[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30467-30473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12504]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0078, FRL-9675-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) determination for the TransAlta Centralia Generation 
LLC coal-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington (TransAlta). The 
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted its Regional 
Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) on December 22, 2010 to meet the 
requirements of 40 CFR 50.308. On December 29, 2011 Ecology submitted 
an update to the SIP submittal containing a revised and updated BART 
determination for TransAlta. EPA plans to act on the remaining Regional 
Haze SIP elements for Washington in the near future.

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or 
before June 22, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0078 by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Mail: Steve Body, EPA Region 10, Suite 900, Office of Air, 
Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 
900, Seattle, WA 98101. Attention: Steve Body,

[[Page 30468]]

Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-107. Such deliveries are only 
accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 
should be made for deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2012-0078. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material, 
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard 
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either 
electronically at www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of 
Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 
98101. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual 
listed below to view a hard copy of the docket.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at telephone number (206) 
553-0782, [email protected], or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized 
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Definition of Regional Haze
    B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
III. BART Determination for TransAlta
    A. Washington's BART Determination for TransAlta
    1. TransAlta is Subject to BART
    2. BART Evaluation and Determination
    B. EPA's Assessment of the State's BART Determination
IV. What action is EPA proposing?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background for EPA's Proposed Action

    In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, Congress established 
a program to protect and improve visibility in the national parks and 
wilderness areas. See CAA section 169A. Congress amended the visibility 
provisions in the CAA in 1990 to focus attention on the problem of 
regional haze. See CAA section 169B. EPA promulgated regulations in 
1999 to implement sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations 
require states to develop and implement plans to ensure reasonable 
progress toward improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas 
\1\ (Class I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); see also 70 FR 39104 
(July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a ``Federal Land Manager.'' 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). 
When we use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a 
``mandatory Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today EPA is proposing action on the portion of the Regional Haze 
SIP submission relating to the TransAlta facility by proposing to 
approve the BART determination for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 
emissions from TransAlta. Ecology submitted its Regional Haze SIP on 
December 22, 2010, to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 50.308. (Regional 
Haze SIP Submittal) On December 29, 2011, Ecology submitted an update 
to the SIP submittal containing a revised BART determination for 
TransAlta. (SIP Supplement) Because the BART determination includes a 
requirement to begin injection of ammonia or urea by January 1, 2013 
and a date of January 31, 2013 for TransAlta to comply with emission 
limits based on installation and operation of selective non-catalytic 
reduction (SNCR), EPA has determined that early action on this separate 
portion of the SIP submittal is appropriate at this time. EPA is still 
reviewing the remaining portions of the SIP submittal and will take 
action on the remaining elements in the near future.

A. Definition of Regional Haze

    Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused 
by emission of air pollution produced by numerous sources and 
activities, located across a broad regional area. The sources include, 
but are not limited to, major and minor stationary sources, mobile 
sources, and area sources including non-anthropogenic sources. 
Visibility impairment is primarily caused by fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5) or secondary aerosol formed in the atmosphere from 
precursor gasses (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen 
oxides (NOX), and in some cases, ammonia and volatile 
organic compounds). Atmospheric fine particulate reduces clarity, 
color, and visual range of visual scenes. Visibility reducing fine 
particulate is primarily composed of sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon 
compounds, elemental carbon, and soil dust, and impairs visibility by 
scattering and absorbing light. Fine particulate can also cause serious 
health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes to 
environmental effects such as acid deposition and eutrophication.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 64 FR at 35715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national parks and 
wilderness areas. Average visual range in many Class I areas in the 
Western United States is 100-150 kilometers, or about one-half to two-
thirds the visual range that would exist without manmade air 
pollution.\3\ Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and season-
to-season depending on

[[Page 30469]]

variation in meteorology and emission rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a 
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from 
manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources, i.e., ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment''. 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the first 
phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on July 1, 
1999 (64 FR 35713) (the Regional Haze Rule or RHR). The RHR revised the 
existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation 
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and to establish a 
comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. The 
requirements for regional haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are 
included in EPA's visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-
309. Some of the main elements of the regional haze requirements are 
summarized in section III of this rulemaking. The requirement to submit 
a regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the District of Columbia 
and the Virgin Islands.\4\ 40 CFR 51.308(b) requires states to submit 
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the entire State of New Mexico 
under the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas. Section 169A of the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. Implementation plans must also give 
specific attention to certain stationary sources that were in existence 
on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before August 7, 1962, and 
require these sources, where appropriate, to install BART controls for 
the purpose of eliminating or reducing visibility impairment.

