+(,121/,1(

Citation: 56 Fed. Reg. 5173 1991 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Jun 9 15:30:19 2014

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

Subsequent meetings of the committee

and any subcommittees would be held

in Washington, DC, or in Ann Arbor,

Michigan on a schedule to be

determined by the committee. As

required by FACA, EPA would publish

timely notice of the meetings in the

Federal Register. The meetings would be

open to the public and interested

persons would be permitted to file

statements with the committee.

Due to the limited time allowed the

Agency to promulgate regulations and

guidelines, EPA intends that the

meetings would occur every two to three

weeks so that consensus may be

reached as quickly as possible, in light

of the Agency's intention to issue

proposed reformulated gasoline and

oxygenated fuels labeling regulations

not later than May 31, 1991.

VII. Negotiation Procedures

The following procedures and

guidelines will apply to the committee, if

formed, unless they are modified as a result of comments received on this

notice or during the negotiating process.

A. Facilitator

EPA will use a neutral facilitator. The

facilitator will not be involved with the

substantive development or enforcement

of the regulation. The facilitator's role is

to chair negotiating sessions; help the

negotiation process run smoothly; and

help participants define and reach

consensus.

B. Good Faith Negotiation

Committee participants must be

willing to negotiate in good faith and be

authorized by their respective

organizations or interest groups to do so.

Consequently, each entity included on the committee must designate a senior

official to represent its interests.

C. Administrative Support and Meetings

EPA's Information and Regulatory

System Division will supply logistical,

administrative, and management

support for the committee. To support

the negotiations, EPA will make

available technical support personnel

and expertise which it has available to

support the committee. Also to support

the negotiations, the Agency has

pledged funds to a resource pool which

the National Institute for Dispute

Resolution will administer. EPA expects

that funds from private foundations may

also be available. The committee may

use the funds for activities such as training, technical support and any other

assistance the committee deems useful.

To the extent allowed by law,

committee members will be free to

determine the procedures under which

requests for funds will be made and

approved.

D. Committee Procedures

Under the general guidance and

direction of the facilitator, and subject

to any applicable legal requirements.

committee members will determine the

most appropriate procedures for

committee meetings.

E. Defining Consensus

The goal of the negotiating process is

to achieve consensus. In the

negotiations completed to date,

consensus has meant that each

participant or interest concurs in the

result. The NRA defines consensus as

unanimous concurrence among the

interests represented on the committee,

unless the committee agrees to define

consensus to mean a general but not

unanimous concurrence or agrees upon

another definition.

F Failure of Committee to Reach

Consensus

In the event the committee is unable

to reach consensus in the time available

for development of the reformulated

gasoline and oxygenated gasoline

proposed rules and the oxygenated

gasoline credit trading guidelines, EPA

will proceed with its own approach.

Whether nor not consensus is reached,

the committee may choose to continue

to meet after publication of the proposed

rules for purposes of formulating

recommendations regarding the

proposals for the Agency's

consideration. Committee meetings

conducted after proposal would be open

to the public, committee

recommendations would be placed in

the relevant rulemaking dockets, and the

dockets would remain open for

submission of responses to any

recommendations made by the

committee. However, while consensus

positions developed prior to proposal

would be the presumptive basis of the

Agency's proposed rules, any

recommendations formulated after

proposal would not be the presumptive

basis of the final rules. The Agency

would consider such recommendations

along with the public comments

received in response to the proposed

rules and the recommendations in

making its decision on the final rules.

Parties to the negotiation may

withdraw at any time. If this happens,

the remaining committee members and

the Agency will evaluate whether the

committee should continue to exist.

G. Record of Meetings

In accordance with FACA and NRA,

EPA will keep a record of all committee

meetings, including minutes of the

meetings and any records, reports,

working papers or other documents

made available to or prepared by the

committee for the meetings. This record

will be placed in the public dockets

identified above.

Dated: February 5, 1991.

J. Clarence Davies,

Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning

and Evaluation.

[FR Doc. 91-3131 Filed 2-7-91; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-5-

40 CFR Part 52

[AD-FRL-3700-41

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Revision of the

Visibility FIP for Arizona

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and

announcement of public hearing.

SUMMARY: This proposal addresses the

need for revising the Federal

implementation plan (FIP) for the State

of Arizona to include emission limits

representing best available retrofit

technology (BART) for the Navajo

Generating Station (NGS) to remedy

wintertime visibility impairment in the

Grand Canyon National Park (Grand

Canyon). This action is taken pursuant

to sections 169A and 110(c) of the Clean

Air Act (Act) which require EPA, upon

default by a State, to take appropriate

measures to remedy certified visibility

impairments in mandatory Class I areas

where the impairment is reasonably

attributed to a specific source. On

September 5, 1989, EPA preliminarily

attributed a significant portion of

wintertime impairment to the NGS (54

FR 36948). The timing of today's action

is in accordance with a revised

settlement agreement between EPA and

the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

in EDFv. Reilly, No. C82-6850 RPA (N.

D. Cal.).

DATES: Comments on this notice of

proposed rulemaking should be

submitted to the Central Docket Section

no later than April 19, 1991.

The EPA has received a written

request for a public hearing on this

action. A hearing has been scheduled

for Monday, March 18, 1991, starting at 1

p.m. in the Maricopa County

Auditorium, 201 West Jefferson,

Phoenix, Arizona. Persons wishing to

speak at the hearing should notify the

Information Contact by March 11, 1991

at the address given below.

5173
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday. February 8. 1991 1 Proposed Rules'

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to

Air Docket (LE-131), Attention: A-89-

OZA, U.S. EPA, rm. M1500 Waterside

Mall, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20460.

Docket: Pursuant to section

307(d)(1)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7607(d)[1)(B), this action is subject to the

procedural requirements of section

307(d). Therefore, EPA has established a

docket for this notice, Docket Number

A-89-02A. Materials related to the

development of this notice have been

placed in this docket. Materials related

to EPAs preliminary attribution of a

significant portion of the wintertime

visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon to the NGS (54 FR 36948

(September 5, 1989)) have been placed in

Docket A-89-02. For background

information, materials related to the

development of the visibility protection

program (40 CFR 51.300 et seq.) are

available in Docket A-79-40. Also,

materials related to the development of

the visibility new source review (NSR)

and visibility monitoring strategies are

available in Docket A-84-32. Materials

related to the visibility long-term

strategy, implementation of control

strategy, and integral vista program are

available In Docket A-85-26. All

dockets are available for public inspection and copying between 8:30

a.m. to 12 noon and 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Monday through Friday at EPA's Central

Docket Section, Office of General

Counsel, room 1500, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC. A reasonable fee may

be charged for copies. Copies of this

Notice, the Guidelines for Determining

BART, the BART Analysis for NGS, the

Regulatory Impact Analysis and

Addendum, and copies of the comments

provided by the Federal land manager

(FLM), if any, are also available for

public inspection at:

Department of Environmental Quality,

Office of Air Quality, 3003 North

Central Avenue, suite 1700, Phoenix,

Arizona 85012.

Department of Environmental Quality, Northern Regional Office, 2501 North

4th Street, suite 14, Flagstaff, Arizona

86004.

City of Page Municipal Library, 697

Vista Avenue, Page, Arizona 86040.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.

David H. Stonefield, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, MD-15,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919)

541-5350 or FTS 629-5350.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A. Regulatory Requirements

Section 169A of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7491, sets as a national goal "the

preventation of any future, and the

remedying of any existing, Impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I

Federal areaswhich impairment results

from manmade air pollution."

Mandatory Class I Federal areas are

certain national parks, wildernesses,

and international parks as described in

section 162(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7472(a). Section 169A requires that EPA

promulgate regulations to assure

reasonable progress toward meeting the

national goal for mandatory Class I

Federal areas where EPA has

determined that visibility is an

important value. On November 30, 1979,

EPA identified 156 areas, including the

Grand Canyon in Arizona where

visibility is an important air quality

related value (44 FR 69122). Section

169A specifically requires EPA to

promulgate regulations requiring States

to amend their State implementation plans (SIP's) to provide reasonable

progress toward meeting the national

goal for the 156 areas.

On December 2, 1980, EPA

promulgated the required visibility regulations (45 FR 80084, codified at 40

CFR 51.300 et seq.). In broad outline, the

visibility regulations require the 36

States listed in § 51.300(b), including Arizona, to: (1) Coordinate SIP

development with the appropriate FLM's; (2) develop a program to assess

and remedy visibility impairment from

new and existing sources; (3) develop a

long-term (10 to 15 years) strategy to

assure reasonable progress toward the

national goal; (4) develop a visibility

monitoring strategy to collect

information on visibility conditions; and

(5) consider in all aspects of visibility protection any "integral vistas"

(important views of landmarks or

panoramas that extend outside of the

boundaries of the Class I area identified

by the FLM's as critical to the visitors'

enjoyment of the Class I areas. The

affected States were required to submit

the revised SIPs satisfying these

provisions by September 2, 1981. See 45

FR 80091, codified at 40 CFR 51.302(a)(1).

The second requirement listed above

is of particular relevance to today's action. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2),

each affected State is required to

include in its SIP such emission

limitations, schedules of compliance,

and other measures as may be

necessary to make reasonable progress

toward the national visibility goal. In

addition, under 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1), an

FLM may certify to a State that there

exists impairment of visibility in any

mandatory Class I Federal area.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(i), where

impairment is certified at least 6 months

prior to plan submission, an affected

State must (1) identify each existing

stationary facility which may "reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute" to any such impairment

which is "reasonably attributable to that

existing stationary facility," and (2)

analyze for BART any facility so

identified. "Reasonably attributable"

impairment is impairment "attributable

by visual observations or any other

technique the State seems appropriate"

(40 CFR 51.301(s)). Where a State

defaults on its obligations under the

visibility regulations, EPA may act in

place of the State pursuant to a FIP •

under section 110(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7410(c).1 In such cases, all of the rights

and duties that would otherwise fall to

the State accrue instead to EPA. Thus,

EPA may utilize attribution techniques it

deems appropriate; must identify "reasonably attributable" sources of

impairment, conduct BART analyses,

adopt BART requirements; and may

promulgate such other control strategies

that EPA, in its discretion, deems

necessary to make reasonable progress

toward the national visibility goal.

The visibility regulations promulgated

at 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(i) require that

once impairment has been certified, a

State (or EPA if the State's visibility

protection program addressing BART

has not been approved and EPA is

acting in its place) must analyze for

BART any specific existing stationary

facility it identifies as a "reasonably

attributable" source of the impairment.

Pursuant to section 169A(b) of the Act

(42 U.S.C. 7491(b)) and 40 CFR

51.302(c)(4)(iii), the emission limitation

representing BART for fossil fuel-fired

power plants with a generating capacity

in excess of 750 megawatts (MW) must

be determined pursuant to guidelines

promulgated by the Administrator. This

statutorily-required procedure for

conducting a BART analysis is found in

"Guidelines for Determining Best

Available Retrofit Technology Analysis

for Coal-Fired Power Plants and Other

Stationary Facilities" (EPA-450/3-80-

009b) (BART Guidelines).2 A copy of

I Section 110(c) requries EPA to promulgate FtPs

whenever a State fails to submit an implementation

plan (or portion thereof) which meets the

requirements of section 110; the Administrator

determines that a plan (or portion) is not in

accordance with the requirements of section 110; or

the State fails to revise its plan within 60 days after

notification by the Administrator in accordance

with section 110(a)(2)(IH).

2 As discussed below the Agency is proposing In

this rulemaking to make certain modification to

these Guidelines.

I

5174
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

this document may be found in Docket

A-89-02.

In December 1982, environmental

groups, including EDF, filed a citizens'

suit in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

alleging that EPA had failed to perform

a nondiscretionary duty under section

110(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 7410(c), to

promulgate visibility FIPs for the 35

States 3 that, at that time, had failed to

submit SIPs to EPA as called for by the

1980 visibility regulations, EDFv. Reilly,

No. C826850 RPA (N. D. Cal.). The State

of Arizona was one of the 35 States that

failed to submit a revised SIP to EPA.

The EPA and the plaintiffs negotiated

a settlement agreement for the

remaining States which the court

approved by order on April 20, 1984. For

more information on details of the

provisions of the settlement, including a

schedule of actions by EPA, see EPA's

announcement of the agreement at 49 FR

20647 (May 16, 1984).

B. Settlement Agreement

To remedy the States' failure to

submit the necessary SIP revisions

during the time specified by the

regulations, the settlement agreement

replaced the original regulatory

deadlines for visibility SIP provisions with a rulemaking schedule agreed to by

the parties and approved by the court.

This schedule required EPA to review

the existing SIP's to determine any

deficiencies, allow the States to cure

those deficiencies, and to promulgate FIP's on a specified schedule for those

States that still did not submit visibility

SIP revisions to EPA. Specifically, the

first part of the agreement required EPA

to promulgate FIP's which cover the

monitoring and NSR provisions of 40

CFR 51.305 and 51.307. The EPA

promulgated its monitoring strategy for

2.3 States and its NSR provisions for 21

States at 50 FR 28544 (July 12,1985), 51

FR 5504 (February 1,1986), and 51 FR

22937 (June 1986). In separate notices,

EPA approved the SP's of the other

States with respect to monitoring and

NSR.

The second part of the settlement

agreement required EPA to determine

the adequacy of the SIP's to meet the

remaining provisions of the visibility regulations and gave the States until

December 1986 to submit additional

measures that would avoid the need for

a FIP. These provisions are the general

plan provisions, including BART and

other implementation control strategies

(§ 51.302), integral vista protection

(§ 51.302-307), and long-term strategies

'The State of Alaska had submitted a SIP which was approved on July 5, 193 at 48 FR 30623.

