ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

IEPA-RlO-OAR-2012-0581; A-1-FRLApproval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 

Idaho 

Amalgamated Sugar Company Nampa BART Alternative 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revised 

BART determination and an alternate control measure for The Amalgamated Sugar Company, 

LLC. (TASCO) plant located in Nampa, Canyon County, Idaho, to meet the requirements of Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for regional haze. The EPA previously approved the 

State's BART detennination for TASCO as meeting the requirements for the regional haze 

provisions in the Clean Air Act (CAA) on June 22, 2011. On June 29, 2012, the State of Idaho 

submitted revisions to its Regional Haze State Implementation Plan that included a revised 

BART detennination for the TASCO t~tcility, a revised emission limitation for particulate matter 

(PM), and an alternative control measure tor TASCO to replace the Federally approved sulfur 

dioxide (S02) BART determination. The EPA proposes to vacate the previously approved S02 

BART determination tor TASCO, approve the revised BART detennination, the revised 

emission limitation, and the alternative control measure at T ASCO. 

DATES: Written comments must be received on or hef()fc llnsert date 30 days from date of 

publication in the Federal Register). 
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-0AR-2012-

0581, by one ofthe following methods: 

A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

B. Mail: Steve Body, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, A WT -107, 1200 Sixth 

A venue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 981 0 I 

C. E-mail: body.steve@epa.gov [or R I 0-Public _ Comments@epa.gov] 

D. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9111 Floor, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. Attention: Steve Body, Otlice of Air Waste, and Toxics, AWT-1 07. 

Such deliveries are only accepted during nonnal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed infonnation. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-RlO-OAR-2012-0581. The 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 infonnation 

provided, unless the comment includes infonnation claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit 

infonnation 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 the 

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 the EPA without going through 

www.rcgulations.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, the 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 

2 
the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 

clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be fi·ee of any defects or viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

infonnation whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 

material is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy fom1. 

Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 

in hard copy during nonnal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 

10, 1200 Sixth A venue, Seattle, Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body, (206) 553-0782, or by email at 

body. steve@epa. gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever "we," "us," or 

"our" is used, we mean the EPA. Intonnation is organized as follows: 

Table of Contents: 

I. Background 

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART Alternative Measures 

III. Idaho's State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revision Submittal 

IV. The EPA's Evaluation of SIP Revision Submittal 

V. The EPA's Proposed Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

3 
I. Background 

In the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in the Nation's national parks and wildcmess 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 1698. The EPA promulgated regional haze 

regulations (RHR) in 1999 to implement sections 169A and 1698 of the Act. These regulations 

require slates 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); sec 

also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005) and 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006). 

Regional haze is impairment of visual range or colorization caused by air pollution, 

principally fine particulate, 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. These sources and 

activities may emit tine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 

carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (S02), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

and in some cases, ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Fine particulate can also cause 

serious health effects and mortality in humans, and contributes to environmental effects such as 

acid deposition and eutrophication. Sec 64 FRat 35715. 

1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness 

areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 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 l area includes subsequent changes in boundaries, 

such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class l 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 l Federal area is 

the responsibility of a "Federal Land Manager." 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term "Class l area" in this 

action, we mean a "mandatory Class I Federal area." 

4 
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 in most national parks and 

wilderness areas. The 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. 2 Visibility impairment also varies day-to-day and by season depending 

on variations in meteorology and emission rates. The deciview (dv) is the metric by which 

visibility is measured in the regional haze program. A change of 1 dv is generally considered the 

change in visual range that the human eye can perceive. 

The RHR requires each State's regional haze implementation plan to contain emission 

limitations representing BART and schedules for compliance with BART for each source subject 

to BART, unless the State demonstrates that an emissions trading program or other altemative 

will achieve greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions. A State may opt to 

implement or require participation in an emission trading program or other alternative measure 

rather than require sources subject to BART to install, operate, and maintain BART. 

On April 16, 2007, Idaho submitted to the EPA for approval new and revised rules that 

provide the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) the regulatory authority to 

address regional haze and to implement BART (BART Authority rule). The EPA approved these 

rules on June 9, 2011. 76 FR 33651. Idaho submitted its Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308 to the EPA on October 25, 2010 (20 10 RH 

SIP submittal). The 2010 RH SIP submittal covers the planning period of2008 through 2018 

and, among the other required elements, includes a BART determination for the T ASCO facility 

in Nampa. Idaho. On June 22, 2011, the EPA approved the BART related provisions of Idaho's 

2 !d. 

