
FIP.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 75 FR 10179 (March 5, 2010) codified at 40 CFR 49.24(a)
through (i) and redesignated to 40 CFR 49.5513(a) through (i). See
76 FR 23879 (April 29, 2011).
\21\ 75 FR 10174 (March 5, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 8, 2014, the EPA promulgated a final rule that
established limits for NOX emissions from NGS under BART
provisions of the Regional Haze Rule.\22\ We finalized an alternative
to BART based on agreed-upon recommendations developed by a group of
diverse stakeholders. The 2014 FIP limits emissions of NOX
from NGS by establishing a long-term facility-wide cap on total
NOX emissions from 2009 to 2044 and requires the
implementation of one of several alternative operating scenarios to
ensure that the 2009 to 2044 cap is met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 79 FR 46514 (August 8, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Basis for Proposed Action
In this proposed FIP revision, the EPA is exercising its
discretionary authority under sections 301(a) and 301(d)(4) of the CAA
and 40 CFR 49.11(a). The EPA is proposing that it is necessary or
appropriate to revise the FIP for NGS to be more consistent with the
MATS Rule and the NSPS for EGUs. In particular, we are proposing to
require the use of PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance with a lower PM
emission limitation and remove the opacity limitation and COMS
monitoring requirement, which has served as a surrogate for a
compliance demonstration for the PM emission limitation. As explained
in the preamble to the 2010 FIP establishing the opacity limitation and
COMS requirement, water droplets, which are present in the NGS stacks
because of the SO2 scrubbers, can cause inaccurate excess
emission readings from the COMS.\23\ Therefore, the PM CEMS would
provide a better continuous demonstration of compliance with the PM
emission limitation than an opacity limit and COMS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 75 FR 10175. We also explained that, ``NGS will
continue to have a requirement to operate COMs on each stack since
the COMs do operate properly during start-up and at other times when
the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance purposes .
. . Therefore, in the final rule excess opacity due to uncombined
water droplets in the stack does not constitute an exceedance, but
it will be reported on the quarterly excess emissions reports.'' 75
FR 10177. See also, 40 CFR 49.5113(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons set forth above, we are proposing to find that
limited revisions to the FIP for NGS are necessary or appropriate to
further protect air quality on the Navajo Nation.
III. Summary of FIP Provisions
A. Proposed FIP Revisions
The EPA is proposing the following limited revisions to the FIP for
NGS at 40 CFR 52.145(d) and 40 CFR 49.5513. We have included two
documents in the docket for this proposed rulemaking that show the
original text of 40 CFR 52.145(d) and 40 CFR 49.5513 and the EPA's
proposed revisions to those provisions.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See documents titled ``2018 NGS part 49 FIP RLSO.docx'' and
``2018 part 52 FIP RLSO.docx'' in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Revisions to 40 CFR 52.145(d)
The EPA is proposing to move the 1991 FIP promulgated at 40 CFR
52.145(d) to 40 CFR 49.5513(k) to consolidate the NGS FIP requirements
in a single section of the CFR. We are also proposing to revise 40 CFR
52.145(d) by changing internal citations referring to paragraph (d) to
refer instead to paragraph (k). For clarity, in this action we continue
to refer to the 1991 FIP as designated in 40 CFR 52.145(d).
In addition, we are proposing to revise the definition of boiler
operating day in paragraph 52.145(d)(1) to be consistent with its
definition in the 2014 FIP.
2. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(b)
Under paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 49.5513, we are proposing to clarify
that the applicable compliance date for this section is April 5, 2010,
which was the original effective date for this section, unless
otherwise specified within specific provisions in 40 CFR 49.5513.
3. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(d)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are proposing to revise the emission
limitation for PM from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to 0.030 lb/MMBtu, add a
compliance date for this revised limit, and remove specifications
related to PM testing. In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(3), we are proposing to
remove the compliance date for submitting to the EPA a dust suppression
plan and to clarify the status of this plan, which the owner or
operator submitted on June 4, 2010 and revised on February 2, 2015.\25\
The final revision we are proposing to 40 CFR 49.5513(d) is to remove
the opacity limit and exclusions for water vapor in paragraph (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See Part 71 Federal Operating Permit Draft Statement Of
Basis Navajo Generating Station Permit No. NN-OP-15-06 (September
2015), p. 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(e)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1), we are proposing to delete the requirement
to
[[Page 55997]]
operate COMS. In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(2), we are proposing to replace the
existing specifications related to annual PM testing with a requirement
to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission limit in 40 CFR
49.5513(d)(2) using PM CEMS in accordance with 40 CFR part 63 subpart
UUUUU and add a compliance date for this requirement. Under 40 CFR
49.5513(e)(4), we are proposing to remove the provision related to
COMS. Under 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(8), we are proposing to correct an
outdated reference.
5. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(f)
The EPA is proposing revisions to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to provide additional clarity that all reports and
notifications required in 40 CFR 49.5513(f), (f)(2), and (f)(4), should
be reported to the Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency
(NNEPA) and the EPA. We are also revising 40 CFR 49.5513(f) to update
addresses for reporting to the EPA. In addition, in 40 CFR
49.5513(f)(4), consistent with the proposed removal of the opacity
emission limitation and COMS requirement in 40 CFR 49.5513(d) and (e),
we are proposing to replace a requirement to submit excess opacity
reports as recorded by COMS with a requirement to submit excess
emission reports for PM as recorded by CEMS, and to remove additional
provisions related to the COMS.
6. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(j)
Under 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(8), we are proposing to remove addresses
for the NNEPA and the EPA that are already provided in 40 CFR
49.5513(f) and to require that all reports and notifications under 40
CFR 49.5513(j) be submitted to the NNEPA and the EPA in accordance with
40 CFR 49.5513(f).
B. Justification for Proposed FIP Revisions
1. Revisions to 40 CFR 52.145(d)
We are proposing to move the 1991 FIP from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40
CFR 49.5513(k). The 1991 FIP was originally codified in 40 CFR part 52
subpart D, which contains the SIP provisions for the state of Arizona.
The provisions at 52.145 relate to visibility protection and paragraph
(d) pertains to the control of SO2 emissions from NGS based
on the effects of those emissions on visibility at Grand Canyon
National Park. Because the EPA has subsequently promulgated FIP
requirements for NGS in 40 CFR part 49 subpart L, for regulatory
clarity, we are proposing to move the SO2 requirements from
the 1991 FIP to the same part of the CFR as the implementation plans in
Indian country, including the FIP requirements for NGS promulgated in
2010 and 2014. This move will not relax any existing FIP requirements
for NGS and will have no effect on air quality in the area surrounding
NGS.
Throughout 40 CFR 52.145(d), the provisions include internal
citations referring to specific subparagraphs in paragraph (d).
Consistent with our proposal to move the provisions from the 1991 FIP
to 40 CFR 49.5513(k), we are also proposing to revise the internal
citations that currently refer to paragraph (d) (i.e., 40 CFR
52.145(d)) to refer instead to paragraph (k) (i.e., 40 CFR 49.5513(k)).
This proposed revision will not relax any existing FIP requirements for
NGS and will have no effect on air quality in the area surrounding NGS.
We are also proposing to revise a definition of boiler operating
day in 40 CFR 52.145(d)(1). The term is currently defined as a 24-hour
calendar day during which coal is combusted in that unit for the entire
24-hours. We are proposing to revise the definition to mean a 24-hour
period between 12 midnight and the following midnight during which any
fuel is combusted at any time, such that it is not necessary for fuel
to be combusted the entire 24-hour period. This revised definition, if
finalized, would be identical to the definition of boiler operating day
promulgated in the 2014 FIP and would be consistent with the recent
changes to the definition promulgated by the EPA elsewhere (e.g., the
NSPS for EGUs).
2. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(b)
Under paragraph (b) of 40 CFR 49.5513, we are proposing to add a
statement to the compliance dates specifying that compliance with the
requirements of the section is required by April 5, 2010, which was the
original effective date for this section, unless otherwise specified
within specific provisions in 40 CFR 49.5513. Because the FIP
provisions for NGS promulgated in 1991, 2010, and 2014 all have
different compliance dates, we are proposing to revise this provision
for regulatory clarity. The compliance date for the FIP provisions for
NGS promulgated in 2010 would remain April 5, 2010, while the deadlines
for the 1991 and 2014 FIPs would remain as specified in paragraphs 40
CFR 52.145(d)(6) and 49.5513(j) respectively. The compliance dates for
the revised PM limit and PM CEMS requirements would be specified in
paragraphs 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2) and (e)(2), as explained below. This
proposed revision would not relax any existing FIP requirements for NGS
and would have no effect on air quality in the area surrounding NGS.
3. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(d)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are proposing to revise the PM emission
limitation from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to 0.030 lb/MMBtu for consistency with
the numerical PM emission limitation in the MATS Rule. The current
applicable emission limitation for PM in the 2010 FIP is higher than
the PM emission limitation in the MATS Rule. Revising the PM emission
limitation in 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2) to 0.030 lb/MMBtu will make the PM
emission limitation in the FIP conform to the applicable, more
stringent emission limitation in the MATS Rule. The EPA anticipates
this will not result in any substantive change in the applicable
requirements or the method of PM control for this facility. We propose
to require compliance with this limitation in the FIP by the effective
date of the final FIP. In 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(2), we are also proposing
to delete the current provisions related to PM emissions testing. The
requirements for demonstrating compliance with the PM emission
limitation are instead addressed in 40 CFR 49.5513(e). In 40 CFR
49.5513(d)(3), we are proposing to clarify the requirement for
submitting to the EPA a dust suppression plan.
In 40 CFR 49.5513, we are proposing to remove paragraph (d)(4),
which contains provisions related to the opacity limit. In 2016, SRP
installed and calibrated PM CEMS on each unit at NGS. We are proposing
to remove the opacity limit from the NGS FIP because in 40 CFR
49.5513(e)(2), we are proposing to add a new requirement to operate the
PM CEMS on each unit to demonstrate compliance with the PM emission
limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. This provision is consistent with the
NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da(b)(1) and the Acid Rain Program
requirements at 40 CFR 75.14(e), which generally provide that any owner
or operator that elects to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
PM CEMS for demonstrating compliance with a sufficiently stringent PM
emission limitation (i.e., 0.030 lb/MMBtu or lower) need not meet the
opacity limit and monitoring requirements.\26\ The PM
[[Page 55998]]
CEMS is a monitoring system that provides a continuous assessment of
compliance with a PM emission limitation. Generally, opacity limits and
COMS have been used as a surrogate to ensure compliance with a PM
emission standard that would otherwise be subject only to periodic
source testing.\27\ NGS is not subject to the NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR
60.42Da. However, we are proposing to follow the same rationale from
Subpart Da to remove the opacity limit and COMS requirement because we
are concurrently proposing to revise the NGS FIP to require the
installation, calibration, operation, and maintenance of PM CEMS to
demonstrate compliance with the lower proposed PM emission limitation
of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. As explained in the preamble to our 2010 FIP, water
droplets, which are present in the NGS stacks because of the
SO2 scrubbers, can cause inaccurate excess emission readings
on the COMS.\28\ Because the PM CEMS provides a better continuous
demonstration of compliance with the revised and more stringent PM
emission limitation than an opacity limit and COMS, this proposed
revision would not relax any existing requirements in the NGS FIP with
respect to PM emissions and would not adversely affect air quality in
the surrounding area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ See NSPS for EGUs at 40 CFR 60.42Da and the Acid Rain
Program requirements at 40 CFR part 70. Subpart Da to part 60 is the
``Standard of Performance for Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units'' and applies to units that are capable of combusting more
than 73 MW heat input of fossil fuel and for which construction,
modification, or reconstruction commenced after September 18, 1978.
The units at NGS were constructed prior to 1978 and are not subject
to part 60 subpart Da.
\27\ See, e.g., discussion of opacity in the 2007 FIP for the
Four Corners Power Plant, 72 FR 25698 at 25701 (May 7, 2007),
stating that opacity limits are generally applied to ensure a unit
is meeting its PM limit.