(§ 51.306). The settlement agreement

required EPA to promulgate FIPs to

remedy and deficiencies on a specified

schedule.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.302(c)(1), on

November 14,1985, the Department of

the Interior (DO) certified the existence

of visibility impairment in all Class I

areas within its jurisdiction in the lower

48 States.

On January 23,1986, EPA determined

that the SIP's of 32 States (including

Arizona) were deficient with respect to

the remaining visibility provisions (51

FR 3046) and offered the States an

opportunity to submit corrective SIP

revisions. Thereafter, EPA and the

plaintiffs negotiated revisions to the

settlement agreement which extended

the deadlines for State action or, if the

States failed to respond, Federal action

proposing FTP's to remedy these

deficiencies. The court approved these

revisions by Its order of September 9, 1986.4

On March 24, 1988, the DOI sent

letters to EPA which supplemented its

earlier certification of visibility

impairment. The letter addressed the

Grand Canyon and identified the NGS, a

coal-fired power plant located near

Page, Arizona, as a probable source of

impairment in this Class I area. A copy

of this letter may be found in Docket A89-02.

The affected States failed to submit

visibility SIP revisions in response to the

notice of deficiency. Consequently, in

accordance with the revised settlement

agreement, on March 12,1987 (52 FR

7802), EPA proposed to disapprove the

SIP's of 32 States, including Arizona, for

failing to meet the remaining provisions

of the visibility regulations, including

general plan requirements (which in turn

includes BART and other control

strategies (§ 51.302) and long-term

strategies § 51.306)). Also in accordance

with the agreement, on November 24,

1987 (52 FR 45132), EPA took final action

disapproving the affected SIP's, again

including Arizona. The EPA

promulgated, as FIP measures under

section 110(c), general plan

requirements and long-term strategies

for these States. The EPA also

determined that BART was unnecessary in 28 States because it could not

reasonably attribute any part of the

impairment to specific sources. In

addition, under the revised agreement,

EPA deferred until August 31, 1988 a

decision regarding the need for BART or

other control measures in the FIP's for

the States of Arizona, Maine,

4A copy of the settlement agreement and

revisions is available in docket A-85--26 at the

address given at the beginning of this notice.

Minnesota, and Utah to address

certified visibility impairments in seven

Class I areas in these States which

potentially could be reasonably

attributed to a specific source pending

acquisition and evaluation of additional

monitoring information regarding the

potential sources of impairment. The

EPA required additional information to

determine whether any part of the

impairment in any of these Class I areas

is "reasonably attributable" to an

existing stationary facility, and to

enable a BART analysis for any source

so identified as causing or contributing

to visibility impairment (40 CFR

51.302(c)(4)(i)).

Because EPA required Information

which was forthcoming but not

available in time to meet the August 31,

1988 deadline, the Agency sought and

received a second extension, until

August 31,1989, of the deadline for

issuing a rulemaking proposal regarding

the need for BART or other control

measures to remedy visibility

impairments in three of the remaining

Class I areas (Moosehorn Wilderness,

Grand Canyon National Park, and

Canyonlands National Park). With

regard to the impairment in the Grand

Canyon, EPA delayed action in order to

allow the National Park Service (NPS

time to analyze the data from a 1987

winter visibility attribution study,

termed the Winter Haze Intensive

Tracer Experiment (WIHTEX),

conducted in the Colorado Plateau

where this Class I area is located. In the

meantime, on May 19,1989 (54 FR

21904), in accordance with the second

revision to the settlement agreement,

EPA promulgated decisions concerning

certified visibility impairments in four of

the seven Class I areas. Based on

monitoring conducted in these areas,

EPA found that no part of the visibility

impairments were reasonably

attributable to any specific source.

Therefore, EPA determined that it was

not necessary at that time to revise the

FIP's for the States of Maine, Minnesota,

and Arizona to include BART or other

control strategies to remedy

impairments in Roosevelt Campobello

International Park (Canada), Voyageurs

National Park (Minnesota), Saguaro

Wilderness (Arizona), and Petrified

Forest National Park (Arizona).

In April 1989, EPA received a draft

report on WHITEX from the NPS.

Because of the delay in receiving this

report, EPA believed that it lacked

sufficient time to complete all actions in

determining whether impairment in the

Grand Canyon was reasonably

attributable to a specific soum-e, conduct

a BART analysis, and Issue a proposal

5175
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

regarding BART by the August 31, 1989

deadline. Accordingly, EPA and EDF

filed a joint motion to revise the

settlement agreement for a third time,

which was approved by order of the

court dated July 6, 1989. Under this

revision, there was no change in the

deadlines for proposed action regarding

Canyonlands National Park or

Moosehorn Wilderness. As to the Grand

Canyon, the third revision to the

settlement agreement divided EPA's

duty into two parts. The EPA would

proceed, on a preliminary basis, to issue

a finding on reasonably attributable

impairment by the August 31, 1989

deadline. However, if EPA did

provisionally identify a specific source

of impairment, it would solicit comments

on that finding and would have

additional time to conduct a BART

analysis. The EPA was-to issue a

rulemaking proposal on the need for

BART by February 1, 1990 unless, in

response to comments, EPA rejected its

proposed identification and instead

determined that BART was

unnecessary.

In accordance with the third revision

to the settlement agreement, EPA

published a notice of proposed

rulemaking on September 5, 1989 (54 FR

36948). Regarding Moosehorn

Wilderness, EPA identified a source of

the certified impairment, but proposed

that BART was unnecessary at this time

because the impairment would be

adequately remedied by the retirement

of certain existing emission units and

the addition of pollution controls on

other units pursuant to a permit issued

under the Act's prevention of significant

deterioration provisions. As to

Canyonlands National Park, EPA could

not reasonably attribute the certified

impairment to a specific source and so

proposed that BART was unnecessary.

On June 13, 1990 (55 FR 24060), EPA

promulgated its decisions that BART at

that time was not necessary to address

impairment in either the Moosehorn

Wilderness or the Canyonlands

National Park.

Regarding the Grand Canyon, EPA

preliminarily attributed a significant

portion of wintertime visibility

impairment to emissions from the NGS.

The EPA reviewed the draft NPS report

on WHITEX 5 and concurred with the

findings of the NPS that NGS, located

approximately 20 kilometers from the

boundary of the Grand Canyon, is a

substantial contributor to the wintertime

visibility impairment. The EPA solicited

comments on the merits of its

Malm, at al., "The National Park Service Report on WHITEX Draft Final Report" (April 7, 1989).

preliminary attribution finding. In

addition, EPA discussed certain legal

and regulatory issues relating to the

BART process, as it might affect NGS,

that had previously been raised by the

Salt River Project (SRP) and Alabama

Power Company, et al., and solicited

comments on those issues.

In commenting on the September 5,

1989 notice, SRP and others renewed

their earlier arguments on legal and

regulatory issues. They also made new

arguments alleging that they could not

comment adequately on EPA's

preliminary attribution finding because

the NPS draft WHITEX report on which

it was based was subject to change. All

of the issues raised by SRP are

addressed in detail in a later section of

this notice. The EPA notices, however,

that comment regarding the adequacy of

the September 5, 1989 notice and the

draft WHITEX report have been

rendered moot by the fact that the NPS

has now issued a final report on

WHITEX 6 and by today's notice. This

notice contains the complete statement

of basis and purpose for a regulatory

proposal required under section

307(d)(3) of the Act, and reopens the

comment period on the issue of

reasonably attributable impairment, as

well as providing an opportunity to

comment on all other issues relevant to

this rulemaking.

On August 1, 1989, the SRP, et al., and

Alabama Power Company, et al.,

intervenors in EDF v. Reilly, moved the

court to modify the rulemaking schedule

under the settlement agreement. In this

motion, the intervenors challenged the

court's jurisdiction to order EPA to

conduct any rulemaking that might

result in the installation of BART at

NGS. The intervenors later filed a

separate motion requesting a 1-year

delay in the rulemaking schedule. By

order dated November 22, 1989, the

court denied the intervenors' motion

challenging the court's jurisdiction. By

order dated January 9, 1990, the court

granted the intervenors' motion to

extend the deadlines. This order set

February 1, 1991 as the new deadline for

EPA to propose whether or not to

require BART emission limits for the

NGS to remedy winter visibility

impairment. The order also extended the

deadline for final action on any proposal

regarding BART until October 1991 (6

months after the close of the comment

period).7

6 Maim, at al., "The National Park Service Report

on WHITEX Final Report" (December 4. 1989).

7 EDF has appealed the extension of rulemaking

deadlines in this case EDFv. Reilly, No. 90-15264

(9th Cir.). That appeal is pending.

The National Research Council of the

National Academy of Sciences (NAS)

has reviewed the scientific methods

used in the'WHITEX report and has

issued a report. The qualitative

assessment in the NAS report entitled

"Haze in the Grand Canyon; An

Evaluation of the Winter Haze Intensive

Tracer Experiment" (October 1990)

supports EPA's finding that, on some

days, NGS contributes significantly to

haze in the Grand Canyon. The NAS

report has been placed in the

rulemaking docket.8 The report also

finds that the data base and data

analyses techniques in WHITEX alone

were not sufficient to ascertain the

quantitative NGS contribution to haze at

any given time. The EPA solicits

comment on both the relevance of the

report to today's action and its contents.

Another study effort has been

undertaken by SRP. This study is

intended to measure the degree of

contribution by the NGS to visibility

impairment in the Grand Canyon during

the 1989L1990 winter season. The EPA

has received some preliminary results

from this study and has placed them in

Docket A-89-02A. However, EPA has

not yet received final results of or a

report on the study. If the final study

results and -report are submitted during

the comment period of this action, and if

EPA's review of the report indicates that

the latest information would materially

affect the proposed attribution decision

which is the underlying basis for this

rulemaking (including the emission

limitations proposed herein), the EPA

will reopen the public comment period

to consider such additional information.

C. Navajo Generating Station

The NGS is a 2250 MW coal-fired

power plant located near Page, Arizona.

approximately 20 kilometers from the

northern boundary of the Grand

Canyon. The NGS is a baseload

generating station consisting of three 750

MW units which became operational

between 1974 and 1976. The NGS is

jointly owned by the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation, the SRP, the Los Angeles

Department of Water and Power, the

Arizona Public Service Company (APS).

the Nevada Power Company, and the

Tucson Gas and Electric Company.

Existing pollution control equipment at

NGS include electrostatic precipitators

for particulate matter (PM) removal and

specific burner design for nitrogen

oxides (NO.) control.

£ Additional copies of this report are available

from the National Academy Press. 2101 Constitution

Avenue NW., Washington. DC 20418."

5176
Federal Register I Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

Potential adverse impacts to the

environment, especially to air quality,

have been of concern to citizens and

State and Federal agencies since

construction of the plant was first

announced in the late 1960's. In April of

1970, the Secretary of the Interior

expressed his concerns over potential

environmental impacts of the NGS in a

memorandum to the Assistant Secretary

for Water and Power Development.

Secretary Walter Hickel stated, "As you

know, the Department is concerned with

and is an outspoken advocate for

protection and enhancement of the

quality of our Nation's natural

environment. The Grand Canyon area of

the Colorado River is of particular

concern to me. We must not allow

anyone to pollute the environment there,

and it would be unthinkable for us to

pollute it ourselves." 9 On February 3,

1971, in a letter to EPA, the Arizona

Division of Air Pollution Control

expressed its concern about the impact

of the power plant on visibility in the

region and requested EPA to provide

information on the impact of the NGS

emissions on visibility. 10

In response to these and other

concerns, NGS issued a strong policy

statement indicating that its NGS

participants were committed to ensuring

environmental protection. Furthermore,

the NGS stated, "the plant will be

designed so that additional control

equipment, including devices for

removal of oxides of sulfur, can be

added when developed." 11 In the final

environmental statement for the Navajo

Project, NGS participants stated, "the

participants have committed themselves

to installing sulfur dioxide (SO 2)

removal systems on all three units at the

Navajo Generating Station * * *. It is

planned that an SO2 removal system

will be installed and operative

before * * * May 1975." 12 Although

most commitments made by NGS for

installing SOs removal systems centered

around complying with State or Federal

ambient air quality standards, NGS

acknowledged in the final

environmental impact statement that

operation of the plant could result in

adverse visibility impacts. Furthermore,

the NGS participants indicated that a

goal of the participants in the Navajo

9 Memorandum from Walter 1. Hickel, Secretary

of the Interior, to the Assistant Secretary of Water

and Power Development. April 3.1970. 10 Letter from Arizona Division of Air Pollution

Control to EPA. February 3.1971.

11 Policy statement by the participants in the

NGS, 1971.

12 Final environmental statement for the Navajo

Project. page 31, February 4,1972.

Project was to prevent such adverse

impacts.18

In summary, all of the above citations

indicate that the protection of visibility

in the Colorado River Basin was of

concern prior to construction of the

NGS. Moreover, statements made by the

NGS participants indicate a strong

commitment to protecting the

environment (including visibility). All of

the above historical documents,

including the draft and final

environmental statements for the NGS,

have been placed in Docket A-89-02.

Today's Action

The September 5, 1989 preliminary

finding that a significant portion of

wintertime impairment in the Grand

Canyon was reasonably attributable to

NGS was not based on any single

analytical technique in the WHITEX

report, but rather on the collection of

techniques performed by the NPS using

WHITEX and other data. All of the

techniques used by the NPS support the

conclusion that for most days which

tracer data are available, NGS is a

significant contributor to visibility

impairment in the Grand Canyon during

the winter months. The EPA has

reviewed the NPS December 4, 1989

final report on WHITEX and the NAS

evaluation of that report and finds no

basis to reverse the Agency's

preliminary finding that a significant

portion of the visibility impairment in

the Grand Canyon is reasonably

attributable to NGS. The EPA solicits

comments on the merits of today's

proposed reasonable attribution finding.

The EPA has reviewed comments by

SRP and by others on the September 5,

1989 notice criticizing the draft WHITEX

report and EPA's reliance on it in

making a preliminary reasonable

attribution finding. The EPA is seeking

additional comment on this and related

studies, but is not persuaded by these

comments to reverse its preliminary

finding at this juncture. The EPA will

address in detail technical issues

regarding the attribution question

following receipt of comments on the

final WHITEX report and NAS

evaluation and will make a final

attribution finding in conjunction with

its final action on today's regulatory

proposal.

In June of 1989, EPA began to gather

preliminary information on the NGS that

could be used in a BART analysis. An

EPA contractor visited the power plant

in order to compile site-specific data.