5 
2010 RH SIP submittal, including the final BART determination for the TASCO facility3

. 76 FR 

36329. That approval incorporated by reference the September 7, 2010, TASCO Tier II 

Operating Pern1it No. T2-2009.0105 (2010 TASCO Tier II Operating Pennit) that contained the 

emission limitations representing BART t(n· TASCO. On November 8, 2012, EPA took tina! 

action to approve the remaining elements in the Idaho Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 66929. Thus, 

Idaho's 2010 RH SIP is fully approved. 

On June 29,2012, Idaho submitted revisions (2012 RH SIP submittal) to the 2010 RH 

SIP that includes: a revised NOx BART detern1ination; a more stringent particulate matter (PM) 

emission limitation; and an alternative control measure to replace the S02 BART determination 

tor TASCO's tossil fuel-tired Riley Boiler. This alternative control measure is also referred to as 

the BART Alternative. In addition to the new NOx and PM emission limitations on the Riley 

Boiler, the alternative control measure relies on control of NOx emissions from two other boilers 

at the TASCO facility in Nampa, that are not BART eligible emission units (non-BART boilers). 

The alternative measure also takes into account emission reductions resulting from the 

pennanent shutdown of three coal tired pulp-dryers. The revised NOx BART determination, 

more stringent PM emission limitation, and the BART Alternative are contained in a revised Tier 

II Operating Pem1it, T2-2009.0105 issued to TASCO December 23,2011 (2011 TASCO Tier II 

Operating Pennit). As explained below this alternative measure and revised pem1it result in 

greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than the improvement expected 

from the BART detennination previously approved. 

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART Alternative Measures 

3 Upon EPA's final action, TASCO tiled a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging EPA's 

approval of Idaho's BART determination for their Nampa facility. See Amalgamated Sugar v. EPA. No. 11-72445 (9th 

C'ir.) The case is pending before the Ninth Circuit. 

6 
The RHR contains provisions whereby a state may choose to implement an altcmative 

measure as an alternative to BART, if the state can demonstrate that the alternative measure 

achieves greater reasonable progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions than would be 

achieved through the installation, operation and maintenance of BART. The requirements tor 

alternative measures arc established at 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). As explained in the RHR, the state 

must demonstrate that all necessary emission reductions will take place during the first long term 

strategy period (i.e., by 20 18) and that the emissions reductions resulting from the alternative 

measure will be surplus to those reductions resulting from measures adopted to meet 

requirements of the CAA as of the baseline elate of the SIP. 

The Idaho rules provide IDEQ authority to consider and adopt altemativc measures as an 

alternative to BART. See IDAPA 58.01.0 1.668.06.4 The EPA approved this BART Alternative 

rule when it approved the Idaho BART Authority rule. 76 FR 33652 (June 9, 2011 ). 

Sources subject to BART must be in compliance with the BART emission limitations as 

soon as practical but no later than 5 years after EPA approves the implementation plan revision. 

40 CFR 5l.308(e)( I )(iv). The EPA approval of Idaho's BART provisions became effective July 

22, 2011, thus TASCO must be in compliance with the BART requirements no later than July 

22, 2016. Under the BART Alternative, as specified in the revised penn it, TASCO must comply 

with the emission limitations by July 22, 2016, which is well within the first long term strategy 

period which ends December, 2018. 

4 Specifically the IDEQ BART Altemative rule provides: "BART Aiternative. As an altemative to the installation 

of BART for a source or sources, the Department may approve a BART alternative. If the Department approves 

source grouping as a BART alternative, only sources (including BART-eligible and non-BART eligible sources) 

causing or contributing to visibility impairment to the same mandatory Class I Federal Area may be grouped 

together: a. If a source(s) proposes a BART alternative, the resultant emissions reduction and visibility impacts 

must be compared with those that would result from the BART options evaluated for the source(s). b. Source(s) 

proposing a BART altemative must demonstrate that this BART alternative will achieve greater reasonable progress 

than would be achieved through the installation and operation of BART. c. Source(s) proposing a BART altemative 

shall include in the BART analysis an analysis and justification of the averaging period and method of evaluating 

compliance with the proposed emission limitation. IDAP A 5R.O 1.0 1.668.06." 

7 
Ill. Idaho's SIP Revision Submittal 

T ASCO operates a sugar beet processing facility in Nampa, Idaho, that includes a fossil 

fuel tired boiler refeiTed to as the "Riley Boiler". The Riley Boiler is a BART eligible source 

and is subject to BART. In the tina! action on the BART provisions in the 2010 RH SIP 

submittal, the EPA approved IDEQ's BART detennination tor the Riley Boiler. 76 FR 36329. 