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain larger, often uncontrolled, older 
stationary sources in order to address visibility impacts from these 
sources. Specifically, section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires States 
to revise their SIPs to contain such measures as may be necessary to 
make reasonable progress towards the natural visibility goal, including 
a requirement that certain categories of existing major stationary 
sources \5\ built between 1962 and 1977 procure, install, and operate 
the ``Best Available Retrofit Technology'' as determined by the state. 
States are directed to conduct BART determinations for such sources 
that may be anticipated to cause or contribute to any visibility 
impairment in a Class I area. Rather than requiring source-specific 
BART controls, states also have the flexibility to adopt an emissions 
trading program or other alternative program as long as the alternative 
provides greater reasonable progress towards improving visibility than 
BART.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject 
to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at appendix Y to 40 CFR 
Part 51 (hereinafter referred to as the ``BART Guidelines'') to assist 
states in determining which of their sources should be subject to the 
BART requirements and in determining appropriate emission limits for 
each applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In making a BART applicability 
determination for a fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant with a 
total generating capacity in excess of 750 megawatts, a state must use 
the approach set forth in the BART Guidelines. A State is encouraged, 
but not required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART 
determinations for other types of sources. Regardless of source size or 
type however, a state must meet the CAA and regulatory requirements for 
selection of BART, and the state's BART and analysis and determination 
must be reasonable in light of the overarching purpose of the regional 
haze program.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility-impairing pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, 
and fine particulate matter. EPA has indicated that states should use 
their best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds 
or ammonia compounds impair visibility in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, States may select and document an 
exemption threshold value to determine those BART-eligible sources not 
subject to BART. A BART-eligible source with an impact below the 
threshold would not be expected to cause or contribute to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area. Any source with emissions that model 
above the threshold value would be subject to a BART determination 
review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge varying circumstances affecting 
different Class I areas. States should consider the number of emission 
sources affecting the Class I areas at issue and the magnitude of the 
individual sources' impacts. Generally, an exemption threshold set by 
the State should not be higher than 0.5 deciview (dv).
    In their SIPs, States must identify BART-eligible sources that have 
a visibility impact in any Class I area above the `BART subject' 
exemption threshold established by the State and thus, subject to BART. 
States must document their BART control analysis and determination for 
all sources subject to BART.
    The term ``BART-eligible source'' used in the BART Guidelines means 
the collection of individual emission units at a facility that together 
comprises the BART-eligible source. In making a BART determination, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires that States consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance, (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance, (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source, (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source, and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology. See also 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A).
    The regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each

[[Page 30470]]

source subject to BART. Once a State has made its BART determination, 
the BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously 
as practicable, but no later than five years after the date EPA 
approves the regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 
51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, general 
SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all regulatory 
requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting for 
the BART controls on the source. States have the flexibility to choose 
the type of control measures they will use to meet the requirements of 
BART.