Following publication of the September

5, 1989 notice preliminarily attributing

Is Ibid. pg. 59.

impairment In the Grand Canyon to

NGS, a full-scale BART analysis was

initiated. In accordance with the BART

Guidelines (EPA-450/3--80-009b) 14 and

40 CFR 51.301(c), the analysis included

consideration of the following: The costs

of compliance, the energy and nonair

quality environmental impacts, any

existing pollution control technology in

use at the facility, the remaining useful

life of the source, and the degree of

improvement in visibility anticipated to

result from application of controls. A

copy of the BART Guidelines may be

found in Docket A-89-02A.

In order to evaluate its BART analysis

approach, EPA considered the costbenefit analysis conducted as a part of

the preliminary Regulatory Impact

Analysis (RIA) (as required by

Executive Order 12291] for this rule.

This analysis also satisfies the

requirements of section 317 of the Act

regarding economic impact assessments.

A more detailed discussion of the

benefits associated with improving

visibility in the Grand Canyon is found

in the "Benefit Analysis" section of this

notice.

The BART Guidelines published in

1980 stated that the level of control

necessary to meet the new source

performance standard (NSPS) for power

plants 15 is generally available to large

power plants.1 6 However, the guidelines

do allow the State (or EPA in this case)

to propose an emission limit other than

NSPS if the limit proposed reflects a "reasonable balance of the various

BART factors." 17 The BART Guidelines

further state that, if the State (or EPA)

set a BART limit equivalent to the NSPS

level of control, no detailed analysis of

the BART factors would be required.' 8

In light of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990, EPA believes that

the BART Guidelines are outdated in

certain respects, and should be revised.

The 1990 Amendments embody

certain statutory changes that represent

a general congressional policy judgment

to move away from rigid control

technology requirements and towards

an emphasis on air pollution control

strategies that reflect flexibility and

market-based incentives. In particular,

section 403 of the Amendments revised

section 111(a)(1) of the Act to repeal the

percent reduction requirements under

the NSPS program. Also, title IV of the

"4 U.S. EPA "Guidelines for Determining Best

Available Retrofit Technology Analysis for CoalFired Power Plants and Other Existing Stationary

Facilities," November 1980.

"See 40 CFR part 60 subpart Da.

B DART Guidelines at 1. 17 Id. at O.

18 ld. at 20-21.

5177
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February , 1991 / Proposed Rules

amendments added an acid deposition

control program, the essence of which is

the use of market-based incentives

(through freely tradable allowances

under section 403 of the revised Act) to

achieve the greatest reductions in SO

emissions at the least cost.

In light of these developments, and

considering the statutory mandate in

section 169A to consider the various

,BART factors of cost, energy effects and

the degree of visibility improvement.

EPA believes it would be inappropriate

to base BART analyses on NSPS-level

controls. In this case, EPA has

conducted a thorough analysis of the

statutory BART factors that is consistent

with the existing Guidelines, rather than

base its analysis on NSPS controls. The

Agency believes that all future BART

analyses should also carefully balance

the statutory BART factors. Accordingly,

by this notice EPA solicits comment on

the BART Guidelines, and specifically

on whether the BART Guidelines should

be amended concurrently with this

BART rulemaking. Based on those

comments, EPA will decide at the time

of final action on today's BART

proposal for NGS whether to amend the

Guidelines.

In addition, EPA notes that the value

of marketable allowances under section

403 of the Clean Air Act as amended by

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990

will be made available to SRP should

BART be installed. The EPA has

factored the value of these allowances

into its calculations of the cost of BART.

The Agency believes that this is

consistent with the estimation of BART

costs under the BART Guidelines.

However, EPA also solicits comments

on whether the BART Guidelines should

be revised as part of this rulemaking in

order to consider the value of

marketable allowances available under

section 403 of the Act.

In today's action, EPA proposes to

revise the FIP for Arizona to include this

emission limit representing BART to

address the visibility impairment

.observed in the Grand Canyon. Because

of the uncertainty in determining the

improvement in visibility expected as a

result of reducing emissions at the NGS,

EPA Is considering and solicits comment

on four options for BART at NGS:

1. A continuous SO2 emission

limitation of 0.30 pounds per million

British Thermal Units (lbs/MMBtu).

Compliance would be determined on a

30 day rolling average and would be

phased in between 1995 and 1999.

2. A continuous SO2 emission

limitation of 0.50 lbs/MMBtu.

Compliance would be determined on a

30 day rolling average and would be

phased in between 1995 and 1999. -

3. A continuous SO emission

limitation of 0.10 lbs/MMBtu.

Compliance would be determined on a

30 day rolling average and would be

phased in between 1995 and 1999.

4. SRP would test alternating control

technologies and if one of the

technology met a minimum removal

efficiency at a set cost the NGS would

install that technology and operate it in

the winter time. If none of the

technologies met the test criteria, NGS

would reduce it emission by 70 percent

(0.30 lbs/MMBtu emission limit)

measured on an annual basis by the

year 2000.

More details on these options are

provided below. In addition, EPA

solicits comments on whether another

emission limitation may be more

appropriate.

The EPA is proposing this first option

of 0.30 lbs/MMBtu emission limit. That

option includes a 30 day rolling average

but EPA is requesting comment on

whether a different averaging period

may be more appropriate.

The EPA also invites comments on the

legal and regulatory issues raised by

SRP and others. These issues are

identified and discussed in a later

section.

A public hearing on this action will be

on Monday, March 18, 1991 at 1 p.m. in'

the Maricopa County Auditorium, 201

West Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona.

A. Discussion of Impairment

The DOI has documented the

occurrence of visibility impairment at

the Grand Canyon during winter

(November-March) inversion conditions

(see discussion at 52 FR 7802). This Park

is a mandatory Class I Federal area

located in the Colorado River area of the

Colorado Plateau. The visibility

impairment identified in this National

Park during the winter months has been

described as a haze "with a bright white

layer and a distinct upper edge and it

occasionally includes one or more

perceptible layers." 19

The WHITEX study, a 6-week study

conducted in January and February 1987

in the Colorado River area, was

designated to evaluate the ability of a

variety of receptor modeling approaches

to attribute all or a meaningful portion

of the visibility impairment in several

Class I areas. The NGS was chosen as

the test candidate because (1) it had

documented build up of haze layers

around the facility, (2) it was the largest

uncontrolled power plant in the

Southwest, (3) it is located a few miles

19 Maim. et at.. "The National Park Service

Report on WHITEX Final Report." December 4.

1989, pg. 4.

from the Grand Canyon and near

several other National Parks, and (4) it

is a large isolated source. The WHITEX

study was a cooperative effort between

several utility groups including SRP-the

operators of NGS-and several

government agencies including NPS. The

WHITEX study employed several

attribution methodologies including the

use of a unique tracer injected into the

NGS stack to track the power plant's

plume. A meteorological analysis was

conducted to document the wind flow

patterns and stagnation events occurring

during the winter months.

The study area consisted of three

major and nine surrounding monitoring

sites. Major monitoring sites were

located in the Grand Canyon (at Hopi

Point), Canyonlands National Park, and

Page, Arizona (near the Glen Canyon

Dam). The surrounding sites were

located in potential transport pathways

in the study area. Extensive air quality

monitoring was conducted at these sites

to evaluate NGS' contribution to

visibility impairment in the area.

The NPS calculated a light extinction

budget for each of the thred major sites

based on optical and aerosol

measurements taken simultaneously at

each site. The light extinction budgets

express the relative contribution to light

extinction by various aerosol

constituents (e.g., sulfates or organics)

or the type of extinction observed (e.g..

scattering or absorption). Light

extinction, a standard measure of

visibility impairment, is the combined

effect of light scattering and absorption.

The NPS found that scattering due to

fine particle sulfates accounted for the

largest share of anthropogenic visibility

impairment during the WHITEX study

period in the Grand Canyon.

The NPS then attributed the extinction

(due to fine particle sulfates) to specific

source(s) using various receptor

modeling techniques. Both statistical

methods and a deterministic model were

used to estimate the relative

contributions of sources within the

study area to visibility impairment

observed during the 6-week study. Other

less quantitative techniques were also

used to attribute the impairment

observed to specific sources. An

emissions analysis was conducted along

with a meteorological analysis and and

analysis of the spatial patterns and

temporal trends in ambient sulfate

concentrations..

The NPS report on WHITEX

concludes that NGS was the largest

single contributor to visibility

impairment in the Grand Canyon during

the days for which tracer data were

available. The analytical techniques

5178
Federal Re~ister / Vol. 58, No. 27 1 Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules 57

conducted by the NPS indicate that

.under certain meteorological conditions

which are common in the area during

the winter months, large quantities of

S02 and sulfate from NGS are

transported into the Grand Canyon. The

tracer analysis included measurement at

Hopi Point (on the rim of the Grand

Canyon) of the unique tracer, deuterated

methane, which was injected into the

NGS stack. An analysis of synoptic

meteorology showed that the high

sulfate episodes observed during the

WHITEX study period were typical

results of transport and transformation

of pollutants during the wintertime.

The NPS analyzed extensively the

data collected at Hopi Point during the

three major sulfate episodes. All of the

analytical techniques used by NPS

suggest that NGS is a significant

contributor to visibility impairment

during the winter months in the Grand

Canyon. The NPS data indicate that, for

days tracer data are available, NGS

contributes approximately 40 percent on

the average to the observed wintertime

visibility impairment and approximately

60-70 percent during the worst visibility

impairment episodes. During some

episodes, the NPS analysis identified

copper smelters located in southern

Arizona and Mexico as probable major

contributors to visibility impairment. It

is important to note that subsequent to

the 1987 study timeframe, these sources

have either been controlled to reduce

emissions or shut down.

Using the draft NPS report on

WHITEX as a basis, EPA, on September

5, 1989, proposed to find that NGS may

reasonably be anticipated to cause or

contribute to visibility impairment in the

Grand Canyon during the winter

months. A copy of the final report has

been placed in Docket A-89-02. As

required by section 169A of the Act,

EPA conducted a BART analysis to

determine if new emission limits were

required to address this impairment. The

results of the BART analysis are

discussed later in this notice.

National Academy of Sciences Review

of WHITEX

In early 1990, the National Research

Council of the NAS established on the

Committee on Haze in the National

Parks and Wilderness Areas to address

issues related to visibility degradation in

these protected areas. The Committee

was asked by the DOI to consider the

relative importance of human-derived

and natural emissions that contribute to

visibility reduction in these locations

and to evaluate possible source-control

approaches. As part of its charge, the

Committee was asked to evaluate the

WHITEX report and its conclusion that

the NGS contributed to wintertime

visibility impairment In the Grand

Canyon. The Committee met at the

Grand Canyon from March 28-31, 1990.

The Committee issued its report on

WHITEX on October 11, 1990, a copy of

which is in the docket. On the basis of

the data presented to the Committee in

the NPS-WHITEX report, the Committee

concluded that, at some times during the

study period NGS contributed

significantly to haze in the Grand

Canyon. This finding supports EPA's

proposed attribution decision. However,

the Committee also concluded that

WHITEX did not quantitatively

determine the fraction of sulfate aerosol

and resultant haze in the Grand Canyon

that is attributable to NGS. The

Committee cited problems with the

tracer mass balance regression (TMBR)

and differential mass balance (DMB)

regression calculations which, in the

Committee's judgment, prevent the

quantification of NGS' contribution to

haze due to sulfate at the Grand

Canyon. The key deficiencies cited for

TMBR were lack of tracers for other

than NGS sources of sulfur, insufficient

investigation of the covariance between

NGS emissions and other sources, and

limited evaluation of the conversion rate

of SO2 to sulfate. For DMB calculations,

the Committee cited the lack of data

below the rim of the canyon and that

background measurements were not

adequately incorporated into the data

analyses, as well as the limited

evaluation of the conversion rate.

For illustrative purposes, the

Committee then used the WHITEX data

In a simple technique to estimate the

ranges of possible impacts from NGS.

The actual impact of NGS on haze

depends on a variety of factors

including the rate of conversion of SO2

to sulfate. The Committee concluded

that if NGS emissions were controlled,

then wintertime haze at the Grand

Canyon would most likely be reduced,

but not eliminated.

The NPS issued a technical response

document to the NAS committee report

on October 30, 1990. That document

responds to the key points of the NAS

report. The key issues of assessment of

background sulfate measurements and

analysis, measurements of sulfate below

the rim of the canyon, and rates 'of

conversion were addressed. The NPS

response has been placed in Docket A89-02A. The NPS points out that the

NAS review did not fully consider

supplemental techniques such as

empirical orthogonal function analysis

to TMBR and DMB which were in the

WHITEX report. These supplemental

analyses provided by NPS seek to

address the issue of other sulfur sources

and support the reasonableness of the

attribution range derived in WHITEX.

1988 Visibility Follow-Up Study

The NPS has submitted a report to

EPA presenting the preliminary findings

of a follow-up visibility study conducted

during the winter of 1988 (January 27-

February 16) at Indian Gardens in the

Grand Canyon. Visual examination of

photographic data collected during the

WHITEX study showed that haze built

up within the canyon and only impacted

the monitoring site (Indian Gardens) at

Hopi Point after the mixing height had

reached above the canyon rim. This

prompted NPS researchers to locate a

monitoring site for the 1988 study within

the canyon to assess the concentration

and estimate the origin of the aerosols

within the canyon. The Indian Gardens

site was located some 4,000 feet below

the rim of the canyon.

Preliminary results of the study

indicate much higher sulfate

concentrations within the canyon than

those collected on the rim during the

WHITEX study. These results also show

a strong relationship between total

sulfur and selenium concentrations,

suggesting that sulfur compounds in the

canyon are a result of emissions from

coal-fired sources. The WHITEX study

showed that the NGS plume was rich in

selenium. Finally, an examination of

meteorology and photography data

collected during the 1988 study indicate

transport conditions similar to those

documented for the highest WHITEX

sulfate episode. The clouds are shown to

roll in from the direction of Page,

Arizona, and fill the canyon with haze.

