State ofNew Mexico

Susana Martinez

Governor

June 24, 2011

Dr. Alfredo Armendariz

Regional Administrator (6-A)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200

Dallas, TX 75202-2733

Dear Dr. Armendariz:

tTl

X

.....

tTl

::0

:z: iii! > ::0

IT1

> w (") ..,

.., U1 IT1

> - :ii

Vl :II:

..." <

IT1 c 0 <:

§ N

0 C)

:z:

'*'0 . I " cL 6RA.~~~:.•...6~N . 6DRA~:.t~I.'6WQ. ..•...•.........

6MD 6SF .

60EJ..•••.••••...6RC•..•..•••.••••••..

6PDQ!:!~i.ffi<1..6XA.~~.:.I.. ~.Io

c.o",+<0 /1.,;( e.-.c./-

On behalf of the New Mexico Environment Department, I am pleased to submit to the

Environmental Protection Agency the enclosed revisions to the New Mexico State

Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions include amendments to New Mexico's Regional

Haze SIP under 40 CFR § 51.309.

The hearing record for all of the SIP revisions is attached, which includes the revised SIP, filed

regulations, transcripts, exhibits, public notices, affidavits of publication, the notice of intent to

present technical testimony, and public comments.

Included with the attached hardcopy of the hearing record is an electronic copy of the record

provided on disk which I certify to be an exact duplicate ofthe hardcopy.

These SIP revisions satisfY the requirements of the Clean Air Act, comply with EPA regulations

and policy, and will result in significant emission reductions while preserving the proper federalstate partnership envisioned under the Clean Air Act. As such, EPA must approve these

revisions. In addition, because the enclosed SIP revisions address two different provisions ofthe

federal Clean Air Act, I believe EPA should address them separately.

First, the enclosed "Interstate Transport SIP" addresses Section 11 0 of the Act, which requires

states to avoid interfering with any other states' implementation plans for visibility. As made

clear in the Interstate Transport SIP submitted in 2007, and further explained in two letters to

EPA Region 6 from the previous New Mexico administration (one from Governor Richardson on

June 12,2009 and another from a member of his staff on May 6, 2010), New Mexico has already

satisfied its Interstate Transport obligations. However, the enclosed Interstate Transport SIP

supplements those previous submittals by confirming that the emissions from New Mexico

sources will not exceed the assumptions utilized in the modeling conducted by the Western

Regional Air Partnership (WRAP), upon which other western states' visibility plans are based.

State Capitol • Room 400 • Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 • 505-476-2200 • fax: 505-476-2226
EPA has already recognized that "the analysis conducted by the WRAP provides an appropriate

means for designing a [plan] that will ensure that emissions from sources in New Mexico are not

interfering with the visibility programs ofother states." In fact, the enclosed Interstate Transport

SIP confirms that emissions will actually be much lower than the WRAP modeling assumptions.

Second, the enclosed revisions to the 2003 "Regional Haze Section 309 SIP" and the enclosed

"Regional Haze Section 309(g) SIP" (together, the "Regional Haze SIPs") address New

Mexico's obligation to reduce visibility impairment at national parks and wilderness areas

("Class I areas") in accordance with Sections 169A & 169B ofthe Clean Air Act. The Regional

Haze SIPs satisfy New Mexico's regional haze requirements by adopting new sulfur dioxide

(S02) milestones for the Section 309 Backstop Trading Program, establishing reasonable

progress goals and a long-term strategy for New Mexico's nine Class I areas, and adopting a

variety of control measures to address emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from New

Mexico sources. Most notably, the enclosed Regional Haze SIP also includes a Best Available

Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the San Juan Generating Station, which requires

the installation of a Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) system to meet EPA's

presumptive BART limit for nitrogen oxides (NO,).

I am aware that EPA has proposed a different plan for implementing the Interstate Transport

program and at least a portion of the Regional Haze program in New Mexico through a

combined Federal Implementation Plan (FIP). I am also aware ofEPA's concern that it is bound

by a court order to complete that rulemaking effort by August 5, 20 II. However, the court order

imposing the August 5, 20 II deadline only requires EPA to address Interstate Transport

requirements before that date. In addition, the proposed FIP suffers from a variety of legal and

technical flaws and inappropriately seeks to address only an isolated portion ofthe regional haze

program. Under these circumstances, I believe EPA can and should address the Interstate

Transport program and Regional Haze program separately. Doing so will enable EPA to address

New Mexico's Interstate Transport requirements by the court-ordered deadline, while allowing

additional time for review ofthe more lengthy and complicated Regional Haze SIPs.

One of the fundamental principles expressed in Section !OI of the Clean Air Act is that "air

pollution control at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments."