III. BART Determination for TransAlta

A. Washington's BART Determination for TransAlta

1. TransAlta is Subject to BART
    The TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC power plant, located in 
Centralia, Washington, is a two unit coal-fired power plant rated at 
702.5 MW each, when burning coal from the Centralia coalfield as 
originally designed. The units now burn coal from the Wyoming Powder 
River Basin and are rated at 670 MW each. The units were commissioned 
in 1971 and 1972, are one of the 26 BART source categories specified in 
40 CFR 51.301 and emit over 250 tons per year (t/y) of an air 
pollutant. Modeling to determine whether TransAlta would be subject to 
BART under the RHR demonstrated TransAlta had a maximum impact of 5.5 
dv at Mt. Rainier National Park from both SO2 and 
NOX emissions. This impact is above the threshold used by 
Washington for determining those BART eligible sources subject to BART. 
These units are BART-eligible and subject to BART as described in the 
SIP submittal, Supplement Appendix L.
    On June 11, 2003, EPA approved a revision to the Washington SIP for 
visibility (Visibility SIP) which included controls for NOX, 
SO2, and particulate matter for TransAlta. 68 FR 34821. In 
the action approving these provisions, EPA determined the required 
controls to be BART for SO2 and PM. Alstrom concentric low 
NOX burners with overfire air was required to control 
NOX emissions with emission limits of 0.302 lb/mmBtu for 
Unit 1 and 0.306 lb/mmBtu for Unit 2. EPA found these 
controls did not represent BART for NOX in 2003 and the 
Federal Register notice accompanying that action stated that a BART 
determination for NOX was not being made at that time. 
Specifically we explained ``* * * while the NOX emission 
limitation may have represented BART when the emission limits in the 
[reasonably available control technology] RACT Order were negotiated, 
recent technology advancements have been made. EPA cannot now say that 
the emission limitations in the SWAPCA RACT Order for NOX 
represent BART. However EPA is approving the emission limits for 
NOX as a strengthening of the SIP for visibility purposes.'' 
Thus, to date there is not a SIP approved BART determination for 
NOX emissions at TransAlta. 68 FR 34824.
2. BART Evaluation and Determination
    The TransAlta NOX BART determination to comply with 40 
CFR 51.308(e) was submitted to EPA in two separate submittals. The 
first submittal was included in the December 22, 2010 Regional Haze SIP 
submittal. Washington subsequently reevaluated its determination for 
TransAlta and on December 29, 2011, submitted an update to the Regional 
Haze SIP (referred to in this notice as the SIP Supplement). This 
update included a revised NOX BART determination, the First 
Revision Order No. 6426 (hereafter referred to as the Revised BART 
Compliance Order) and technical analysis document for the TransAlta 
power plant and the related parts of the Regional Haze SIP. The revised 
BART determination and Revised BART Compliance Order establish a 
NOX emission limit of 0.21 lb/mmbtu, and among other things, 
requires selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) to be installed by 
January 1, 2013. The Revised BART compliance order also provides that 
one coal unit must cease burning coal by December 31, 2020, and the 
other coal unit cease burning coal by December 31, 2025, unless Ecology 
determines that State or Federal law requires SCR to be installed on 
either unit.
    Additionally, by way of background, on May 21, 2009, the Governor 
issued Executive Order 09-05 which contained provisions for TransAlta 
regarding compliance with Washington State's greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emission performance standards. Subsequently, the Executive Order was 
superseded by Washington State Senate Bill 5769 (also known as E2SSB 
5769), which was signed by the Governor on April 29, 2011 and became 
effective August 22, 2011, and provided that the plant owners must 
bring the two coal-fired units into compliance with the GHG performance 
standards by specified dates. See SIP Supplement L-45-46 and Revised 
Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 80-80. The law requires that one of 
the TransAlta units comply with the GHG performance standards by 
December 31, 2020 and the other by December 31, 2025. See RCW 
80.80.040. As documented in public testimony by the plant owners, State 
Legislature, environmental organizations and the Governor's Office, the 
coal-fired units at the TransAlta plant must be decommissioned in order 
to comply with these new GHG standards. Accordingly, one unit will be 
decommissioned no later than December 31, 2020 and the second unit will 
be decommissioned by December 31, 2025. TransAlta is also required to 
install SNCR by January 1, 2013, to control NOX emissions. 
RCW 80.80.100. Additionally, the law states that the requirement to 
meet the GHG performance standard does not apply if Ecology determines 
that State or Federal law requires selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 
to be installed on either coal-fired unit. See Section 106 of Chapter 
180, Laws of 2011 and SIP Supplement L-46, see also RCW 80.80.040.
    In conducting its BART evaluation for TransAlta, Ecology followed 
the steps outlined in EPA BART Guidelines at 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y. 
Briefly this evaluation included the: (1) Identification of all 
available retrofit technology, (2) elimination of technically 
infeasible technology, (3) identification of control efficiencies of 
feasible technology, (4) evaluation of impacts and document results, 
and (5) evaluation of visibility impacts.
    The Visibility SIP submittal for our June 11, 2003 approval 
identified a long list of available NOX control technologies 
which were evaluated for technical feasibility at the TransAlta plant. 
That list was narrowed to the technically feasible controls which 
Ecology used as a starting point for the current BART determination. 
See SIP Supplement L-79 (Table B-1 Nitrogen Oxide Controls evaluated in 
the 1997 Reasonable Achievable Control Technology Process). Ecology 
evaluated, or reevaluated, a number of the NOX control 
technologies for TransAlta including: low NOX burners with 
close coupled and over-fired air (LNC3); Flex Fuel \6\; SCR; SNCR; 
Rotating over-fire air (ROFA)/Rota mix; neutral net technology; and 
natural gas re-burning. The State found ROFA is infeasible because it 
has never been tested nor demonstrated in a large tangentially