The NPS is continuing its analysis of

data collected during this study.

Although the study conducted by the

NPS in the winter of 1988 cannot be

used to confirm the NPS analyses of the

WHITEX data, the EPA believes that the

preliminary findings of this study are

consistent with those of WHITEX and

generally support its previously

proposed attribution decision and range

of attribution used in the BART

analysis. A copy of the preliminary

report submitted to EPA by the NPS has

been placed in Docket A-89-02A.

SRP Winter 1990 Visibility Study

In the winter of 1989-1990, SRP

conducted its own monitoring study

including release of tracer from NGS.

Preliminary results of that study and

subsequent data analysis were sent to

EPA and NPS in September and

December, 1990. Initial data analysis by

SRP indicates that the overall.

contribution of NGS to haze at the,

Federal Register I Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

5179
Federal Register / Vol 56, No. 27 .J Friday, February & 1991 1 ProDosed Rules

Grand Canyon during the study period

was less than that computed from

WHITEX data. All data and analyses

received have been placed in Docket A89-02A. However, preliminary data on

episodic impairment levels and seasonal

average data are substantially the same

as ranges found in the WHITEX study that were used in the BART analysis.

The EPA believes it is inappropriate to

alter the conclusions reached in EPA's

attribution finding given the preliminary and inconclusive nature of the SRP data.

The EPA will consider all analyses and

data provided during the comment

period. As stated earlier, if EPA receives

the final study results and report during the comment period and if EPA's review

of the report indicates that the latest

information would materially affect the

proposed attribution decision, EPA will'

reopen the public comment period to

consider'such additional information.

EPA's Position on the Ability to

Determine NGS' Contribution to

Visibility Impairment at the Grand

Canyon

The EPA reviewed the WHITEX

report, the NAS report, NPS response to

the report, and the preliminary data on

the SRP 1990 tracer study. Based on this

review, EPA has found no reason to

change its determination that visibility impairment at the Grand Canyon can be

attributed to NGS. Because of the

uncertainty in the source-impairment

relationship EPA is seeking additional

comment on it. But for the purpose of

this proposal, EPA continues to believe

that a relationship can be reasonably

made.

B. BARTAnalysis

The EPA conducted a BART analysis

for the NGS pursuant to the procedures found in the BART Guidelines as

required by section 169A(b) and the

visibility regulations promulgated at 40

CFR 51.302(c)(4)(iii).20 A copy of EPA's

BART analysis for NGS has been placed in Docket A-89-02A. Considering the

requirements found in this document,

EPA divided the BART analysis into two

major parts. In the first part, EPA

identified the SO emission controls that

are readily available to the source, the

costs of such controls, and other impacts

of installing and operating the controls.

In the second part of the BART analysis, EPA attempted to define the sourceimpairment relationship which was then

used to predict the improvements in

visual air quality that can reasonably be

expected to occur as a result of

20 U.S. EPA, "Draft Report on Best Available

Retrofit Technology (BART) Analysis for the Navajo Generating Station in Page. Arizona." January 1900.

installing and operating the controls

defined in the control technology

analysis. Because EPA was. faced with

some uncertainties in each of the parts

of the BART analysis, EPA bounded its

results by giving low and high estimates.

In addition to the key areas discussed

below, EPA was also required to

consider the time, frequency, and

duration of the visibility impairment

episodes in the Grand Canyon. This

proposal focuses on impairment

observed during the winter season

(between November 1 and March 31).

Based on information from the WHITEX

study and previous air quality

monitoring, the visibility impairment

episodes were determined to occur

approximately 10 to 15 times throughout

the winter months, generally lasting

from 3-5 days. The NPS submitted

information to EPA indicating that

approximately 800,000 people visited the

Grand Canyon during the winter of 1989.

This figure represents about 21 percent

of the total annual visitation to the park.

Documentation for visitation rates to the

Grand Canyon has been placed in

Docket A-89-02.

1. Control Technology Analysis

As part of the BART analysis, EPA

investigated the costs and other impacts

associated with proven SO2 removal

systems at three levels different

emissions limitations 0.50 lbs/MMBtu

(approximately 50 percent control), 0.30

lbs/MMBtu (approximately 70 percent

control), and 0.10 lbs/MMBtu

(approximately 90 percent control). It was not the intent of the Agency to

design an SO2 control system for the

NGS, but rather to evaluate the potential

.impacts to NGS of S02 control systems

that have been used successfully in prior

retrofit cases. Both wet and dry

scrubbing technologies were evaluated

in the control technology analysis. The

EPA solicits comments on other

available technologies which can reduce

SO2 emissions at NGS to achieve the

proposed or alternative limits and which

may require less capital investment

and/or operating expenses than those

technologies evaluated in the BART

analysis.

The EPA used the Integrated Air

Pollution Control System (IAPCS) cost

model to predict the capital and

operating cost estimates for the control

systems analyzed.' 1 This model was

developed by EPA for the National Acid

Precipitation Assessment Program and

has been used to estimate SO2 and NO.

retrofit control costs for 200 power

2 Integrated Air Pollution Control System Costing Program. Version 3.0, copyright PEI and

Associates. Inc.. 1989.

plants. The case-specific input

parameters were determined through

documents obtained from the NGS - .

information collected during the site

visit by the EPA contractor and other

government records. As mentioned

previously, lower and upper bound

limits were generated for each control

option. The results from IAPCS

indicated that wet flue gas

desulfurization (FGD) achieving a 0.3

lbs/MMBtu emission limit for all three

units is estimated to have total capital

cost requirements of between $245.9

million and $402 million with total

levelized annual costs (including

amortized capital, interest, operating,

and maintenance costs) estimated to be

between $91.9 million and $128.3

million. 2

2 The levelized annual costs for

0.3 lbs/MMBtu wet FGD are less than

those for lime spray drying or dry

sorbent injection at the same emission

rate. The wet FGD control option to

meet a 0.10 lbs/MMBtu emission

limitation is estimated to require a total

capital investment of between $275.7

million and $453.2 million for all three

units with total levelized annual costs

estimated to be between $103.5 million

and $145.2 million. A 0.5 lbs/MMBtu

emission limitation met by a wet FGD

control option is estimated to require a

total capital investment of between

$213.3 million and $357.0 million for all

three units with total levelized annual

costs estimated to be between $79.5

million and $112.2 million.

Using the costs generated by IAPCS,

and the methodology originally used in

the RIA for NGS, EPA estimated the

increases in the average SRP's and

Nevada Power Company's residential

customers' electric utility bills if wet

FGD were selected to decrease NGS SO

emissions to 0.30 lbs/MMBtu. This

increase is expected to be no greater

than 2.8 percent (about $2.30 per month)

for the SRP customer and no greater

than about a 3.9 percent increase (again,

approximately $2.30 per month) for the

Nevada Power Company customer.

Because SRP and Nevada Power

Company receive a higher percentage of

their total system power from NGS than

do other co-owners of NGS and have a

lower average cost per kilowatt hour,

these estimated 2.8 to 3.9 percent

increases are expected to be the

maximum percentage increase in power

costs experienced by residential

customers of NGS. These price increases

would be lower for the 0.50 lbs/MMBtu ,

control option. It is important to note

that these estimates are based upon

22 All dollar amounts herein are measured in 1988

dollars.

11 I I I

5180
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

increasing consumer costs by the

percentage increase cost of producing

the electricity. They do not consider that

part of the consumer rates which include

transmission costs; considering those

costs could dampen the effect on the

consumer. The actual increase to the

average SRP or Nevada Power Company

residential customer is expected to be

somewhat less since the transmission

costs are not affected by the BART

requirements.

Other persons potentially affected by

an increase in NGS power are customers

of the Central Arizona Project (CAP).

The CAP is an organization established

by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to

provide government-subsidized

Irrigation water to south central Arizona

farmers. The CAP relies heavily on

electricity from the NGS to pump and

provide this water. It was estimated that

if wet FGD were selected to decrease

NGS SO2 emissions to 0.30 lbs/MMBtu,

the cost of water to users would

increase approximately $10 per acre foot

or about 3 cents per 1,000 gallons. This

increase in irrigation costs could raise

the farmers' total variable costs by 2

percent to 4 percent per year. However,

If, as expected, the CAP phases down its

obligation to supplying water to the

farmers, the increase in total variable

costs would only be approximately 2

percent per year. Again, the cost

increases would be lower for the 0.50

lbs/MMBtu control option. A more

detailed discussion of these impacts

may be found in the RIA and in factual

memorandum 23 placed in Docket A-89-

02A.

As a plausibility check for the costs

generated by IAPCS, EPA requested

information from the APS regarding the

costs for FGD retrofit of units 4 and 5 at

the Four Comers Power Plant located in

Farmington, New Mexico. These units

are similar to NGS in many respects

Including capacity and design, the

burning of low sulfur coal, and the

remote location of the plant. Information

supplied by APS indicates that the

capital investment for the wet FGD

removal system (averaging 72 percent

reduction in SO2 emissions) at Four

Comers Power Plant was $119.8 million

per unit. The IAPCS model generated

costs for control at NGS ranging

between $82-$134 per unit for the 0.30

lbs/MMBtu wet FGD control option. The

EPA, therefore, concludes that the

IAPCS model estimates are reasonable.

A copy of the letter from APS has been

placed in Docket A-89-02A.

33 Memorandum from Gwen Jacobs to David

Stonefield dated January 30,1991.

Title IV (section 403) of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 establishes a

system of marketable sulfur emission

allowances to help achieve the goal of

reducing acid deposition. This provision

does not waive any BART requirements

for NGS. Nor does it require more

controls than NGS currently has.

However, the control cost incident with

BART may be affected in part by NGS

selling its excess emission reduction

allowances. While the allowance system

begins in 1995, western sulfur sources

such as NGS are not included until 2000.

The annual sulfur emission reductions at

NGS due to the current proposed

regulation could be offered for sale by

NGS. The EPA estimates 24 the market

value of sulfur reduction credits will be

$430/ton in 2000, increasing to $590/ton

in 2010. At an emission limit of 0.30 lbs/

MMBtu, estimated total revenue for

emission credits are $21.4 million/year

in 2000, Increasing to $29.4 million/year

in 2010. Sale of emission credits would

lower the estimated cost impacts on NGS during this period by 17 to 32

percent. The analysis of the acid

deposition credit market, and analysis

of the effect on NGS, have been placed

in Docket A--89-02A.

In accordance with the procedures

found in the BART Guidelines, the

nonair quality environmental impacts of

compliance were investigated. Impacts

from increased water usage to operate

SO2 control systems, increased waste

disposal, and effects of sludge from the

SO2 control system on ground or surface

waters were examined in the BART

analysis. Results from the BART

analysis indicate that adequate space is

available to dispose of additional

wastes that would be generated by a

control system. Also, the results show

that the environmental effects of sludge

disposal from the control system should

present no increased threat to the

environment beyond those currently

being posed through fly-ash disposal.

Finally, although S02 controls would

require an increase in water usage, NGS

is only utilizing approximately 68

percent of its water allotment. The

remainder of its allotment should be

adequate to operate a wet FGD or dry

control system. In addition, water

requirements for SO controls can be

reduced if as indicated in the

environmental statement previously

conducted for the NGS, the 'cooling

tower blowdown water is utilized in the

SO2 control system.

2. Source-Impairment Relationship

24 ICF Resources. Inc., 1990, "Comparison of the

Economic Impacts of the Acid Rain Program of

Senate Bill (S. 1630) and the House Bill (H.R. 3030).

One of the more complicated tasks in

the BART analysis was defining the

relationship between the SO2 emissions

at NGS and the visibility impairing

sulfate (S04) in the Grand Canyon. This

relationship had to be addressed in

order to estimate the degree of

improvement in visibility that could be

anticipated to result from the use of the

alternative SO2 control systems.

Because of the complex terrain in and

around the Grand Canyon; the EPA

visibility models that are often used to

estimate improvements in visibility (e.g.,

PLUVUE II) were determined to be

inadequate for this BART analysis.

Based on conversations with EPA

researchers and modeling experts, 25 the

Agency decided to define this

relationship using the ratio of SO2

emissions at NGS to SO4 in the Grand

Canyon attributable to NGS as found in

the final WHITEX report. Using this

ratio, EPA then applied a linear rollback

model. The NAS' Committee on Haze in

National Parks and Wildernesses used

the data in WHITEX and a series of

mass-balance calculations on the basis

of simple, but reasonable assumptions,

to estimate the contribution of NGS on

visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon during a haze episode. The

Committee concluded that it could not

confirm the WHITEX estimates because

some measurements needed to confirm

the assumptions were not made during

WHITEX. The EPA believes that the

NPS data from WHITEX and other

monitoring coupled with assessment

techniques that do not depend directly

on mass-balance techniques provide

adequate data concerning the NGS

contribution of haze which could be

used in the BART analysis. However,

the uncertainties surrounding these

analyses, as pointed out by the NAS

committee on haze, requires that EPA

consider a broad range of sourceimpairment relationships.

An important consideration in

defining the source-impairment

relationship was determining whether a

proportional reduction in NGS SO2

emissions would result in a proportional

or less-than proportional reduction in

visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon attributable to NGS. Potential

nonlinearities resulting from

condensation of additional nitrate

aerosol once the NGS sulfate is

controlled were investigated.

The case mentioned above addresses

the nonlinearity that may exist when

SO4 is taken out of the atmosphere.

25 Memorandum from Terry Clark. Atmospheric

Research and Exposure Assessment Laboratory, to

James Dicke, OAQPS, December18, 1989.

5181

5181'
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

Ammonia that would have combined

with the SO4 to form ammonium sulfate

would now be free to combine with

nitric acid to form ammonium nitrate, an

efficient light scatterer. By comparing

the light extinction reduction resulting

from S04 reduction to the net light

extinction reduction resulting from the

combined effects of S04 reductions and

nitrate increases, a nonlinearity factor

can be developed and applied to the

rollback model calculations. The

average nonlinearity factor for the hours

for which all necessary data are

available from the WHITEX study is

0.10. In other words, the relationship is

estimated to be 90 percent linear.