That principle is nowhere better illustrated in the Act than in its visibility provisions, which, as

EPA and the courts have recognized, grant to the states significant discretion in the

implementation of measures to address visibility impairment. In designing the regional haze

program, Congress recognized that the individual states are best-equipped to balance the need for

robust environmental protections with the costs those protections necessarily entail.

Moreover, nothing in the Clean Air Act requires EPA to address Interstate Transport and

Regional Haze requirements together. On the contrary, EPA has generally addressed these

programs separately in the past. As just one example, EPA Region 8 recently proposed to take

separate action on the Interstate Transport and Regional Haze implementation plan revisions

submitted by the state of Colorado. Even EPA's proposed FIP for New Mexico itself

contemplates separate Interstate Transport and Regional Haze plans with regard to S02

emiSSIOns.
Accordingly, EPA should meet its August 5, 2011 deadline by simply approving New Mexico's

prior Interstate Transport submittals, as supplemented by the enclosed Interstate Transport SIP.

Even if EPA does not agree that New Mexico's prior submittals have already satisfied its

Interstate Transport obligations, EPA should be able to act on New Mexico's four-page Interstate

Transport SIP before August 5, 2011.

Since the court order does not require EPA to address New Mexico's Regional Haze program by

August 5, 2011, New Mexico is now, as of this submittal, in the same position as nearly every

other state - awaiting EPA action on its Regional Haze SIP. As with other states, EPA must

determine whether New Mexico's Regional Haze SIPs are complete no more than six months

from this date and, following that completeness determination or the expiration of six months,

EPA must act to approve or disapprove those SIPs within twelve months, including time allowed

for public notice and comment on the proposed action. Because EPA will be required to

consider New Mexico's Regional Haze SIPs regardless of whether it flllalizes the proposed FIP,

EPA should take no action on its proposed FIP, particularly since the August 5, 2011 deadline

does not apply to regional haze. At a minimum, EPA should reopen the docket on the proposed

PIP for at least ninety (90) days to accept further comment in light ofthe submission ofthese SIP

revisions.

I hope you will begin an immediate, expedited review and approval ofthe enclosed SIP revisions

and, as recommended above, take separate action on the separate Interstate Transport and

Regional Haze requirements ofthe Clean Air Act.

If there are any questions concerning this SIP submittal, please contact Raj Solomon at (505)

827-2855.

Sincerely,

Susana Martinez

Governor

Enclosures

cc: Guy Donaldson, EPA Region 6

Dave Martin, NMED Cabinet Secretary

Raj Solomon, NMED Deputy Cabinet Secretary
1

List of Enclosures: 

01 Section 309 Revised State Implementation Plan 

02 Appendix K - Recommendations for Making Attribution Determinations in the 

Context of Reasonably Attributable BART 

03 20.2.73 NMAC Revisions - Notices of Intent and Emissions Inventory 

Requirements 

04 20.2.81 NMAC Revisions - Western Backstop Sulfur Dioxide Trading Program 

05 Section 309(g) State Implementation Plan 

06 Appendix A - Emissions Overview (WRAP, undated) 

07 Appendix B - Air Quality Modeling (WRAP, undated) 

08 Appendix C - Summary of WRAP RMC BART Modeling for New Mexico 

09 Appendix D - New Mexico BART Determination for San Juan Generating 

Station 

10 Appendix E - Supplementary Information for Four Factor Analyses by WRAP 

States, EC/R Incorporated, May 4, 2009 (corrected April 20, 2010) 

11 Appendix F - Supplementary Information for Four-Factor Analyses for 

Selected Individual Facilities in New Mexico, May 5, 2009 

12 NMED Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony - May 2, 2011 

13 NMED Ex. 1 Clean Air Act § 169A 

14 NMED Ex. 2 Clean Air Act § 169B 

15 NMED Ex. 3 40 C.F.R. § 51.308 (Regional Haze Rule § 308) 

16 NMED Ex. 4 40 C.F.R. § 51.309 (Regional Haze Rule § 309) 

17 NMED Ex. 5 BART Guidelines – Appendix Y to 40 C.F.R. Part 51 Published 

at 70 Fed. Reg. 39104 

18 NMED Ex. 6 NMED Requests for Information from PNM 

19 NMED Ex. 6a Email - BART Modeling Results from WRAP (11.9.06) 

20 NMED Ex. 6b Email – PNM San Juan Generating BART Modeling (6-26-07) 

21 NMED Ex. 6c Email - Comments on the BART modeling report for the San 

Juan Generating Station (7.30.07) 

22 NMED Ex. 6d Email - SJGS BART Analysis Additional Information Request 

(9.21.07) 