\28\ See 75 FR 10175. We also explained that, ``NGS will
continue to have a requirement to operate COMs on each stack since
the COMs do operate properly during start-up and at other times when
the SO2 scrubbers are bypassed for maintenance purposes .
. . Therefore, in the final rule excess opacity due to uncombined
water droplets in the stack does not constitute an exceedance, but
it will be reported on the quarterly excess emissions reports.'' 75
FR 10177. See also, 40 CFR 49.5113(f)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(e)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1) and (e)(4), we are proposing changes to
remove testing and monitoring requirements for opacity, consistent with
our proposed removal of the opacity limit in 40 CFR 49.5513(d)(4).
Because we are proposing to remove the opacity limit, the requirements
in 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(1) to operate COMS and in (e)(4) to maintain two
sets of opacity filters for the COMS are no longer necessary. In
paragraph (e)(2), we are proposing to replace the existing
specifications related to annual PM testing with a requirement to
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate PM CEMS to demonstrate
compliance with the 0.030 lb/MMBtu emission limit in accordance with
the specifications in the MATS Rule by the effective date of the final
FIP. The use of PM CEMS is a continuous measurement and is a better
method for ensuring compliance with the revised and more stringent PM
emission limit than annual source testing for the existing less
stringent PM emission limit combined with an opacity limit and COMS.
Therefore, these combined revisions would not relax existing
requirements with respect to PM emissions or result in adverse effects
on air quality in the surrounding area.
Under 40 CFR 49.5513(e)(8), we are proposing to correct an outdated
reference to ``Section 49.24(d)(3),'' which has been recodified as 40
CFR 49.5513(d)(3).\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 76 FR 23876 (April 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(f)
The EPA is proposing revisions to the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements to specify that all reports and notifications required in
40 CFR 49.5513 should be sent to the NNEPA and the Regional
Administrator of the Region IX office of the EPA. Because 40 CFR
49.5513(f)(2) repeats addresses and other reporting details already
provided in paragraph (f), we are also proposing to delete the
redundant provisions in paragraph (f)(2). These proposed administrative
changes would not relax any requirements or have any effect on air
quality in the area surrounding NGS.
In addition, consistent with the proposed removal of the COMS
requirement in paragraph (e), we are also proposing to remove the
reporting requirements related to the COMS in paragraph (f)(4). The use
of PM CEMS is a continuous measurement and is a better method for
ensuring compliance with the revised and more stringent PM emission
limit than annual source testing for the existing less stringent PM
emission limit combined with an opacity limit and COMS. Therefore,
these combined revisions would not relax existing requirements with
respect to PM emissions or result in adverse effects on air quality in
the surrounding area.
6. Revisions to 40 CFR 49.5513(j)
In 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(8), we are proposing to remove addresses for
the NNEPA and the EPA that are already provided in 40 CFR 49.5513(f)
and to require that all reports and notifications under paragraph (j)
be submitted to the NNEPA and the EPA in accordance with 40 CFR
49.5513(f). This proposed revision removes redundant information and
requires reporting for 40 CFR 49.55153(j) to be consistent with the
reporting requirements in 40 CFR 49.5513(f). Therefore, these proposed
revisions would not adversely affect air quality in the surrounding
area. These proposed changes to 40 CFR 49.5513(j)(10) do not relax any
requirements or have any effect on air quality in the area surrounding
NGS.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
As described above, the EPA is proposing the following revisions:
(1) Move the 1991 FIP provisions from 40 CFR 52.145(d) to 40 CFR
49.5513; (2) revise a definition of boiler operating day; (3) clarify
the compliance dates applicable to the FIP requirements; (4) lower the
PM emission limitation in the 2010 FIP from 0.060 lb/MMBtu to 0.030 lb/
MMBtu; (5) revise the PM compliance demonstration from annual source
testing to the use of PM CEMS; (6) and replace the existing opacity
limit and COMS requirement with a new requirement to demonstrate
compliance with the PM emission limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu using PM
CEMS.