The results of the rollback model

(with the average nonlinearity factor

applied) were used to estimate the

improvements in visibility that would

result from SO2 emission limits of 0.10

and 0.30 lbs/MMBtu at NGS. Because no

single standard method exists for

measuring improvements in visibility,

the EPA employed two of the most

widely used techniques to define the

improvements in visibility expected to

occur in the Grand Canyon.

One of the methods used to estimate

the visibility improvements in the Grand

Canyon was anlayzing the changes in

contrast expected to occur as a result of

reducing SO2 emissions at NGS. The

EPA believes that this method is

particularly relevant because human

observers use contrast to make

judgments of how color and atmospheric

clarity changes with pollutant

concentration. The contrast is defined as

the percent difference between the

brightness of a scenic element and its

background.

Using the information obtained during

the WHITEX study and extrapolating it

to a period from November I through

March 31 based on historic particle

composition data (and applying the

nonlinearity factor), a 0.10 lbs/MMBtu

SO2 emissions rate at NGS would result

in a "perceptible" change in the

visibility conditions (4 percent change in

contrast) approximately 65 percent of

the time (100 days) during the winter

season, a "quite noticeable" change in

visibility conditions (10 percent change

in contrast) 39 percent of the time (58

days) during the winter, and a "very

apparent" change in visibility conditions

(20 percent change in contrast) 14

percent of the time (21 days) during the

winter.

Similarly, if SO2 emissions are

reduced to 0.30 lbs/MMBtu, the

following changes in winter visibility

conditions are expected: A very

apparent change in visibility conditions

4.5 percent of the time (7 days), a quite

noticeable change in visibility

conditions 28 percent of the time (42

days), and a perceptible change in

visibility conditions 58 percent of the

time (88 days).

Finally, It is estimated that during an

additional 29 percent of the time (44

days) during the winter months, there

would be a "perceptible" (or greater)

improvement in visibility with an SO2

emission limit of 0.10 lbs/MMBtu as

compared to 0.30 lbs/MMBtu.

Documentation for these numbers,

including assumptions and methodology,

has been placed in Docket A-89-02A.

In addition to analyzing the changes

in contrast in order to describe the

improvement in visibility expected to

occur as a result of controlling S02

emissions at NGS, the EPA also

estimated the improvements in visual

ranges expected to occur. Although this

method is somewhat less desirable than

analyzing contrast changes (because it

is sometimes misunderstood by the

layman), it is often used by scientists to

measure visibility improvements. Table

1 contains the estimated improvements

in visual ranges calculated for the

maximum measured light extinction day

and for an average day during the

WHITEX study for the 0.10 lbs/MMBtu

and 0.30 lbs/MMBtu control options

using the results form the tracer massbalance regression analysis performed

by the NPS using the WHITEX data. As

noted above, however, the uncertainty

of these analyses, as pointed out by the

NAS Committe on Haze, suggests that

the actual effects of such emission

reductions maybe substantially different

from these estimates (higher or lower).

TABLE 1.-ESTIMATES OF IMPROVEMENTS

IN VISUAL RANGES WITH SO2 CONTROL

AT NGS'

SO2 emission Maximum light Average

limit (Ibs/ extinction day WHITEX day

lmBtu) change in visual change in visual

range range

0. ................... Increase from Increase from

baseline of baseline of

150 km to 200 km to

380 km. 229 km.

0.30 .................. increase from Increase from

baseline of baseline of

150 km to 200 km to

283 km. 222 km.

In addition to the wintertime in the

Grand Canyon visibility impairment

described above, it is believed that the

control of SO2 emissions at NGS may

result in other visibility improvements.

Although not specifically addressed in

this rulemaking, EPA and NPS suspect

that NGS emissions may contribute to

visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon during other seasons of the

year. Thus, a significant decrease in SO2

emissions at NGS may improve visibility

in other months as well as during the

winter months. Furthermore, a decrease

in SO, emissions from NGS may

improve visibility in other Class I areas

in the Colorado Plateau. The EPA seeks

comment on the potential visibility

impairment from NGS in other than the

winter season.

C. Benefit Analysis

As stated previously in this notice,

EPA was not required as a part of its

BART analysis to estimate monetary

benefits associated with improving

visibility in the Grand Canyon.

However, as a check of reasonableness

for its approach, EPA evaluated and

considered the benefit analysis

developed as a part of the RIA.

Because of its size, unique rock

formations, and sheer beauty, the Grand

Canyon is considered by many to be one

of our Nation's most prized national

parks. Indeed, millions of people from

the United States and all over the world

travel to Arizona each year to view this

national treasure. Placing a quantitative

value on the protection of the beauty of

the Grand Canyon is a formidable task.

However, in conjunction with the BART

analysis (and as part of the RIA), an

attempt was made to identify some of

the societal benefits related to the

predicted improvements in wintertime

visibility at the Grand Canyon due to

reductions in sulfur emissions at NGS.

The following paragraphs summarize the

findings of the benefit analysis. A more

detailed discussion of benefits may be

found in the RIA developed for this rule.

A copy of the draft RIA has been placed

in Docket A-89-02A.

A key factor is assessing the benefits

of visibility is understanding attitudes

and preferences of individuals.

Surveys 26 of visitors to the Grand

Canyon indicate that the vast majority

(over 80 percent) view clean, clear air as

very important or extremely important

to their recreational experience and

indicate the viewing-related activities

are particularly important at the Grand

Canyon. This research also shows that

visitors are aware of increasing haziness

and that it is strongly correlated with

decreased enjoyment of the site and

with increasing dissatisfaction with air

quality. Studies at recreational sites,

including the Grand Canyon, indicate

that visitors would plan to, and do,

reduce the length of park visits and time

at vista points as visibility conditions

are degraded.

26 National Park Service 1988, "Air Quality in the

National Parks." Natural Resources report 88-1.

5182
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

General citizen surveys provide

further support. One survey 27 found

that the vast majority of Americans felt

there should be no air pollution that

would "interfere with recreation and

natural resources." Another citizen

survey 28 found that 80 percent of

households would definitely agree to

having their tax money spent on

preserving and managing park areas,

even if they personally could not visit

them, and another 17 percent would

possibly do the same.

Several studies have attempted to

measure in dollar terms societal values

for varying degrees of visibility

protection at the Grand Canyon.29 . 30

Because visibility is not bought or sold

in a conventional marketplace,

researchers have used various survey

approaches known as the "contingent

valuation method." This research has

consistently shown the public's

collective willingness to pay to protect

visibility at the Grand Canyon is

substantial.

The benefit analysis for this

rulemaking interprets and transforms

the existing economic research.

Uncertainties arise in this interpretation

and transformation process.

Consequently, results are reported and

should be interpreted as depicting the

direction, character a general magnitude

of the willingness-to-pay estimates. The

benefit estimates developed here are

based on the changes in visual range

estimated by EPA in table I. However,

given the uncertainties surrounding

these analyses (as discussed above),

changes in visual range could be

substantially different than the change

used in developing these willingness-topay estimates. In addition, these

willingness-to-pay estimates are based

on response elicited from contingent

valuation studies that examined a

substantial, year-round change in Grand

Canyon visibility. While the analysis

presented below attempted to adjust for

differences between the contingent

valuation studies and the specific

visibility affects attributed to the Grand

Canyon, there are important

uncertainties with the willingness-topay estimates described below.

27 Opinion Research Corporation 1981, "Public

Attitudes Toward the Clean Air Act."

' Chestnut end Rowe, 198, "Preservation Values

for Visibility Protection at the National Parks," draft

report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

'9 Schulze, Brookshie, Walther and Kelley, 1981, "The Benefits of Preserving Visibility in the

National Parklands of the Southwest." Vol. VIII,

Methods Development for Environmental Control

Benefit Asseument, U.S. EPA.

80 Rowe and Chestnut. 19&3. "Valuing Environmental Commodities: Revised," Land

Economics 59.

The benefit analysis for a 0.30 lb/

MMBtu emission limit at NGS indicates

in 1995 the average United States

household would be willing to pay on

the order of $1.00 to $1.90 per year per

household. National total benefit

estimates for 1995 range from $100 to

$190 million. The annual benefits are

expected to increase over time due to

increasing population and income. The

present value (using a 10 percent

discount rate) of 30 years of benefits is

$1.6 to $2.3 billion. Using a 3 percent

discount rate, the present value of the

benefits range from $4.0 to $5.5 billion.

The benefit analysis for a 0.10 lbs/

MMBtu SO emissions rate from NGS

indicates in 1995 the average United

States household would be willing to

pay on the order of $1.30 to $2.50 per

year per household. By this measure,

national total benefit estimates for 1995

range from $130 to $250 million

increasing over time due to growth in

population and income. The present

value, using a 10 percent discount rate,

of 30 years of benefits is $2.1 to $3.1

billion. Using a 3 percent discount rate,

the present value of the benefits range

from $5.3 to $7.4 billion. The annualized

benefits are $220 to $330 million. The

benefits for a 0.50 lbs/MMBtu S02

emission rate would be substantially

less than those calculated for 0.30 lbs/

MMBtu.

A household's willingness-to-pay for

visibility improvement at the Grand

Canyon arises from three different

motivations. Across all United States

households, 31 percent of the total

willingness to pay is an option price, or

the desire for the household members to

be able to enjoy good visibility during

their own visits to the Grand Canyon

now and in the future. Estimates based

on willingness-to-pay surveys

(McFarland, et al,8 1 Schulze, et al 82) of

visitors to the Grand Canyon suggest

substantially lower willingess-to-pay,

however, than would be expected from

the "option" value estimate used in this

benefits analysis. About 38 percent is

bequest value, or the desire for other

people to enjoy good visibility now and

in the future, and about 31 percent is

existence value, or the desire to protect

the Grand Canyon even if no one were

to ever visit.

In September 1990, EPA received a

draft report of a news benefits study on

improving visibility in the Grand

3, MacFarland. K. W. Maim, and J. Molenar. 1983.

"An examination of methodologies and Social

Indicators for Assessing the Value of Visibility." in

Row and Chestnut (Eds.) Managing Air Quality and

Scenic Resources at National Parks and Wilderness

Areas Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

32 Schulze op. cit.

Canyon. The report 33 details the

methodology and results of a pilot

contingent valuation willingness-to-pay

study conducted on behalf of SRP in

1990. The draft report concludes that the

benefits of reducing sulfur emissions

from the NGS are substantially lower

than those in EPA's draft RIA. The

EPA's preliminary assessment of the

SRP-sponsored draft report is that this

conclusion results primarily from two

factors. First, the SRP-sponsored draft

report predicts visual range

improvements which are much lower

than EPA's estimates. Second, the SRPsponsored draft report subjectively

discards willingness-to-pay data for

visual range improvement. The effect of

the data adjustment is to lower the

mean willingness-to-pay estimates by a

factor of 20. A copy of the report was

provided to EPA by SRP and has been

placed in Docket A-8-.02. By today's

notice, the EPA solicits comments on

this new information on benefits, as well

as on the benefits analysis developed as

part of the RIA.

D. Emission Limitations

Taking into consideration the

uncertainties in the analyses, such as

the attribution calculation and social

benefis estimates, EPA is soliciting

comments on four options and is

proposing one of the options, (0.30 lbs/

MMBtu emission limit). In addition the

EPA solicits comment on, and will

consider, any appropriate SOz emission

limitation in its final determination of

BART. The EPA is particularly

interested in additional information that

would show more precisely the range of

visibility changes expected from

-changes in emissions from NGS, or

better confirm the range used in the

BART analysis as well as any

quantitative information on the visibility

improvements that could be expected in

times other than winter, and in areas

other than the Grand Canyon.

Additional information on control

alternatives and their costs as well as

appropriate use of data on social benefit

for improving visibility Is also solicited.

The proposed emission limitation is

based on year-round control. However,

EPA solicits comments on legal and

policy issues relating to the use of

seasonal controls instead. For a

discussion of seasonal control, please

refer to the section "Discussion of

Seasonal Controls as a BART Emission

33 Development and Design of a Contingent Value

Survey for Measuring the Public's Value for

Visibility Improvements at the Grand Canyon

National Park: Revised Draft Report," September

1990, Decision Focus, Inc.

5183
Federal Register / Vol. 53, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

Limitation" elsewhere in this notice.

Consistent with the similar emission

limitations implemented at other

facilities over the past 10 years, EPA is

proposing that compliance be

determined on a 30-day rolling average.

Nevertheless, EPA invites comments on

other options for averaging times that

could be used to determine compliance.

Compliance with this limitation would

be determined using continuous

emission monitoring systems (CEMS).

Two other pollutants emitted by NGS,

NO. and PM, are known to contribute to

visibility impairment in some

circumstances. 3 4 The current emissions

of NO, and PM from NGS have not been

identified as significantly contributing to

the visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon. However, EPA is concerned

based upon its technical judgment

regarding the behavior of the pollutants

as potential contributions to visibility

impairment as a general matter, upon

the amount of the pollutants emitted by

NGS, upon the proximity of NGS to the

Grand Canyon and upon the'

characteristics of the NGS plume shown

by WHITEX and other studies, that

increased emissions of these pollutants

could result in impairment in the Grand

Canyon. Although the NGS is not

subject to any NO. emission limitations,

SRP has stated that NGS currently emits

NO. at a rate of 0.4 to 0.5 lbs/MMBtu.

Therefore, EPA is proposing an NO1

emission limit consistent with NGS's

existing emission rate, as well as the

rate at other similar plants, of 0.5 lbs/

MMBtu. As with the SO2 emission limit,

compliance would be determined using

CEMS.

Particulate matter emissions for the

NGS are currently limited in two ways.

The Arizona SIP kas both an emission

rate limitation of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu and an

opacity limit of 40 percent for NGS. The

SRP has stated than NGS currently

emits PM at a rate of 0.03 lbs/MMBtu

with an opacity of between 10 and 15

percent. Thus, the opacity limit of 40

percent is well above the NGS existing

emissions. Therefore, EPA is proposing

a 20 percent opacity limitation

consistent with current NGS emissions

opacity in order to preclude any

visibility deterioration that would be

caused by an increase in PM emissions.