The approved BART level technology and emission limitations identified tor the Riley Boiler 

and contained in the 2010 T ASCO Tier II Operating Permit are: 

PM: 14 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) and requires the emissions to be controlled using a 

baghouse; 

S02 : 115 lbs/hr and requires the emissions to be controlled with spray-dry tlue gas 

desulfurization (spray-dry FGD); and 

NOx: 186 lbs/hr and requires the NOx emissions to be controlled using low NOx burners 

with overtire air (LNB-OFA). 

Subsequent to the 2010 RH SIP submission and approval, TASCO submitted to IDEQ 

additional site-specific engineering analyses and a proposal tor an alternative measure to replace 

the S02 BART determination tor its bcility. Dispersion modeling was conducted to compare the 

visibility improvement expected from the alternative control measure to visibility improvement 

expected ti·om implementation of BART. Based on the new intonnation and proposal, IDEQ 

revised pmiions of Chapter 10 of the 20 I 0 RH SIP and submitted the revisions, along with 

supporting technical documentation, to the EPA. The 2012 RH SIP submittal contains, among 

other elements, a new N Ox BART detennination for the Riley Boiler and the 20 I I T ASCO Tier 

II Operating Permit for the Riley Boiler. 

8 
·The 2012 RH SIP submittal revises the NOx BART detem1ination for the Riley Boiler. 

The 2010 RH SIP submittal identified low NOx burners (LNB), LNB with overtire air (OFA), 

and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) as all technically feasible NOx controls for the Riley 

Boiler. The State evaluated the cost etlectiveness of each technology and cletennined that: LNB 

is cost effective at $921/ton; LNB-OFA is cost effective at $1270/ton with an incremental cost 

over LNB at $2431/ton. At that time, the State detennined that SCR had a cost effectiveness 

value of $3768/ton and an incremental cost over LNB-OFA of $1 0,245/ton. In the 2010 RH SIP 

submittal, Idaho determined that SCR is not cost effective based on the incremental cost of SCR 

over the cost of LNB-OFA. In the final action on Idaho's 2010 RH SIP submittal, the EPA 

approved the State's BART determination. As explained, based on additional on-site engineering 

analysis conducted by T ASCO, Idaho subsequently dctennined that neither LN B-OF A nor SCR 

are technically feasible at this facility. See 2012 RH SIP submittal, Chapter 10, Section 10.5. ln 

the detailed engineering analysis conducted tor installation of LN B-OF A, T ASCO detetmined 

that there is insufficient space in the combustion chamber for LNB-OFA tor adequate 

combustion and flame management. As also explained, T ASCO and the State now consider 

SCR to be technically infeasible due to inadequate space between the boiler and bughouse and 

concerns about catalyst fouling and erosion. The analysis also determined that installation after 

the baghouse would not provide adequate exhaust temperature tor SCR to function properly. lei. 

Thus, the 2012 RH SIP submittal finds that LN B is the only technically feasible NOx control 

technology tor the Riley Boiler. 

Regardless ofthe revised detennination of what NOx control is technically feasible for 

the Riley Boiler, new, more stringent, BART emission limitations t(x NOx were included in the 

State's revised BART determination and the new, more stringent, NOx and PM emission 

9 
limitations are included in the revised 2011 Tier II Operating Permit. See 2012 RH SIP submittal 

Chapter I 0, Section 10.5 Table 3, and 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Penn it Condition 3.4. The 

revised NOx BART determination is based on LNBs for NOx control. The revised NOx BART 

detennination for the Riley Boiler strengthens the emission limitations from 186 lbs/hr to 147 

lbs/hr, and results in a 21% reduction in NOx emissions from the original BART detem1ination 

tor the Riley Boiler. It also changes the identified control technology tor NOx upon which the 

BART emission limitation is based, from LNB-OFA to LNBs. As explained below, this new 

BART determination and more stringent emission limitations were used in the demonstration 

that the BART Alternative provides for greater reasonable pro!:,•Tess to achieve natural visibility 

conditions than BART. 