The EPA solicits comments on the limited provisions of the NGS FIP
that we are proposing to revise in this rulemaking. We are not
accepting comment on any provisions of the NGS FIP that we are not
proposing to revise. Accordingly, please limit your comments to those
specific provisions listed above that we are proposing to revise in
today's action.
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
The Navajo Generating Station is located on the reservation lands
of the Navajo Nation, and the EPA recognizes there is significant
community interest in the emissions and environmental effects of this
facility. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the proposed
revisions to the NGS FIP would strengthen the FIP by requiring the use
of PM CEMS to demonstrate compliance with the lower PM emission
limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu. Because the proposed revisions strengthen
the NGS FIP, the EPA considers this action to be beneficial for human
health and the environment, and to have no potential disproportionately
high and adverse effects on minority, low-income, or indigenous
populations.
[[Page 55999]]
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review. This rule applies to only one facility and is therefore not
a rule of general applicability.
B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This rule applies to only one facility. Therefore, its recordkeeping
and reporting provisions do not constitute a ``collection of
information'' as defined under 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this proposed action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action
will not impose any requirements on small entities. Firms primarily
engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or distribution of
electric energy for sale are small if, including affiliates, the total
electric output for the preceding fiscal year did not exceed four
million megawatt-hours. Each of the owners of the facility affected by
this rule, Salt River Project, the Bureau of Reclamation, Arizona
Public Service, Tucson Electric Power, and NV Energy, exceed this
threshold.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Although this proposed action affects a facility
located in Indian country, the proposed limited revisions to existing
provisions in the NGS FIP will not have substantial direct effects on
any Indian tribes, on the relationship between the federal government
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action. However, we note that we have
engaged in numerous discussions with the NNEPA during the development
of this proposed rule and continue to invite consultation on this
proposed action.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks that the EPA has
reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the
definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety
risk.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
This action involves technical standards. The technical standards
in this action are based on the technical standards used in other
rulemakings promulgated by the EPA. We refer to the discussion of the
technical standards and voluntary consensus standards in the final rule
for 40 CFR part 60 subpart Da and 40 CFR part 63 subpart UUUUU at 77 FR
9304 at 9441 (February 16, 2012).
K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. If this rule is finalized as proposed, we
expect that the limited revisions to the FIP will strengthen
requirements for PM compliance demonstrations with a lower PM emission
limitation of 0.030 lb/MMBtu, and will not relax any other existing
requirements.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 49
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Indians,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Visibility.
Dated: October 26, 2018.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Chapter I, title 40, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart L--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region IX
0
2. Section 49.5513 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (d)(2) and (3);
0
c. Removing paragraph (d)(4);
0
d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1) and (2);
0
e. Removing and reserving paragraph (e)(4);
0
f. Revising paragraph (8);
0
g. Revising paragraphs (f) introductory text and (f)(2) and (4);
0
h. Revising paragraphs (j)(8) introductory text; and
0
i. Adding paragraph (k).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
[[Page 56000]]
Sec. 49.5513 Federal Implementation Plan Provisions for Navajo
Generating Station, Navajo Nation.
* * * * *
(b) Compliance dates. Compliance with the requirements of this
section is required no later than April 5, 2010, unless otherwise
indicated by compliance dates contained in specific provisions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Particulate matter. By [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION
OF FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], no owner or operator shall
discharge or cause the discharge of particulate matter into the
atmosphere in excess of 0.030 lb/MMBtu, on a plant-wide basis.
(3) Dust. Each owner or operator shall operate and maintain the
existing dust suppression methods for controlling dust from the coal
handling and storage facilities, as documented in the dust suppression
plan submitted on February 2, 2015, or any subsequent revision thereto.
Each owner or operator shall not emit dust with an opacity greater than
20% from any crusher, grinding mill, screening operation, belt
conveyor, truck loading or unloading operation, or railcar unloading
station, as determined using 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A-4 Method 9.
(e) Testing and monitoring. (1) On and after the effective date of
this regulation, the owner or operator shall maintain and operate
Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems (CEMS) for NOX and
SO2 on Units 1, 2, and 3 in accordance with 40 CFR 60.8 and
60.13(e), (f), and (h), 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.