Compliance would also be determined

using CEMS. In conjunction with the

proposed BART limits for SO2

emissions, these emission limitations for

NO, and PM should result in reasonable

progress toward the national visibility

goal. The EPA solicits comments on

whether these emission limitations are

34 See. e.g.. BART Guidelines at 12-13.

appropriate to remedy existing

impairment or to prevent future

impairment.

E. Emission Limitation Compliance.

Schedule

Section 169A requires BART to be

applied "as expeditiously as practicable,

but in no event later than 5 years after

the date of approval." However, the

operators of NGS may be able to

develop in the next few years

technologies capable of meeting the

same stringent BART limitation

proposed today at costs substantially

lower than those we have assumed

using currently demonstrated

technologies. Given that, EPA proposes

the required emission limitation to be

achieved in three phases. The final

BART emission limitation would need to

be met on one unit by January 1, 1995:

on two units by January 1, 1997; and on all three units by January 1, 1999. This

flexibility would allow the operators

ample time to install, test, and evaluate

innovative technologies in meeting the

emission limitations.

The EPA is also considering allowing

the operators the option of averaging the

needed emission reductions across all

three units during each milestone of the

phase-in period. This would allow, if the

0.30 lbs/MMBtu emission limitation is

selected as BART for example, 25

percent emission reductions at two units

and 20 percent reductions at the third

unit by 1995 rather than achieving the

0.30 lbs/MMBtu limit by 1995 at just one

unit. This would provide greater

flexibility in study and design of new

control approaches than a strict unit-byunit requirement. The EPA is aware that

this approach will raise questions

regarding regulatory intent for

installation of BART. Under this

approach, BART would begin before the.

5-year requirement and controls would

be installed on all three units within an

average of 5 years.

The EPA solicits comments on

whether it is legally permissible and, in

the final analysis, appropriate from a

policy perspective to rely on the date of

controls on the first unit or the average

date of controls on all units in complying

-with the timing requirements of the

statute. In addition, EPA solicits

comments on the averaging of the

phasein across units in order to provide

the maximum flexibility in evaluating

alternative control technologies.

Proposal From Salt River Project

On January 10, 1991, EPA received a proposal from representatives of SRP as

an alternative to BART. The proposal

addresses a broader scope of issues.

including the contribution that NGS

makes to the existing regional haze

problem in the desert southwest region.

which includes many Class I areas

including the Grand Canyon,

Canyonlands, Bryce Canyon, Petrified

Forest, Zion, and other national parks

and wilderness areas. The proposal has

four components: (1) SRP help fund and

cooperate fully with the regional haze

studies that EPA is required to conduct

under the new section 169B of the Act;

(2) EPA would expedite establishment of

the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport

Commission, and SRP would cooperate

with the governors of the affected States

and the Commission in conduct of its

inquiry and mandated report to the

Administrator on appropriate action to

address regional haze; (3) SRP would

undertake tests to try to demonstrate the

feasibility of several promising clean

coal technologies that may provide

much lower cost alternatives to

conventional scrubbers or current dry

technologies on plants fired by low

sulfur western coal (If one of the

technologies were demonstrated to

achieve an agreed-upon minimum

removal efficiency at an agreed-upon

cost, SRP would commit to install that

technology and operate it on a seasonal

basis to address the alleged effect of

NGS on wintertime visibility.]; and (4)

SRP would agree that if none of the

technologies met the test criteria, it

would then install pollution control

devices that would remove at least 70

percent of the uncontrolled SO

emissions (emission limit of 0.30 lbs/

MMBtu) measured on an annual basis

by January 1, 2000, the year upon which

the first allowances would be issued to

the plant under the 1990 Amendments. A

copy of the letter containing the full

explanation of this offer is in Docket A89-02A. EPA is requesting public

comment on how this proposal, legally

and technically, may fulfill section 169A,

as well as the provisions of section

169B. With respect to this proposal, EPA

has concerns about the delay in

application of controls so far beyond

any interpretation of the 5-year statutory

requirement. In addition, EPA requests

comment on the proposal's usefulness in

addressing new legislative requirements

on EPA to conduct regional haze studies.

and on the role of cooperation with

industry in addressing regional haze

through the Grand. Canyon Visibility

Transport Commission.

Legal and Regulatory Issues

On May 15, 1989, the SRP submitted

comments on various legal and

regulatory issues pertaining to potential

BART emission limits affecting NGS. In

addition, SRP and Alabama Power

5184
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

Company, et al., a consortium of utility

groups (referred to collectively In this

section as "SRP'), have submitted

various motions to the court in EDFv.

Reilly seeking to modify and delay the

settlement agreement governing this

rulemaking. The EPA addressed these

issues and solicited comment on them in

the September 5, 1989 notice. See 54 FR

36951-52. The EPA's earlier discussion is

incorporated by reference as part of

today's statement of basis and purpose.

In comments on the September 5,1989

notice, and in further pleadings in EDF

v. Reilly, SRP and Alabama Power

Company, et al., have continued to press

these issues and to raise new ones.

Similar views were also presented by

other commenters on the September 5,

1989 notice. By its order of November 22,

1989, the court rejected all of SRP's

arguments insofar as they sought to

prevent EPA from proceeding with this

rulemaking pursuant to the court's

jurisdiction to oversee BART rulemaking

under a FIP. The effect of that decision

is to refer SRP's arguments to the

rulemaking process and, ultimately, a

decision by the Court of Appeals should

SRP seek review of final rulemaking

action by EPA under section 307(b) of

the Act. For the benefit of comments on

today's proposal, these issues are

identified below, and EPA has set forth

again its present position on these

issues. The EPA will take a final

position on all of these issues in

response to comments on today's notice.

A. Scope of the Current Visibility

Regulations

The SRP asserts that regulation of

haze that cannot be attributed to a

source through visual observation, but

only through analytical techniques such as those used in WHITEX, is beyond the

scope of EPA's current visibility

regulations. The EPA disagrees with this

contention. The current regulations

focus on impairment due to discrete,

discernible plumes attributable to a

source through visual observation, but

they are not limited to the type of

visibility impairment known as "plume

blight." Rather, as to BART, the

visibility rules regulate any impairment

that is "reasonably attributable" to an

existing stationary facility (see, e.g., 40

CFR 51.302(c)(4)(i)). While such

"reasonably attributable" impairment

may be in the form of a haze, this Is still

distinguishable from impairment in the

form of "regional haze" that is beyond

the scope of EPA's current regulations

because it cannot be attributed, in

whole or significant part, to a single

source or small group of sources.

B. Attribution Techniques

The SRP also claims that the visibility

regulations prohibit EPA from basing a finding of reasonable attribution on the

WHITEX study, asserting that

sophisticated attribution techniques are

beyond the scope of the 1980 visibility

regulations. The EPA disagrees with this

interpretation. While the 1990

regulations do not require the use of

techniques other than visual

observation, they do not prohibit them

either.

The SRP also asserts that if

sophisticated techniques are permissible

at all, their use is limited to the States.

The SRP points to 40 CFR 51.302(s)

which defines "reasonably attributable"

as "attributable by visual observation or

any other techniques the State deems

appropriate." In SRP's view, the rules on

their face authorize only States and not

EPA to use techniques other than visual

observation to make a reaqonable

attribution decision. The EPA disagrees

with this view. The part 51 visibility

regulations, including the definition in

question, contain numerous references

to the duties of "States" in the SIP

planning process for the obvious reason

that those regulations' principal purpose

is to set forth the requirements that SIP's

must meet to comply with the

regulations. In this instance, however,

Arizona has defaulted on its

responsibility as it has failed to submit a

visibility SIP or any portion thereof

despite EPA's notice of deficiency, and

EPA has disapproved the SIP for such

failure. Consequently, EPA has an

obligation under section 110(c)(1) of the

Act to promulgate such visibility

measures as may be necessary to fulfill

the requirements of the visibility

regulations at 40 CFR 51.300, et seq. In

so doing, EPA stands in the shoes of the

defaulting State, and all of the rights and

duties that would otherwise fall to the

State accrue instead to EPA. Thus, in

this instance, EPA is in effect acting as a

"State" and may utilize any attribution

technique it deems appropriate, not just

visual observation. Moreover, there is

no inherent reason why EPA should be

limited to visual observation when it

acts under section 110(c) if a State is not

so limited in developing a SIP. Similarly,

40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)(i) provides that the

"State" must identify and analyze for

BART any source as to which a

reasonable attribution finding is made.

Nevertheless, where EPA is acting in

place of the "State" under section 110(c),

these duties, as well as all other duties

of "States" under the part 51 visibility

regulations, fall to EPA. In this case,

EPA is acting in the place of Arizona.

The EPA has found that the Arizona SIP

is deficient for failing to meet the

requirements of 40 CFR 51.302, including

reasonable attribution and BART

requirements, and has disapproved the

SIP for that failure (51 FR 3046, 3048

(January 23, 1986); 52 FR 45132, 45133).

The EPA believes that its position

represents a reasonable interpretation of

the Act and its own regulations and is

fully in keeping with the language, goals,

and purposes of the Act and those

regulations. However, in the September

5, 1989 notice, EPA solicited comments

on whether it would be appropriate to

make changes in the definitional

provisions of 40 CFR part 51 in order to

provide additional clarification on EPA's

interpretation that the Administrator,

like a "State," may utilize whatever

techniques he deems appropriate in

making any "reasonably attributable"

findings in promulgating a plan under

section 110(c) of the Act. By today's

notice, EPA again solicits comments on

this issue. Upon the close of the

comment period that commences today,

EPA may proceed to make clarifying

changes without further public notice.

C. Attribution of Impairment to a

Significant Contributor

Section 169A(b)(2(A) of the Act, 42

U.S.C. 7491(b)(2)(A), requires that

emission limitations representing BART

be established for an existing source

which emits any air pollutant which

may "reasonable be anticipated to cause

or contribute to any impairment of

visibility in any [Class I] area." The EPA

regulations further refine this statutory

requirement by limiting BART to cases

of reasonably-anticipated impairment "where the impairment is 'reasonably

attributable' to the source." 40 CFR

51.302(c)(4)(i). The SRP argues that a

finding of reasonable attribution cannot

be made unless one source (or a small

group of sources) is the sole contributor

to visibility impairment. IN support of

this view, SRP states that control of one

source would result in significant

improvement in visibility only if the

impairment was being caused by that

source alone, whereas if many sources

are contributing, all must be controlled

to result in improved visibility. The EPA

disagrees because SRP's position

appears to contravene the legal

requirement flowing from the statute

and regulation that BART be installed

whenever a source may reasonably be

anticipated to either cause or "contribute" to "any impairment" in "any" Class I area where the

impairment is "reasonably attributable"

to that source. In addition, EPA

preliminarily believes that SRP's

position is flawed logically and assumes

5185
Federal Register'/ Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 '/o Proposed Rules

key facts that the WHITEX data

indicate are untrue or which are

contravened by EPA's BART analysis.

Specifically, if NGS is a significant

contributor to wintertime impairment in

the Grand Canyon, notwithstanding that

other sources may also contribute to the

impairment, it follows that the addition

of emissions controls at NGS alone may

result in significant improvement in

visibility. In addition, as discussed

above, the WHITMX data indicate that

NGS is, in fact, a significant contributor

to wintertime impairment in the Grand

Canyon. In its review of WHITEX, NAS

likewise refuted SRP's reasoning when

NAS concluded that if NGS were

controlled then the wintertime haze of

-the Grand Canyon would likely be

reduced. Thus, in today's notice, EPA

has proposed to determine that the

impairment in question may be

reasonably attributable to NGS. In

addition, today's notice reflects that

EPA's BART analysis has concluded

that control of NGS alone is likely to

result in a significant improvement in

visibility. Although EPA is seeking.

additional comment on these studies

and is prepared to analyze any

additional data that is submitted, it

believes that these findings and

interpretations are adequate to proceed

at this time with its proposal of BART

emission limits under the present

visibility regulations to remedy this

impairment. The EPA specifically

solicits comments on its view that it is

appropriate under the current visibility

rules to impose BART limits on a source

which is a significant contributor to but

not the sole source of a visibility

impairment in a Class I area when that

impairment may also be due in part to

undifferentiated regional sources.

D. EPA's Present Authority To Conduct

a BART Rulemaking

The SRP and Alabama Power

Company, et al., assert that, with respect

to visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon, EPA has no present authority to

conduct a BART analysis or propose or

promulgate emissions limitations

representing BART because there has

been no valid certification of

impairment, because there has been no

finding of substantial inadequacy as to

Grand Canyon impairments and

subsequent failure by Arizona to remedy

such inadequacy, and because the

Administrator has not made a final

reasonable attribution decision. The

EPA disagrees with these assertionsbecause they seriously misread the

applicable statutory and regulatory

requirements.

Regarding the certification of

impairment, EPA believes that the DOI

letters of November 14, 1985 and March

24, 1986 discussed above satisfy the

certification requirements of the

regulations because they represent the

considered views of responsible DOI

officials, and Arizona was given notice

of them by the January 1986 notice of

deficiency and March 1987 proposed SIP

disapproval prior to EPA's disapproval

of the Arizona SIP for failing -to submit

remedial measures in response.