[[Page 30471]]

fired boiler of this size. The State also determined that ``Neutral 
Net'' technology likewise has not been guaranteed to perform and reduce 
emissions and there are other comparable proven technologies available. 
The State also found that natural gas re-burning is not listed in the 
EPA RBLC for use in any coal fired boilers and that it would be less 
efficient at controlling NOX emissions than the Flex-Fuel 
plus SNCR as required by Washington's Legislature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Flex Fuel refers to the switch from Centralia, Washington 
coal to coal from the Power River Basin in Wyoming. Powder River 
Basin coal has a higher heat content requiring less fuel for the 
same heat extraction, as well as a lower nitrogen and sulfur content 
than coal from Centralia. Flex Fuel also required changes to boiler 
design to accommodate Powder River Basin coal.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Washington evaluated the cost effectiveness of the technically 
feasible control options for TransAlta. It found that Flex Fuel alone 
will reduce NOX emissions by 3,139 t/y and will also reduce 
SO2 emissions by 1,287 t/y. See SIP Supplement L-67. Based 
on evaluation of installations at other large tangentially fired power 
plants, the State determined that SNCR plus Flex Fuel is expected to 
achieve a 20 to 25% reduction in NOX emissions. The State 
estimated capital costs for SNCR plus Flex Fuel at TransAlta to be $135 
million and annual operating costs of $17.3 million based on an 
emission limit of 0.21 lb/mmbtu. The retrofit costs for TransAlta will 
be higher than other similarly sized power plants due to boiler design. 
The State also calculated the SNCR plus Flex Fuel cost effectiveness to 
be $2,162/t based on a 25% control efficiency and a 8,022 t/y reduction 
in NOX emissions. See SIP Supplement L-71.
    Among the other technologies considered, Washington also evaluated 
SCR which would provide a 95% NOX control efficiency. The 
State considered two scenarios; one including SCR on only one unit and 
another scenario with SCR on both units. Using a presumptive BART 
emission limit of 0.15 lb NOX/mmbtu, they estimated the 
emission reductions for SCR on one unit to be 4,364 t/y and 7,855 t/y 
for SCR on both units. The capital cost for one unit was estimated at 
$290.12 million and about double that for SCR on both units. Washington 
estimated it would take 4 years to design and install SCR with a 
compliance date of late 2016. The cost effectiveness for SCR on only 
one unit was calculated at $ 8,205/t. See SIP Supplement L-58. If SCR 
was to be installed on both units, the State calculated cost 
effectiveness for SCR on Unit 1 to be $14,800/t and Unit 
2 to be $8,400/t. See SIP Supplement L-69. Washington 
determined SCR is not cost effective under either scenario and that it 
is not reasonable to require SCR for this facility.
    Washington considered the modeled visibility impairment in the 
baseline years and the visibility improvement potentially achievable 
from the various control technologies and control scenarios. The 
modeling indicated that TransAlta has the greatest impact at Mt. 
Rainier National Park with a current 5.5 dv impact (3 year 98th 
percentile value). See Table below and SIP Supplement Appendix L Table 
3-1. This impact is reduced to 3.5 dv with emission limits based on 
Flex Fuel plus SNCR, for a 2.0 dv improvement. Significant improvement 
in visibility is also expected in 11 other Class I areas. With the 
expected decommissioning of both emission units by December 31, 2025, 
there will be a 5.5 dv improvement in visibility at Mt. Rainier 
National Park and significant improvement in the 11 other Class I 
areas. The estimated visibility impact from baseline emissions and the 
improvement associated with each control technology is shown below. See 
SIP Supplement Table 3-1.