The 2012 RH SIP submittal also proposes as a BART Alternative an alternative measure 

to the S02 BART determination for the Riley Boiler. This alternative measure covers six 

emission units at the TASCO facility: the Riley Boiler, the Babcock & Wilcox (B&W) Boilers 

#1 and #2, and the South, Center, and North Pulp dryers. The alternative measure replaces the 

spray-dry FGD S02 control on the Riley Boiler with LNB NOx control on the B&W Boilers #1 

& #2 and takes into account the emission reductions resulting from the shutdown of the three 

pulp dryers. Thus, the retrofit of the coal-tired low-NOx burners on the B&W Boilers and 

resulting NOx reductions and credit for the pennanent shutdown of the three pulp dryers arc 

intended to replace the BART S02 emission limitation for the Riley Boiler. The controls for the 

B&W Boilers #I & #2 and shutdown requirements tor the South Pulp Dryer in the 2011 TASCO 

Tier II Operating Permit, (Condition 4.1) will become Federally enforceable upon final approval 

of this proposal. The pennanent shutdown of the Center and North pulp dryers is Federally 

enforceable, as required by the September 30, 2002, T ASCO Tier II pennit currently in the 

10 
Federally approved SIP. The 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit also includes a revised PM 

limitation for the Riley Boiler, reducing the PM emission limitation from 14 lbs/hr to 12.4 lbs/hr. 

The strengthened PM emission limitation results in an II% reduction in PM emissions t!·om the 

emissions expected th)ln the BART determination previously approved. 

T ASCO conducted air quality dispersion modeling to estimate visibility improvement in 

affected Class I areas in accordance with the three-state, Washington, Idaho, and Oregon BART 

Modeling Protocol to demonstrate greater reasonable progress in achieving natural visibility 

conditions. This protocol underwent extensive review and approval and formed the basis for 

much of the BART modeling for regional haze conducted in the Pacific Northwest, including 

modeling in Idaho's 2010 RH SIP submittal. In the 2012 RH SIP submittal, the State 

demonstrated the visibility improving advantages of the BART Alternative by comparing the 

visibility improvement of the revised BART for the Riley Boiler in the 2012 RH SIP submittal 

with the improvement resulting from the BART Alternative. The model input emissions for S02, 

NOx and PM were determined for all six emission units included in the alternative measure: the 

Riley Boiler (S02, NOx, and PM), B&W Boilers #1 and #2 (NOx), and the three coal-tired pulp 

dryers (S02, NOx and PM). Three scenarios were modeled tor all six emission units: baseline 

(pre-BART), revised BART tor Riley Boiler, and the BART Alternative. 

Emissions from the T ASCO facility impairs visibility at seven mandatory Class I areas 

within 300 kilometers (km): Eagle Cap Wilderness Area, Oregon; Craters ofthe Moon National 

Monument, Idaho; Hells Canyon Wilderness Area, Oregon; Jarbidge Wilderness Area, Nevada; 

Sawtooth Wilderness Area, Idaho; Selway-Bitteroot Wilderness Area, Idaho; and the Strawberry 

Wilderness Area, Oregon. The results of this modeling effort f(w all seven Class I areas are 

presented in the 2012 RH SIP submittal, Chapter 10, Section 1 0.5, Table 6. The deciview impact 

1 1 
for the 22nd highest day over the 2003 to 2005 time period is presented for each of the seven 

Class I areas. The submittal shows the number of days with impainnent greater than 0.5 dv in 

the 2003 to 2005 time period. 

The Table below presents the modeled visibility, at all Class I areas within 300 km of the 

TASCO facility at baseline conditions (2003 to 2005), under the revised BART, and under the 

proposed BART Alternative. As shown, the proposed BART Alternative achieves greater 

reasonable progress toward natural conditions than would be achieved through the installation, 

operation and maintenance of BART. 

Table 1 -Modeled Visibility Conditions 

Class I Baseline Visibility Visibility 

An:a Visibility Impact Impact 

Impact und.:r under 

(dvr'·d proposed proposed 

r<:vised RART 

BART Alternative 

(dv)"· d (dv)'· d -

Eagle Cap 2.201 1.512 1.411 

Wilderness, 

OR 

Craters of () 393 0.2(,7 0 245 

the Moon 

Wikkrness, 

ID 

Hells 1.582 1.092 1.059 

Canyon 

Wilderness, 

ID;OR 

Jarbidge 0.375 0.256 0.234 

Wilderness, 

NV 

Sawtooth 0.47 OJI9 0.307 

Wilderness. 

ID 

Selway- 0.439 0.281 0.29X 

Bittenuot 

Wilderness, 

ID 

Strawb<:rry 1.462 1.076 0.917 

Mountain 

Wilderness. 

OR 

(a) Includes pre-BART emi"ions of all sources 

involved in BART and the BART Alternative: 

Ril<:y Boikr, B&W Boikrs 1&2 and tlu.:.: pulp 

dryers. 