Regarding the purported need to

afford Arizona another opportunity to

perform its own BART analysis, there is

likewise no basis for such a requirement

because Arizona has clearly defaulted

on its obligations, and EPA must provide

a complete visibility plan, including

measures to remedy Grand Canyon

impairment. Specifically, the

prerequisites for remedial action by EPA

to promulgate appropriate FIP measures

under all of the subsections of section

110(c)(1) of the Act have already been

met, although satisfying only one is

adequate. As explained above, Arizona

failed completely to submit any

visibility SIP provisions, thereby

satisfying the prerequisite in section

110(c)(1)(A). Moreover, EPA, in January

1986, issued a notice of SIP deficiency

meeting the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(A) and afforded Arizona an

opportunity to submit corrective

measures. Arizona failed to submit the

required plan revision to correct this

inadequacy and so EPA satisfied the

prerequisite in section 110(c)(1)(A).8 5

There was no need to specifically

identify Grand Canyon impairment in

that notice because the State had been

properly informed that the SIP as a

whole was inadequate to remedy

impairment which DOI certified as

existing. in all Class I areas within the

State. In addition, EPA's proposed SIP

disapproval in March 1987 specifically

alerted Arizona to the presence of

wintertime impairment in the Grand

Canyon and the need for corrective

action. See 52 FR 17804, 17806. Also, in

November 1987, EPA disapproved

Arizona's SIP for failure to provide

remedial visibility SIP measures,

thereby satisfying the prerequisite in

section 110(c)(1){B). Finally, in letters

submitted to the docket for this

rulemaking, the State of Arizona has

stated its agreement that EPA, and not

the State, should proceed to address

BART to remedy Grand Canyon

36 Prior to the revisions to section 110(c)(1)

enacted by section 10-(h) of the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990. Public Law 101--54

(November 15, 1990). the failure of a State to make a

required submission in response to a Notice of SIP

inadequacy under section 110(a)(2)(H) was set forth

in a separate subsection, 110(c)(1)(C), that has now,

been merged in to subsection 110(c)(1)(A).

impairment without a further specific

opportunity for rulemaking by the State.

Clearly, under these circumstances, it

would serve no purpose to take the

additional steps suggested by SRP as

both the letter and spirit of section

110(c)(1) have been satisfied3 6

3e On November 15,1990. President Bush signed

into law the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,

Public Law 101-549. While the Amendments revised

the Act in several areas, they do not include any

changes that materially affect either prior FIP

actions regarding Arizona or this rulemaking. In

particular. section 102(h) of the Amendments

revised the language and organization of section

110(c)(1) of the Act, but did not affect the standards

for a default in Arizona's SIP planning obligations

or EPA's FIP obligations arising from such failure in

any material way. Section 101(c) of the

Amendments added a savings clause as section

110(n)(1) of the revised Act that preserves

implementation plan provisions already

promulgated by the Administrator, including those

portions of the Arizona FIP that have already been

promulgated. A companion provision, section 108(1)

of the Amendments, added a savings clause as

section 193 of the revised Act that preserves every

regulation, standard rule, notice, order and guidance

promulgated or Issued by the Administrator, except

as otherwise provided by or inconsistent with the

Amendments, or revised by the Administrator.

Section 108(j) of the Amendments adds a new

section 302(y) to the revised Act that defines

"federal implementation plan" in pertinent part to

mean a plan or portion thereof promulgated by the

Administrator to fill all or a portion of a gap or

otherwise correct all or a portion of an inadequacy

in a SIP, and which includes enforceable emission

limitations. Section 816 of the Amendments added a

new section 169B of the revised Act that calls upon

EPA to study and possibly adopt a regulatory

program: to address the problem of regional haze in

Class I areas.

Taken together, the FIP and savings clause

provisions constitute an "anti-backsliding"

approach by Congress, and do not affect any preexisting actions of EPA, except to the extent that new or revised substantive provisions call into

question the validity of those actions. Thus, prior

visibility FIP actions affecting Arizona. in particular,

Arizona's default with respect to its BART

obligation and EPA's assumption of that obligation.

remain in place. With respect to outstanding FIP

obligations, there is no indication that Congress

intended to disturb such obligations except where

the Amendments alter the underlying SIP planning

obligations in a manner that evinces congressional

intent to reinstitute State primacy. Thus, for

example, a court has relieved EPA of a pre-existing

obligation to promulgate a FIP to meet the ozone

NAAQS in Southern California, because the

Amendments granted States additional time to

develop their own attainment plans for ozone. See

Coalition for Clean Air v. EPA. (C.D. Cal., Order

granting-motion to vacate settlement agreement,

Jan. 9. 1991) ("the structure of the amended Act,

with revamped criteria and timing for SIPs. and with

an obvious policy that the States are encouraged to

take the lead. with the potential FP to be the stick

that drives them, is clear"). In contrast, with respect

to this rulemaking, Congress took no action to

suggest that it intended to alter either the substance or timing of the requirement to apply BART to

sources that may reasonably be anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in Class

I areas where, as here, EPA acts under its present

regulations addressing impairment that can be

"reasonably attributed" to a source. In particular,

the regional haze provisions of section 169B do not

affect the present action regarding "reasonably

Continued

5186
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 1 Proposed Rules

Regarding the purported need for a

"final" attribution determination before

proceeding to a BART analysis, there is

no support in the regulations for the

notion that EPA must proceed in this

fashion. Indeed, 40 CFR 51.302(c)(4)

speaks of a single requirement to

"identify and analyze for BART." In its

order of July 6, 1989, the court in EDF v.

Reilly granted the EPA's and EDF's joint

request that EPA be given a short

additional time to conduct a BART

analysis and issue a proposal on the

need for BART (this time was further

extended at SRP's request by the court's

order of January 9, 1990), but the

regulations do not suggest that it is

necessary to formalize EPA's voluntary

bifurcation of a single decision and

make a "final" determination on the first

portion before proceeding to the second.

Nor is it necessary to proceed in the

fashion these commenters suggest in

order to satisfy the rulemaking requirements of the Act of the

Administrative Procedure Act because

neither a "proposed" nor a "final"

reasonable attribution determination is

a promulgated regulation or other "final

action" within the meaning of those

statutes and is not subject to judicial

review. Rather, it is a preliminary

finding that may lead to a final rule or

other final action (i.e., a final decision

that emission limitations representing

BART are unnecessary, or the

imposition of such limitations) that is

subject to review.

E. Discussion of Seasonal Controls as a

BARTEmission Limitation

In a letter dated January 14, 1990, SRP

submitted a position paper to EPA

raising the issue of whether EPA could

lawfully provide for the seasonal

application of pollution control

technology in establishing BART. SRP's

letter takes the position that the law

allows seasonal controls in this case.

For the reasons summarized below, EPA

believes that at this time seasonal

controls are not appropriate under the

circumstances of this rulemaking.

However, EPA solicits comments on (1)

the appropriate use of seasonal controls

as BART; and (2) whether, if seasonal

controls may be allowed, the record of

this rulemaking would support imposition of only seasonal controls at

NGS.

In considering whether EPA's

traditional interpretation of other

attributable" visibility impairment under section

169A and 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, and there are no other new or revised substantive provisions that

would relieve EPA of its obligation to complete this

FIP action. Thus, EPA's obligation to complete this

BART rulemaking remains in place.

provisions of the Clean Air Act

regarding emission limitations applies

with equal force to BART EPA believes

the following relevant statutory

provisions and legislative history should

be weighed. BART is defined by the Act

as "emission limitations" which "reflect" the best available retrofit

"technology." See sections 169A(b) and

(g)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7491(b) and (g](2). The

regulations likewise refer to BART as "emission limitations" and as an "emission standard." 40 CFR

51.302(c)(2)(iii) and 51.302(c)(4)(ii). The

Act defines "emission limitation" and "emission standard" to require "continuous" emission reduction.

Section 302(k), 42 U.S.C. 7602(k). The

EPA regulations explicitly require "continuous emission reduction" in any

BART emission limitation. 40 CFR

51.301(c). In addition, section 123(a)

provides that "[tihe degree of emission

limitation required for control of any air

pollutant under this title shall not be

affected in any manner by * * * any

* * * dispersion technique," while

section 123(b) defines dispersion

technique to include "any intermittent or

supplement control of air pollutants

varying with atmospheric conditions."

42 U.S.C. 7423.

The language eventually enacted as

section 123 originated in the House

version of the 1977 Amendments. The

House committee report defines

dispersion techniques as "techniques

which seek to reduce concentrations of

pollutants not by reducing the amounts

of pollutants emitted into the air, but

rather by relying on the dispersion of

pollution throughout the atmosphere.""37

(emphasis added).

Although the central focus of the

congressional deliberations was on tall

stacks and short-term adjustments in the

amount of emissions from a source in

order to meet SIP limits designed to

achieve the national ambient air quality

standards. EPA requests comments on

the extent to which those concerns also

apply to seasonal controls and BART

emission limitations, which were not

explicitly considered in this legislative

history. The House committee report lists several "fundamental policy

objections" to intermittent controls or

dispersion techniques that may be

relevant to this rulemaking, including

dubious reliability, concern over effects

of secondary pollutants, transport of

pollutants to other areas, acid rain

effects, and simple prudence. See H.R.

Rep. No. 294 at 82-88. Language nearly identical in pertinent part to the

5, H. R. Rep. No. 294, 95th Cong., 1st Sesp. At I1

(1977).

language eventually enacted in section

302(k) appears in both the House and

Senate bills. In explaining the purpose of.

this language, the House committee

report states:

By defining the terms "emission limitation," "emission standard," and "standard of

performance," the committee has made clear

that constant or continuous means of

reducing emissions must be used to meet

these requirements. By the same token,

intermittent or supplemental controls or other

temporary, periodic or limited systems of

control would not be permitted as a final

means of compliance. 38

The Senate committee report

elucidates its reason for defining

"emission limitation" as follows: "This

bill includes a definition of the phrase .emission limitations' to clarify the

committee's view that the only

acceptable basic strategy is one based

on continuous emission control.

Intermittent controls or dispersion

techniques are unacceptable as a

substitute for continuous control of

pollutants under this act." s

The Senate committee report parallels

the House committee report in its

statement of reasons for disfavoring

intermittent control strategies. The

Senate committee report adds that "continuous emission reduction

measures are available, they are

reliable, and they are economically

justified." 40

SRP's letter focuses exclusively on

section 123 in asserting that seasonal

controls are permissible as BART, and

does not address section 302(k) or the

legislative history noted above. In

addition, SRP characterizes BART as

exclusively directed toward "ambient

objectives," citing instances in which

EPA has allowed seasonal relaxations

in SIP rules intended to achieve national

ambient air quality standards. 4 1 In

doing so, SRP assumes that the prier

experience regarding SIPs that it cites

should govern here. EPA requests

comment on SRP's contention that

BART is strictly an ambient-based limit.

In this regard, commenters should

consider EPA's experience under other

technology-based standards.

First, the language and structure of the

BART requirement appear to delineate it

as a technology-based standard. Second,

88 Id. at 92. 35 S. Rep. No. 127. 95th Cong.. 1st Sess. 94 (1977).

401d. at 95.

" EPA notes that none of the examples cited by

SRP involve technology-based standards under the

Act. In addition, it is not clear that these cases involved "emission Limitations" under section

110(a)(2)(B) as that term of art is defined in section

302(k), as opposed to other measures under section

110(a)(2](b). :

Ill II

5187
Federal Register ] Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed, Rules

the overall legislative scheme embodied

in the visibility planning requirements of

section 169A draw a distinction between

the general requirement in section

169A(b)(2) to adopt SIPs that include "such emission limits, schedules of

compliance and other measures as may

be necessary to make reasonable

progress," and the explicit requirement

in section 169A(b)(2)(A) to employ

BART as one such visibility measure.

Congress appeared to follow a similar

pattern regarding the PSD and NSPS

programs. For example, Congress

adopted the PSD program to protect

against actual or potential adverse

effects from pollutants emitted to the

ambient air by requiring states to adopt

SIPs containing a host of emission

limitations and other measures to

achieve the goal of preventing

significant deterioration of air quality.

See sections 160(1) and 161, 42 U.S.C.

7470(1) and 7471. However, as one such

specific PSD measure, Congress required

major new or stationary sources to

employ a technology-based emission

limit-the best achievable control

technology. See sections 165(a)(4),

169(3), 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4), 7479(3).

Similarly, under the NSPS program, EPA

must publish a list of categories of

stationary sources that cause or

contribute to air pollution which may

endanger public welfare, but Congress

required EPA to address these source

categories contributing to ambient

pollution problems through the

technology-based new source

performance standards. Compare

section 111(b)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C.

7411(b)(1)(A), with section 111(a)(1), 42

U.S.C. 7411(a)(1). The EPA solicits

comment on the use of seasonal controls

in this BART rulemaking.

Should EPA decide that facts allow

seasonal controls and that the statutory

language and legislative history

precludes seasonal controls, a possible

statutory basis for a seasonal variance

would be the procedures contained in

the BART exemption provisions of

section 169A(c) (2) and (3). and 40 CFR

51.303. The statute explicitly addresses

the possibility of BART exemptions for

large power plants such as NGS but

establishes a very high hurdle for

granting any such exemption. It requires

the source owner or operator to

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the

Administrator "that such powerplant is

located at such distance from all [Class I

areas] that such powerplant does notor

will not, by itself or in combination with

other sources, emit any air pollutant

which may reasonably be anticipated to

cause or contribute to a significant

impairment of visibility in any such

area." It further requires the

concurrence of the appropriate FLM's.

Thus, if such a variance or exemption

could be allowed, the burden would be

upon SRP and/or its co-owners to make

the necessary demonstration. Because

there would be no need for a BART

exemption until such time as final BART

emission limits are established, any

such request for exemption should be

submitted after completion of the BART

rulemaking in the form of a request for

partial (i.e., seasonal) relief from any

final BART limits that might be

established as a result of this

rulemaking. See 40 CFR 51.303. Under

the exemption regulations, in order to

demonstrate no "significant

impairment," i.e., the absence-of "a level

of impairment that interferes with the

visitor's visual experience of the area,"

the owner or operator "should address

the frequency, extent, time, intensity

and duration of the impairment." See 45

FR 80084, 80087. Thus, the factual basis

for such a demonstration with respect to

this case would be a showing that NGS

does not contribute to any significant

impairment in any Class I area In

seasons other than winter. In this

regard, SRP contends that the record

demonstrates that summer impairment

at Grand Canyon is not attributable to

NGS (SRP has not to date addressed

potential impacts of NGS at other Class

I areas in the vicinity, such as Bryce

Canyon National Park, Zion National

Park, and Canyonlands National Park).