(2) By [DATE 30 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF FINAL RULE IN THE
FEDERAL REGISTER], the owner or operator shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate particulate matter CEMS on Units 1, 2, and 3 to
assure continuous compliance with the particulate matter limits in
paragraph (d)(2) of this section, in accordance with 40 CFR part 63
subpart UUUUU.
* * * * *
(8) A certified EPA Reference Method 9 of Appendix A-4 of 40 CFR
part 60 observer shall conduct a weekly visible emission observation
for the equipment and activities described under paragraph (d)(3) of
this section. If visible emissions are present at any of the equipment
and/or activities, a 6-minute EPA Reference Method 9 observation shall
be conducted. The name of the observer, date, and time of observation,
results of the observations, and any corrective actions taken shall be
noted in a log.
(f) Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. All requests,
reports, submittals, notifications and other communications to the EPA,
Regional Administrator, or Administrator required by this section and
references therein shall be submitted to the Director, Navajo
Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 339, Window Rock, Arizona
86515, (928) 871-7692, (928) 871-7996 (facsimile); and to the Regional
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, to the
attention of Mail Code: ORA-1, at 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,
California 94105, (415) 947-8000. For each unit subject to the
emissions limitations in this section the owner or operator shall:
* * * * *
(2) For excess emissions, notify the Regional Administrator by
telephone or in writing within one business day. A complete written
report of the incident shall be submitted to the Regional Administrator
within ten (10) working days after the event. This notification shall
include the following information:
* * * * *
(4) Submit quarterly excess emissions reports for sulfur dioxide
and PM as recorded by CEMS together with a CEMS data assessment report
to the Regional Administrator no later than 30 days after each calendar
quarter. The owner or operator shall complete the excess emissions
reports according to the procedures in 40 CFR 60.7(c) and (d) and
include the Cylinder Gas Audit.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(8) Reporting. All reports and notifications under this paragraph
(j) must be submitted as required by paragraph (f) of this section to
the Director, Navajo Nation Environmental Protection Agency and to the
Regional Administrator.
* * * * *
(k) This paragraph (k) is applicable to the fossil fuel-fired,
steam-generating equipment designated as Units 1, 2, and 3 at the
Navajo Generating Station in the Northern Arizona Intrastate Air
Quality Control Region 40 CFR 81.270).
(1) Definitions--(i) Administrator means the Administrator of EPA
or his/her designee.
(ii) Affected unit(s) means the steam-generating unit(s) at the
Navajo Generating Station, all of which are subject to the emission
limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, that has accumulated at
least 365 boiler operating days since the passage of the date defined
in paragraph (k)(6) of this section applicable to it.
(iii) Boiler operating day means a 24-hour period between 12
midnight and the following midnight during which any fuel is combusted
at any time in the steam-generating unit. It is not necessary for fuel
to be combusted the entire 24-hour period.
(iv) Owner or operator means the owner, participant in, or operator
of the Navajo Generating Station to which this paragraph (k) is
applicable.
(v) Unit-week of maintenance means a period of 7 days during which
a fossil fuel-fired steam-generating unit is under repair, and no coal
is combusted in the unit.
(2) Emission limitation. The following emission limitation shall
apply at all times. No owner or operator shall discharge or cause the
discharge of sulfur oxides into the atmosphere in excess of 42
nanograms per Joule (ng/J) [0.10 pound per million British thermal
units (lb/MMBtu)] heat input.
(3) Compliance determination. Until at least one unit qualifies as
an affected unit, no compliance determination is appropriate. As each
unit qualifies for treatment as an affected unit, it shall be included
in the compliance determination. Compliance with this emission limit
shall be determined daily on a plant-wide rolling annual basis as
follows:
(i) For each boiler operating day at each steam generating unit
subject to the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section,
the owner or operator shall record the unit's hourly SO2
emissions using the data from the continuous emission monitoring
systems, required in paragraph (k)(4) of this section, and the daily
electric energy generated by the unit (in megawatt-hours) as measured
by the megawatt-hour meter for the unit.
