Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, 30467-30473 [2012-12504]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
set forth in section 169A and 169B of
the Act and in 40 CFR 51.300–308
regarding regional haze.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Oregon Notice Provision
Oregon Revised Statute 468.126,
prohibits ODEQ from imposing a
penalty for violation of an air, water, or
solid waste permit unless the source has
been provided five days’ advanced
written notice of the violation and has
not come into compliance or submitted
a compliance schedule within that fiveday period. By its terms, the statute does
not apply to Oregon’s Title V program
or to any program if application of the
notice provision would disqualify the
program from Federal delegation.
Oregon has previously confirmed that,
because application of the notice
provision would preclude EPA approval
of the Oregon SIP, no advance notice is
required for violation of SIP
requirements.
VI. Scope of Action
Oregon has not demonstrated
authority to implement and enforce the
Oregon Administrative rules within
‘‘Indian Country’’ as defined in 18
U.S.C. 1151. ‘‘Indian country’’ is
defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1) All
land within the limits of any Indian
reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States Government,
notwithstanding the issuance of any
patent, and including rights-of-way
running through the reservation, (2) all
dependent Indian communities within
the borders of the United States,
whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof,
and whether within or without the
limits of a State, and (3) all Indian
allotments, the Indian titles to which
have not been extinguished, including
rights-of-way running through the same.
Under this definition, EPA treats as
reservations trust lands validly set aside
for the use of a Tribe even if the trust
lands have not been formally designated
as a reservation. Therefore, this SIP
approval does not extend to ‘‘Indian
Country’’ in Oregon. See CAA sections
110(a)(2)(A) (SIP shall include
enforceable emission limits),
110(a)(2)(E)(i) (State must have adequate
authority under State law to carry out
SIP), and 172(c)(6) (nonattainment SIPs
shall include enforceable emission
limits).
VII. 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);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 May 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
sections 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
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30467
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. 2012–12490 Filed 5–22–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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: R10Public_Comments@epa.gov.
• 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,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
30468
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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, body.steve@epa.gov, or the
above EPA, Region 10 address.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 May 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
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).
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,
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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-today and season-to-season depending on
2 See
64 FR at 35715.
3 Id.
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
variation in meteorology and emission
rates.
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
II. Requirements for Regional Haze
SIPs
A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
Regional haze SIPs must assure
reasonable progress towards the
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).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 May 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
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
5 The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially
subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30469
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 visibilityimpairing 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
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
30470
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 May 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
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.)
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
30471
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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.
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]
Class I area
Alpine Lakes Wilderness ..............
Glacier Peak Wilderness ..............
Goat Rocks Wilderness ................
Mt. Adams Wilderness .................
Mt. Hood Wilderness ....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Mt. Jefferson Wilderness ..............
Mt. Rainier National Park .............
Mt. Washington Wilderness ..........
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 May 22, 2012
Baseline
emissions
Visibility criterion
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Control
scenario
1SNCR
Control
scenario
2Flex fuel
Control
scenario
3Flex fuel
Control
scenario
4SCR
(8th high) in any
4.871
4.393
3.564
2.949
3.057
98% value (22nd
4.346
3.844
2.994
3.057
2.531
(8th high) in any
3.615
3.209
2.403
2.049
2.036
98% value (22nd
2.622
2.294
1.905
1.532
1.562
(8th high) in any
4.993
4.398
3.676
3.069
3.137
98% value (22nd
4.286
3.708
3.108
2.637
2.385
(8th high) in any
3.628
3.118
2.646
2.194
1.984
98% value (22nd
3.628
3.152
2.591
2.147
1.934
(8th high) in any
3.471
3.051
2.345
1.978
2.082
98% value (22nd
2.830
2.388
1.997
1.665
1.543
(8th high) in any
2.079
1.784
1.399
1.150
1.159
98% value (22nd
1.888
1.596
1.267
1.053
1.061
(8th high) in any
5.447
4.774
4.318
3.606
3.359
98% value (22nd
5.489
4.743
4.225
3.501
3.275
(8th high) in any
2.027
1.756
1.323
1.106
1.170
98% value (22nd
1.414
1.248
1.323
0.737
0.855
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
30472
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
THREE-YEAR DELTA DECIVIEW RANKING SUMMARY—Continued
[The 8th day in any year or the 22nd day over the 3-year period, are the 98th percentile days]
Class I area
North Cascades National Park .....
Olympic National Park ..................
Pasayten Wilderness ....................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Three Sisters Wilderness .............
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
high).
Max 98% value
year.
3-yrs Combined
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 May 22, 2012
Baseline
emissions
Visibility criterion
Jkt 226001
Control
scenario
1SNCR
Control
scenario
3Flex fuel
Control
scenario
4SCR
(8th high) in any
2.821
2.496
1.852
1.570
1.658
98% value (22nd
2.212
1.887
1.486
1.570
1.183
(8th high) in any
4.645
4.040
3.192
2.695
2.506
98% value (22nd
4.024
3.456
2.991
2.486
2.339
(8th high) in any
1.954
1.701
1.287
1.075
1.160
98% value (22nd
1.482
1.318
0.999
0.822
0.864
(8th high) in any
2.172
1.910
1.333
1.139
1.172
98% value (22nd
1.538
1.328
0.993
0.819
0.902
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
PO 00000
Control
scenario
2Flex fuel
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 °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
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules
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 shutdown.’’ 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:36 May 22, 2012
Jkt 226001
TransAlta, including the Revised BART
Compliance Order. The BART
determination requires SNCR plus Flex
Fuel as BART for the TransAlta coalfired 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
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30473
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
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 122
[FRL–9671–5; EPA–HQ–OW–2012–0195]
Notice of Intent To Revise Stormwater
Regulations To Specify That an NPDES
Permit Is Not Required for Stormwater
Discharges From Logging Roads and
To Seek Comment on Approaches for
Addressing Water Quality Impacts
From Forest Road Discharges
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
The EPA intends to
expeditiously propose revisions to its
Phase I stormwater regulations to
specify that stormwater discharges from
logging roads 1 are not stormwater
discharges ‘‘associated with industrial
activity.’’ This notice of intent is in
SUMMARY:
1 EPA notes that the 9th Circuit decision in NEDC
v. Brown addressed only certain logging roads, not
forest roads more generally. EPA interprets the
decision as not affecting the status of silvicutural
activities other than logging roads. EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(14) and 122.27
exclude most silviculture activities from the
requirement to obtain an NPDES stormwater permit,
with certain exceptions.
E:\FR\FM\23MYP1.SGM
23MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30467-30473]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov.
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, body.steve@epa.gov, 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