The limited information in the record at

this time, however, suggests the

contrary. 42 43 44 As stated earlier. EPA

and NPS suspect that emissions from

NGS may contribute to regional

visibility impairment during the entire

year and that a decrease in SO2

emissions from NGS may improve

regional visibility in many Class I areas

in the Colorado Plateau. The EPA

solicits comments on whether a

seasonal variance could be allowed

under section 169A(c) in the manner

discussed above or under some other

statutory authority, on whether such a

variance could be considered only after

completion of this rulemaking, and (in

the event that EPA concludes it would

be appropriate to consider a seasonal

variance in conjunction with the present

proceeding) on the factual question of

whether NGS contributes to any

42 Summary Statement by*Brand Niemann, March

21 1990.

"Modeling Regional Haze in the Southwest: A

Preliminary Assessment of Source Contribution

(Systems Application. Inc. Feb. 1985). 44 Calculations of the Haze Impacts of the Navajo

Generating Station on Grand Canyon and Other

National Parks in the "Golden Circle" of Utah and

Arizona (D.A. Latimer Jan. 1991).

significant impairment in any Class I

area.

F. The Adequacy of the September 5,

1989 Notice

The SRP asserts that the September 5,

1989 notice was inadequate to meet the

requirements set forth in section

307(d)(3) of the Act for a statement of

basis and purpose to accompany a

notice of proposed rulemaking. The EPA

agrees. However, as explained above,

comments regarding the adequacy of the

September 5, 1989 notice and the draft

WHITEX report have been rendered

moot by the fact that the NPS has now

issued a final NPS report on WHITEX

and by today's notice. This notice

contains the complete statement of basis

and purpose for a regulatory proposal

required under section 307(d)(3) of the

Act, and reopens the comment period on

the issue of reasonably attributable

impairment, as well as providing an

opportunity to comment on all other

issues relevant to this rulemaking.

Moreover, EPA believes that insofar as

the September 5, 1989 notice addresses

the Grand Canyon, the preliminary

attribution finding therein was not a

regulatory proposal that triggered the

requirements of section 307(d)(3).

The SRP also complains that EPA has

not disclosed the criteria It is applying

for attribution decisions or its position

on the validity of the WHITEX report,

and so interested parties are unable to

prepare meaningful comments. The EPA

disagrees. The analyses In the WHITEX

report speak for themselves. Except

where specifically noted otherwise, EPA

agrees with the individual analysis

conducted by NPS and with the report's

conclusions that the NGS is a significant

source of wintertime visibility

impairment in the Grand Canyon. The

EPA believes that this notice, together

with the WHITEX report and the other

analyses that have been placed in the

docket, provides an adequate basis on

which to prepare comments on the

technical merits of WHITEX and on the

merits of today's proposal in general.

The EPA will respond to technical

comments when it takes final action on

today's proposal.

Regarding SRP's complaint about the

absence of "standards" for deciding

whether Grand Canyon impairment is

reasonably attributable to NGS, it

appears that SRP is calling upon EPA to

set a percentage benchmark for its

attribution decision. The EPA

tentatively believes that it is neither

necessary nor appropriate under the

visibility regulations to establish such a

percentage criteria. The provision in 40

CFR 51.303 allowing exemptions from

m I

5188
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

BART limits where a source owner or

operator demonstrates that it does not

cause or contribute to a "significant" visibility impairment strongly suggests

that a percentage cutoff is inappropriate.

Consequently, EPA believes that today's proposed finding of reasonably

attributable impairment in the Grand

Canyon due in a "substantial" or "significant" degree to emissions from

NGS is satisfactory. However, EPA

solicits comments on whether, in taking

final action on today's proposal, it

should establish a percentage criterion

for determining whether impairment is

reasonably attributable to a stationary

facility.

Format for Remedial Action

With respect to past implementation

of their visibility requirements and

because of the large number of States

involved and the ongoing nature of the

regulatory requirements, EPA deemed it

appropriate to promulgate generic

Federal implementing regulations and

insert them into the SIP's of the affected

States. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.26 (visibility

monitoring strategy, implementing 40

CFR 51.305); 40 CFR 52.27 and 52.28

(visibility new source review,

implementing 40 CFR 51.307); 40 CFR

52.29 (implementing long-range

strategies, 40 CFR 51.306); 40 CFR 51.145

(b) and (c) (incorporating these

provisions into the Arizona SIP). With

respect to source attribution and BART,

however, Arizona is the only State for

which remedial Federal measures are

even potentially needed at this time.

Accordingly, EPA proposes to simply

follow the appropriate provisions of the

Part 51 visibility regulations in making

* source attribution and BART findings regarding NGS and, if those findings result in the imposition of actual

emissions limitations under BART, to

amend the visibility FIP for Arizona in

40 CFR 52.145 to incorporate such

limitations.

Nonprecedential Effect of This Action

Today's proposal is limited to the

rulemaking obligation currently before

EPA: To determine whether to require

the application of BART at NGS in order

to remedy visibility impairment in the

Grand Ganyon. As such, it has no direct

precedential effect on any other

rulemaking action EPA might undertake

in the future regarding other existing

sources or Class I areas. This is so

because the outcome of this rulemaking will be highly dependent upon facts and

curcumstances that are unique to this

proceeding and thus may not be decisive

for other cases. For example, the tracer

studies and other analyses contained In

the WHITEX report that are keyed to

NGS are not necessarily determinative

in any other rulemaking addressing

other potential sources of visibility

impairment. Should EPA or State

agencies conduct visibility rulemakings

regarding other Class I areas and other

existing sources of pollution in the

future, they will need to rely on studies

and analyses tailored specifically to the

circumstances of those other areas and

sources in order to make reasoned

regulatory decisions. They will not be

able to rely solely on WHITEX findings

that specifically address the Grand

Canyon and NGS to determine the

existence of impairment that is

reasonably attributable to any such

other source. Likewise, the final BART

emission limit that emerges from this

rulemaking will not have direct

precedential effect elsewhere. The

statutory requirement that EPA weigh

the costs of compliance, the expected

improvement in visibility, and other

BART factors before reaching a decision

is by nature a case-specific process.

Upon completion of final rulemaking

action regarding NGS, EPA will have

completed its obligations under the

settlement agreement in EDF v. Reilly

and under the first round of SIP/FIP

planning called for in the visibility

regulations. The EPA will then focus its

attention on establishing the visibility

transport commissions and conducting

the regional haze studies called for in

new section 169B of the Act added by

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

In addition, EPA plans to conduct a

tracer study of emissions from the

Mohave Power Plant.4 5

Solicitation of CommentIs

The EPA solicits comments on all

aspects to today's proposal to revise the

FIP for the State of Arizona to include

emission limits for NGS to address the

visibility impairment observed during

the winter months in the Grand Canyon. Specifically, EPA is reopening the

comment period for issues pertaining to

today's proposed finding that a portion

of the visibility impairment in the Grand

Canyon is reasonably attributable to

NGS.

In addition, EPA solicits comments on

all aspects of the BART analysis for

NGS including, but not limited to, the

following: Assumptions made in the

IAPCS cost model, the model selected to

determine the Improvements in visibility expected to occur In the Grand Canyon

as a result of SOz controls at NGS, the

emission limits representing BART, and

the appropriate averaging time to be

used to determine compliance, the use of

4" H.R. Rep. 900,101st Corgess, 2d Sess., at 88

(Oct. 1990).

.seasonal controls, and schedule for

compliance. The EPA also solicits

comments on the appropriateness of

establishing opacity and NO2 limits

similar to plants with emission

limitations developed over the past 10

years and NGS's existing emission rates.

The EPA also solicits comments on the

benefit analysis performed in

conjunction with the BART analysis and

on the pilot benefits study submitted to

EPA by SRP.

EPA solicits comments on the legal

and regulatory issues discussed above

and on the format for remedial action.

Finally, SPA solicits comments on

updating BART Guideline to delete the

NSPS presumption.

The EPA has established a docket for

this proposal, Docket Number A-89'02A.

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all significant

information submitted to or otherwise

considered by EPA during this

proceeding. This docket will serve as the

record in the case of judicial review

under section 307(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7607(b).

Classification

Executive Order No. 12291 requires

each Federal agency to determine if a

regulation is a "major" rule as defined

by the order and "to the extent

permitted by law," to prepare and

consider an RIA in connection with

every major rule. Major rules are

defined as those likely to result In:

(1) An annual cost to the economy of

$100 million or more; or

(2) A major increase in costs or prices

for consumers or individual industries;

or

(3) Significant adverse effects on

competition, employment, investment,

productivity, innovation, or

international trade.

The EPA has judged the proposed

BART regulation for NGS to be a major

rule based on projected annualized

costs potentially in excess of $100

million. The EPA has prepared a

preliminary RIA that includes estimates

of costs, benefits, and net benefits for

three control options. The preliminary

analysis, titled "Regulatory Impact

Analysis of a Revision of the Federal

Implementation Plan for the State of

Arizona to Include SO2 Controls for the

Navajo Generating Station," and an

addendum, titled "Addendum to the

Regulatory Impact Analysis of a

Revision of the Federal Implementation

Plan for the State of Arizona to Include

S02 Controls for the Navajo Generating

Station" are available in Docket A-89-

ozA.

5189
Federal Register / Vol. 56, No. 27 / Friday, February 8, 1991 / Proposed Rules

The preliminary RIA finds that given

the estimates and uncertainties captured

by the benefit and cost analysis, a 0.10

lbs/MMBtu emission limit will result in

potential economic gains to society

among all examined alternatives, i.e..

the net benefits (estimated benefits

minus estimated costs) are positive. An

examination of less stringent regulatory

alternatives (e.g., a 0.30 lbs/MMBtu and

0.50 lbs/MMBtu SO2 emission limit)

resulted in smaller but still positive

estimated net benefits. Taking into

consideration the uncertainties in the

analysis, the EPA is proposing a 0.30

lbs/MMBtu emission limit rather than

the alternative that produces the

maximum estimated economic gains.

With implementation of the proposed

regulation, the cost of power generation

at NGS will increase. The projected cost

increase is estimated to raise the

average cost of power generation by less

than 5 percent for utilities using NGS

power. The cost impacts could be lower

if the acid deposition allowances are

sold.

In particular, the cost increase may be

partially offset by revenue earned

through the sale of SO2 marketable

allowances. The NGS may use this

revenue to recover part of the cost of

SO2 control technology or may bank it

against the operator's future expansion.

The preliminary RIA was submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review under Executive

Order 12291. Written comments from

OMB and written EPA response to these

comments are available for public

inspection at the docket office cited

above. A final RIA will be issued at the

time of the final rulemaking.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule will impose a modest

reporting burden on the owners of the

NGS to enable EPA to ensure

compliance with the emission limits.

Because the reporting burden affects

only a single source, it is not subject to

OMB review under the Paperwork

Reduction Act.

Section 317(c) Economic Impact

Assessment

The economic impact assessment

required by section 317(c) of the Act is

incorporated in the RIA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(RFA), an agency proposing or

promulgating a rule must determine if

the rule will have a significant impact on

a substantial number of small entities. If

a significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities is anticipated,

an RFA must be prepared. None of the

owners of the NGS are classified as

small according to guidelines developed

by the Small Business Administration.

For most of the utilities using NGS

power, the impact on utility rates will be

substantially less than 5 percent which

applies to the most affected utility

(Nevada Power Company).

Accordingly, I hereby certify that the

proposed regulation will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore. this

proposed regulation does not require an

RFA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Nitrogen

dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: January 3, 1991.

F. Henry Habicht,

Acting Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 40, chapter 1, part 52 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

proposed to be amended as follows.

PART 52-APPROVAL AND

PROMULGATION OF

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.

2. Section 52.145 is amended by

adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 52.145 Visibility protection.

(d) This paragraph 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 Region (§ 81.270 of this chapter).

(1) No owner or operator of the fossil

fuel-fired, steam-generating equipment

to which this paragraph is applicable

shall discharge or cause the discharge

of:

(i) Sulfur oxides into the atmosphere

in excess of 126 ng/I (0.30 pounds per

million British thermal units (lbs/

MMBtu)) heat input. Compliance with

this emission limit to be determined on a

30-day rolling average.

(ii) Nitrogen oxides into the

atmosphere in excess of 210 ng/j (0.50

lbs/MMBtu) heat input based on a 30-

day rolling average. (iii) Stack emissions which exhibit

greater than 20 percent opacity (6-

minute average) except for one 6-minute

period per hour of not more than 27

percent opacity.

(iv) The owner or operator of the NGS

shall install and maintain continuous

emission monitors to determine

compliance with the emission

limitations in paragraphs (d)(1) (i), (ii),

and (iii) of this section on a continuous

basis. This equipment shall meet the

specifications listed in appendix B of 40

CFR part 60. The facility shall comply

with the quality assurance procedures

found in appendix F of 40 CFR part 60.

(2) The owner or operator of the fossil

fuel-fired, steam-generating equipment

to which this paragraph is applicable:

(i) Shall notify the EPA Regional

Office or its designee, of the SO2 , NO.

oxygen and carbon dioxide emissions,

and opacity according to the procedures

found in 40 CFR 60.7.

(ii) Shall maintain records according

to the procedures found in 40 CFR 60.7.

(3) The requirements of paragraphs (d)

(1) and (2) of this section shall be

applicable to one unit at the facility by

January 1. 1995. two units by January 1,

1997, and all units by January 1, 1999.

[FR Doc. 91-3075 Filed 2-7-91: 8:45 am]

BILLING COOE 6500-U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 69

[CC Docket No. 78-72, DA 91-371

Common Transport and Dedicated

Transport

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; Request for

information to supplement the record.

SUMMARY, The Common Carrier Bureau

adopted a notice of proposed

rulemaking in 1984 to consider issues

relating to the waiver of the

Commission's Rules prescribing a rate

structure for recovering the costs of

providing transport access facilities.

Since that notice of proposed

rulemaking was adopted, there have

been numerous changes in the telephone

industry and in Commission regulations

affecting that industry. Therefore, we

request that interested parties file

comments in this proceeding to update

the record.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before February 22, 1991; replies must

be received on or before March 22, 1991.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 1919 M Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:.

Melissa Newman, Policy and Program

Planning Division, Common Carrier

Bureau (202) 632-9342.,

5190