(ii) Compute the average daily SO2 emission rate in ng/J
(lb/MMBtu) following the procedures set out in method 19, appendix A,
40 CFR part 60 in effect on October 3, 1991.
(iii) For each boiler operating day for each affected unit,
calculate the product of the daily SO2 emission rate
(computed according to paragraph (k)(3)(ii) of this section) and the
daily electric energy generated (recorded according to paragraph
(k)(3)(i) of this section) for each unit.
(iv) For each affected unit, identify the previous 365 boiler
operating days to be used in the compliance determination. Except as
provided in paragraphs (k)(9) and (k)(10) of this section, all of the
immediately
[[Page 56001]]
preceding 365 boiler operating days will be used for compliance
determinations.
(v) Sum, for all affected units, the products of the daily
SO2 emission rate-electric energy generated (as calculated
according to paragraph (k)(3)(iii) of this section) for the boiler
operating days identified in paragraph (k)(3)(iv) of this section.
(vi) Sum, for all affected units, the daily electric energy
generated (recorded according to paragraph (k)(3)(i) of this section)
for the boiler operating days identified in paragraph (k)(3)(iv) of
this section.
(vii) Calculate the weighted plant-wide annual average
SO2 emission rate by dividing the sum of the products
determined according to paragraph (k)(3)(v) of this section by the sum
of the electric energy generated determined according to paragraph
(k)(3)(vi) of this section.
(viii) The weighted plant-wide annual average SO2
emission rate shall be used to determine compliance with the emission
limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section.
(4) Continuous emission monitoring. The owner or operator shall
install, maintain, and operate continuous emission monitoring systems
to determine compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph
(k)(2) of this section as calculated in paragraph (k)(3) of this
section. This equipment shall meet the specifications in appendix B of
40 CFR part 60 in effect on October 3, 1991. The owner or operator
shall comply with the quality assurance procedures for continuous
emission monitoring systems found in appendix F of 40 CFR part 60 in
effect on October 3, 1991.
(5) Reporting requirements. For each steam generating unit subject
to the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section, the
owner or operator:
(i) Shall furnish the Administrator written notification of the
SO2, oxygen, and carbon dioxide emissions according to the
procedures found in 40 CFR 60.7 in effect on October 3, 1991;
(ii) Shall furnish the Administrator written notification of the
daily electric energy generated in megawatt-hours;
(iii) Shall maintain records according to the procedures in 40 CFR
60.7 in effect on October 3, 1991; and
(iv) Shall notify the Administrator by telephone or in writing
within one business day of any outage of the control system needed for
compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this
section and shall submit a follow-up written report within 30 days of
the repairs stating how the repairs were accomplished and justifying
the amount of time taken for the repairs.
(6) Compliance dates. The requirements of this paragraph shall be
applicable to one unit at the Navajo Generating Station beginning
November 19, 1997, to two units beginning November 19, 1998, and to all
units beginning on August 19, 1999.
(7) Schedule of compliance. The owner or operator shall take the
following actions by the dates specified, but the interim deadlines
will be extended if the owner or operators can demonstrate to the
Administrator that compliance with the deadlines in paragraph (k)(6) of
this section will not be affected:
(i) By June 1, 1992, award binding contracts to an architectural
and engineering firm to design and procure the control system needed
for compliance with the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this
section.
(ii) By January 1, 1995, initiate on-site construction or
installation of a control system for the first unit.
(iii) By May 1, 1997, initiate start-up testing of the control
system for the first unit.
(iv) By May 1, 1998, initiate start-up testing of the control
system for the second unit.
(v) By February 1, 1999, initiate start-up testing of the control
system for the third unit.
(8) Reporting on compliance schedule. Within 30 days after the
specified date for each deadline in the schedule of compliance in
paragraph (k)(7) of this section, the owner or operator shall notify
the Administrator in writing whether the deadline was met. If it was
not met, the notice shall include an explanation why it was not met and
the steps which shall be taken to ensure future deadlines will be met.
(9) Exclusion for equipment failure during initial operation. (i)
For each unit, in determining compliance for the first year that such
unit is required to meet the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of
this section, periods during which one of the following conditions are
met shall be excluded.
(A) Equipment or systems do not meet designer's or manufacturer's
performance expectations.