                                    Three-Year Delta Deciview Ranking Summary
         [The 8th day in any year or the 22nd day over the 3-year period, are the 98th percentile days]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Control      Control      Control      Control
         Class I area             Visibility       Baseline     scenario     scenario     scenario     scenario
                                   criterion      emissions      1SNCR      2Flex fuel   3Flex fuel      4SCR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine Lakes Wilderness......  Max 98% value           4.871        4.393        3.564        2.949        3.057
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          4.346        3.844        2.994        3.057        2.531
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Glacier Peak Wilderness......  Max 98% value           3.615        3.209        2.403        2.049        2.036
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          2.622        2.294        1.905        1.532        1.562
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Goat Rocks Wilderness........  Max 98% value           4.993        4.398        3.676        3.069        3.137
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          4.286        3.708        3.108        2.637        2.385
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Adams Wilderness.........  Max 98% value           3.628        3.118        2.646        2.194        1.984
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          3.628        3.152        2.591        2.147        1.934
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Hood Wilderness..........  Max 98% value           3.471        3.051        2.345        1.978        2.082
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          2.830        2.388        1.997        1.665        1.543
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Jefferson Wilderness.....  Max 98% value           2.079        1.784        1.399        1.150        1.159
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.888        1.596        1.267        1.053        1.061
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Rainier National Park....  Max 98% value           5.447        4.774        4.318        3.606        3.359
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          5.489        4.743        4.225        3.501        3.275
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Mt. Washington Wilderness....  Max 98% value           2.027        1.756        1.323        1.106        1.170
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.414        1.248        1.323        0.737        0.855
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).

[[Page 30472]]

 
North Cascades National Park.  Max 98% value           2.821        2.496        1.852        1.570        1.658
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          2.212        1.887        1.486        1.570        1.183
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Olympic National Park........  Max 98% value           4.645        4.040        3.192        2.695        2.506
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          4.024        3.456        2.991        2.486        2.339
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Pasayten Wilderness..........  Max 98% value           1.954        1.701        1.287        1.075        1.160
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.482        1.318        0.999        0.822        0.864
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
Three Sisters Wilderness.....  Max 98% value           2.172        1.910        1.333        1.139        1.172
                                (8th high) in
                                any year.
                               3-yrs Combined          1.538        1.328        0.993        0.819        0.902
                                98% value (22nd
                                high).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ecology also evaluated the energy and non-air environmental impacts 
associated with the technically feasible control options. Upon review, 
Ecology found there would be insignificant energy and non-air 
environmental impacts from installation of the technically feasible 
control options. The State did recognize that ammonia slip from SNCR 
could cause an increase in secondary aerosol due to the increase in 
ammonia in the atmosphere, but found that this will be limited by an 
optimization study during the first year of operation of SNCR.
    Based on its full consideration of the BART factors as described 
above, Washington determined BART for NOX for the TransAlta 
plant is 0.21 lb/mmbtu based on installation and operation of SNCR plus 
Flex Fuel. The State's BART determination also requires the use of sub-
bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin, or other coal that will 
achieve similar emission rates, and a requirement to optimize SNCR for 
the lowest NOX emissions while minimizing ammonia slip. The 
BART determination allows for the NOX limit to be revised 
reflecting the optimization to a level no higher than 0.21 lb/mmbtu. 
See SIP Supplement, Table 4-1 at L-75 and Revised BART Compliance Order 
Section 5.5.3. The Revised BART Compliance Order also requires one coal 
fired unit to permanently cease burning coal no later than December 31, 
2020 and the second coal fired unit to permanently cease burning coal 
no later than December 31, 2025 unless Ecology determines that state or 
federal law requires that SCR must be installed on either unit. Revised 
BART Compliance Order Section 4. The BART determination results in 
approximately a 30% NOX reduction from the existing 
NOX emission limit of 0.302 and 0.306 lb/mmBtu.