23 NMED Ex. 6e Letter - Department Request (12.21.07) 

24 NMED Ex. 6f Letter PNM-BART-Request (4-25-08) 

25 NMED Ex. 6g Email - PNM NOx Information Review (3.20.08) 

26 NMED Ex. 6h Email - Meeting (6.18.08) 

27 NMED Ex. 6i Letter – Additional Information Request (12.29.08) 
2

28 NMED Ex. 7 PNM Submittals Related to BART 

29 NMED Ex. 7a San Juan BART Modeling Protocol (4.13.07) 

30 NMED Ex. 7b PNM BART Analysis (6.6.07) 

31 NMED Ex. 7c Email Thread with Cost Analysis Attached 

32 NMED Ex. 7d SCR Cost Analysis - (7.11.07) 

33 NMED Ex. 7e SNCR Hybrid Cost Analysis (7.11.07) 

34 NMED Ex. 7f Updated Visibility Cost Effectiveness Data - (8.23.07) 

35 NMED Ex. 7g PNM Response to NMED (9.14.07) - September 14, 2007 

36 NMED Ex. 7h PNM SCR Schematic 

37 NMED Ex. 7i Refined Visibility Results (11.5.07) 

38 NMED Ex. 7j PNM Discussion of OAQPS Cost Manual Method (3.29.08) 

39 NMED Ex. 7k Final BART Modeling Response (3.31.08) 

40 NMED Ex. 7L Final BART SNCR Analysis (5.30.08) 

41 NMED Ex. 7m Discussion of SJGS Coal and Classification 

42 NMED Ex. 7n Final Nalco-MOBOTEC NOx BART Analysis (8.28.08) 

43 NMED Ex. 7o Final PM BART Analysis (8.28.08) 

44 NMED Ex. 7p PNM SO3 Removal Report (3.16.09) 

45 NMED Ex. 7q SNCR Cover Ltr (2.9.11) 

46 NMED Ex. 7r PNM BART SNCR Analysis Update (2.9.11) 

47 NMED Ex. 7s SNCR Cover Ltr (2.11.11) 

48 NMED Ex. 7t Revised SNCR Analysis (2.11.11) 

49 NMED Ex. 7u Rate Impact Analysis (2.11.11) 

50 NMED Ex. 8 Testimony of Mary Uhl 

51 NMED Ex. 8a Testimony on Scientific and Regulatory Background of 

Regional Haze 

52 NMED Ex. 8b Regional Haze Powerpoint Slides 

53 NMED Ex. 8c Testimony Re BART Determination for PNM SJGS 

54 NMED Ex. 9 Testimony of Rita Bates 

55 NMED Ex. 9a Testimony Re Revisions to 2003 § 309 SIP 

56 NMED Ex. 9b Testimony Re Proposed §309(g) SIP 

57 NMED Ex. 10 Additional Proposed Revisions to § 309 SIP (5.2.11) 

58 NMED Ex. 11 Additional Proposed Revisions to § 309(g) SIP (5.2.11) 

59 NMED Ex. 12 Public Notices 
3

60 San Juan Citizens Alliance Comment Letter - May 3, 2011 

61 NMED Response to San Juan Citizens Alliance Comments 

62 Public Service Company of New Mexico Notice of Intent to Present Technical 

Testimony - May 17, 2011 

63 San Juan Coal Company Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony - 

May 17, 2011 

64 The Natural Resources Defense Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, and 

WildEarth Guardians Entry of Appearance - May 17, 2011 

65 NMED Notice of Receipt of Comments - May 16, 2011 (includes U.S. EPA 

Comments) 

66 NMED Supplemental Notice of Intent to Present Technical Testimony - May 

20, 2011 

67 NMED Ex. 13 May 20, 2011 Revisions to § 309(g) SIP in Response to EPA 

Comments 

68 NMED Ex. 14 May 20, 2011 Revisions to 20.2.81 NMAC in Response to EPA 

Comments 

69 NMED Ex. 15 May 13, 2011 Comments from U.S. EPA Region 6 

70 NMED Ex. 16 NMED Responses to EPA Comments of May 13, 2011 

71 NMED Ex. 17 U.S.F.S. Letter of March 30, 2011with Comments 

72 NMED Ex. 18 NMED Response to U.S.F.S Comments of March 30, 2011 

73 NMED Ex. 19 Proposed Statement of Reasons for Adoption and Order 

74 NMED Second Notice of Receipt of Comments - May 26, 2011 (includes 

comments received May 25, 2011 from U.S. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife 

Service) 

75 NMED Exhibits Presented at the June 1, 2011 Hearing 

76 NMED Ex. 20 Compiled Section 309(g) SIP (included herein as Section 309(g) 

SIP) -- was not included in submittal EPA received -- probably the same as 

enclosures 05 to 11. 

77 NMED Ex. 21 Responses to U.S. Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service 

Comments 

78 Transcript of Hearing - June 1 and 2, 2011 (Volumes 1 and 2) 

79 New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board Statement of Reasons for 

Adoption of SIP Revisions