(B) Field installation including engineering or construction
precludes equipment or systems from performing as designed.
(ii) The periods to be excluded shall be determined by the
Administrator based on the periodic reports of compliance with the
emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of this section which shall
identify the times proposed for exclusion and provide the reasons for
the exclusion, including the reasons for the control system outage. The
report also shall describe the actions taken to avoid the outage, to
minimize its duration, and to reduce SO2 emissions at the
plant to the extent practicable while the control system was not fully
operational. Whenever the time to be excluded exceeds a cumulative
total of 30 days for any control system for any affected unit, the
owner or operators shall submit a report within 15 days addressing the
history of and prognosis for the performance of the control system.
(10) Exclusion for catastrophic failure. In addition to the
exclusion of periods allowed in paragraph (d)(9) of this section, any
periods of emissions from an affected unit for which the Administrator
finds that the control equipment or system for such unit is out of
service because of catastrophic failure of the control system which
occurred for reasons beyond the control of the owner or operators and
could not have been prevented by good engineering practices will be
excluded from the compliance determination. Events which are the
consequence of lack of appropriate maintenance or of intentional or
negligent conduct or omissions of the owner or operators or the control
system design, construction, or operating contractors do not constitute
catastrophic failure.
(11) Equipment operation. The owner or operator shall optimally
operate all equipment or systems needed to comply with the requirements
of this paragraph consistent with good engineering practices to keep
emissions at or below the emission limitation in paragraph (k)(2) of
this section, and following outages of any control equipment or systems
the control equipment or system will be returned to full operation as
expeditiously as practicable.
(12) Maintenance scheduling. On March 16 of each year starting in
1993, the owner or operator shall prepare and submit to the
Administrator a long-term maintenance plan for the Navajo Generating
Station that accommodates the maintenance requirements for the other
generating facilities on the Navajo Generating Station grid covering
the period from March 16 to March 15 of the next year and showing at
least 6 unit-weeks of maintenance for the Navajo Generating Station
during the November 1 to March 15 period, except as provided in
paragraph (k)(13) of this section. This plan shall be developed
consistent with the criteria established by the Western States
Coordinating Council of the North American Electric Reliability Council
to ensure an adequate reserve margin of electric
[[Page 56002]]
generating capacity. At the time that a plan is transmitted to the
Administrator, the owner or operator shall notify the Administrator in
writing if less than the full scheduled unit-weeks of maintenance were
conducted for the period covered by the previous plan and shall furnish
a written report stating how that year qualified for one of the
exceptions identified in paragraph (k)(13) of this section.
(13) Exceptions for maintenance scheduling. The owner or operator
shall conduct a full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance in accordance with the
plan required in paragraph (k)(12) of this section unless the owner or
operator can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator that
a full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance during the November 1 to March 15
period should not be required because one of the conditions in
paragraph (k)(13)(i) through (iv) of this section are met. If the
Administrator determines that a full 6 unit-weeks of maintenance during
the November 1 to March 15 period should not be required, the owner or
operator shall nevertheless conduct that amount of scheduled
maintenance that is not precluded by the Administrator. Generally, the
owner or operator shall make best efforts to conduct as much scheduled
maintenance as practicable during the November 1 to March 15 period.
(i) There is no need for 6 unit-weeks of scheduled periodic
maintenance in the year covered by the plan;
(ii) The reserve margin on any electrical system served by the
Navajo Generating Station would fall to an inadequate level, as defined
by the criteria referred to in paragraph (k)(12) of this section;
(iii) The cost of compliance with this requirement would be
excessive. The cost of compliance would be excessive when the economic
savings to the owner or operator of moving maintenance out of the
November 1 to March 15 period exceeds $50,000 per unit-day of
maintenance moved; and
(iv) A major forced outage at a unit occurs outside of the November
1 to March 15 period, and necessary periodic maintenance occurs during
the period of forced outage.
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
3. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart D--Arizona
Sec. 52.145 [Amended]
0
4. Section 52.145 amended by removing and reserving paragraph (d).
[FR Doc. 2018-24482 Filed 11-8-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