B. EPA's Assessment of the State's BART Determination

    EPA reviewed Washington's SIP submittal, including the December 22, 
2010 Regional Haze Submittal and the December 29, 2011 SIP Supplement. 
Washington followed 40 CFR 308(e) and EPA BART Guidelines of Appendix Y 
in determining BART for TransAlta. Washington evaluated NOX 
controls taking into consideration the 5 factors for making a BART 
determination.
    Ecology evaluated 37 different NOX control technologies 
during its RACT review process for TransAlta in 1997. That analysis was 
supplemented and updated as part of their 2011 BART determination for 
the facility. EPA believes that Washington appropriately determined the 
costs of compliance, including the cost effectiveness of alternative 
controls. The initial cost estimates were determined by TransAlta's 
contractor CH2MHill and reviewed by Washington. Where Washington 
determined that the CH2MHill analysis was lacking detail, Washington 
requested and received additional information. The costs were generally 
based on EPA's Cost Control Manual, but deviations were used where 
appropriate based on the physical constraints at the TransAlta 
facility. For example, the plant currently employs wet limestone forced 
oxidation to control SO2 emissions, electrostatic 
precipitators followed by wet scrubbing systems to control particulate 
matter, and low NOX burners with close coupled overfire air 
to control NOX emissions. These existing controls occupy 
space in the exhaust ducting minimizing space for additional controls 
for NOX. Therefore, additional control equipment would 
require the redesign and installation of additional support structures, 
as well as the potential relocation of existing control equipment, thus 
increasing the cost of additional NOX control. For example, 
SNCR would need to be located in an area where the exhaust temperature 
is around 2100 [deg]F, and existing SCR requires cooler temperatures, 
both of which would require a redesign of support structures.
    As previously explained, Washington determined that there are 
insignificant energy and non-air environmental impacts from either SNCR 
plus flex fuel or SCR. We acknowledge that either SNCR or SCR will 
require an insignificant amount of additional energy. As the State 
recognized, ammonia slip, or excess ammonia in the exhaust gasses from 
SNCR, can cause fouling of the air heater requiring excessive 
maintenance as well as increased particulate formation in the 
atmosphere through secondary aerosol formation to ammonium sulfate and 
ammonium nitrate. However, this potential impact is minimized by the 
ammonia limit of 0.5 parts per million and the required optimization 
protocol. As discussed above, Ecology recognized that the facility 
previously installed BART for SO2 and particulate matter and 
improved NOX control and EPA believes that these controls 
were appropriately considered in evaluating the emission reductions and 
NOX control costs in making the BART determination.
    As described above, Ecology evaluated the degree of visibility

[[Page 30473]]

improvement anticipated from the use of possible NOX control 
technologies. Washington appropriately determined that the 
NOX BART determination will result in visibility improvement 
in Mt Rainier National Park by 2.0 dv on the 20% most impaired days and 
improve visibility in 11 other Class I areas.
    The specific BART emission limits and compliance dates, along with 
the requirements for the optimization study, monitoring, recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements, are included in the Revised BART Compliance 
Order. Upon EPA approval of this portion of the Regional Haze SIP 
Submittal, the Order becomes federally enforceable for purposes of the 
Washington Regional Haze SIP. Finally, pursuant to Washington's 
visibility protection program, WAC 173-400-151, the controls required 
by the State's BART determination must be installed as expeditiously as 
possible but in no event later than five years from when the State's 
Regional Haze SIP amendment is approved by EPA. More specifically, the 
Revised BART Compliance Order, which was included in the update to the 
Regional Haze SIP submission, provides that ``[b]eginning on the 31st 
operating day after December 31, 2012 the NOX emissions 
limitation for the two coal fired utility steam generating units is 
0.21 lb/mmbtu, 30 operating day average, both units averaged together 
including all emissions during start-up and shut-down.'' SIP Supplement 
L-30 (Revised BART Compliance Order section 1.1) Therefore, this 
satisfies the requirement in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv) that ``each source 
subject to BART install and operate BART as expeditiously as possible, 
but in no event later than 5 years after approval of the implementation 
plan approval.''
    For the above reasons, EPA agrees with Ecology's analysis and its 
the selection of BART for NOX at the TransAlta plant because 
the analyses were conducted in a manner that is consistent with EPA's 
BART Guidelines. Additionally, the conclusions reflect a reasonable 
application of EPA's guidance to this particular source. Therefore, EPA 
proposes to approve the NOX BART determination for TransAlta 
as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e).

IV. What action is EPA proposing?

    For the reasons explained above, and in recognition of the State 
legislation and the Revised BART Compliance Order which result in the 
decommissioning of the coal-fired units by 2020 and 2025, EPA is 
proposing to approve the BART determination for TransAlta, including 
the Revised BART Compliance Order. The BART determination requires SNCR 
plus Flex Fuel as BART for the TransAlta coal-fired power plant with an 
emission limit of 0.21 lb/mmBtu with a 30 day rolling average beginning 
January 31, 2013, including fuel quality requirements and the allowance 
for a revised NOX emission limit not to exceed 0.21 lb/
mmbtu.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting 
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond 
those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the rule neither imposes substantial direct compliance costs on 
tribal governments, nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 
requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not 
apply to this rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless 
provided a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and 
Washington in letters dated January 14, 2011. EPA received one request 
for consultation, and we have followed-up with that Tribe.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Visibility, and Volatile 
organic compounds.

    Dated: May 14, 2012.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2012-12504 Filed 5-22-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P