(b) Includes all somces involved in BART and 

the BART Alt.:rnatiw under BART operations: 

Riley Boiler ( LNB + SD-FGD). B&W Boilers 

Additional Days ahow Days above 

Visibility 0.5 dv 0.5 dv under 

Improvement baseline'· Revised 

with BART BART' 

Alt.:mative 

vs revised 

BART (dv)<~ 

0.101 195 149 

0.022 10 4 

()(J33 129 S7 

0.022 g 5 

0.012 IX 6 

(0.017) 15 3 

0 15') 80 62 

12 

Days above Decrease in 

0.5 dv under days >0.5 dv 

BART from BART 

Alt<:rnative'· Alternative 

vs Revis<:d 

BART' 

126 23 

3 I 

xo 7 

5 () 

--

6 0 

4 (ll 

51 II 
I &2, three pulp dryers opemting. 

(c) Includes all sources involved in RART and 

the BART Altemativ.: umkr BART Alternative 

operations: Riky 13oilcr(LNBJ, B&W Boilers 

I &2 ( LN B), three pulp dryers shut down. 

(d) The 22m! highest dv value I(Jr the three-yl'ar 

period (2003 2005 ). 

(e) Total number of days in the three-year period 

that exceed 0.5 dv. 

IV. The EPA's Evaluation of the SIP Revision Submittal 

I. Revised BART Determination f(x the Riley Boiler 

The provisions of 40 CFR 51, Appendix Y, followed by Idaho, set forth the process used 

to identify control technologies and to consider the five statutory factors that must be evaluated 

as part of a BART determination. After site specific consideration of the factors, the best 

achievable retrofit technology is identified and the BART emission limitation is specified. 

As discussed previously in this notice, based on a revised analysis conducted and 

provided by T ASCO, Idaho determined that SCR is technically infeasible for the Riley Boiler. 

This new finding does not affect the State's final BART determination because, as the EPA 

previously agreed, Idaho's determination found that even ifSCR was technically feasible it was 

not cost effective and thus, would not qualify as BART. 76 FR 3632. Thus, the 2012 RH SIP 

submittal determination that SCR is technically infeasible does not change the EPA's previous 

agreement that SCR is not BART for this facility. The EPA previously approved the NOx 

BART emission limitation tor the Riley Boiler of 186 lbs/hr, based on LNB-OFA control 

technology. However, T AS CO's further engineering analysis detennined that while there is 

insufficient space in the combustion chamber tor LNB-OF A tor adequate combustion and flame 

management, LNB alone could achieve greater NOX control than the LNB-OFA control. 

Accordingly, Idaho revised its NOx BART determination to reflect the technology change, 

13 
greater control and tighter emission limitations. The compliance date of July 22, 2016 remains 

unchanged. 

In the 2012 RH SIP submittal, Idaho strengthened the NOx BART emission limitation to 

147lhs/hr based on TASCO's reassessment of LNB performance for the Riley Boiler. In light of 

TASCO's revised analysis that the original BART detennination is not technically feasible and 

because the revised BART determination results in a more stringent NOx BART emission 

limitation, the EPA is proposing to vacate our original BART detennination and approve the 

revised NOx BART detennination and this new limitation for the TASCO facility. 

The EPA previously approved Idaho's PM BART emission limitation tor the Riley Boiler 

of 14 lbs/hr, based on baghouse control technology as provided in the 20 I 0 RH SIP submittal. In 

the 2012 RH SIP submittal, Idaho strengthened the PM emission limitation to 12.4 lbs/hr, based 

on TASCO's analysis ofthe perfonnance ofthe baghouse. The revised PM emission limitation 

is more stringent than the limitation previously approved and therefore the EPA is proposing to 

approve this revised PM limitation as a SIP strengthening measure. 

2. Alternative to BART tor the TASCO facility 

The 2012 RH SIP submittal includes a proposed alternative measure to the previously 

approved S02 BART determination tor Riley Boiler. This alternative measure is intended to 

replace the S02 BART emission limitation of 115 lb/hr tor the Riley Boilers with a combined 

NOx emission limitation on the B&W Boilers #1 and #2 of I 03 lbs/hr, and takes into account the 

emission reductions resulting from the pennanent shutdown ofthree coal-tired pulp dryers. The 

baseline emissions tor all three pulp dryers are: NOx-191.2 lbs/hr; S02_17.9 lbs/hr; and PM-927 

lbs/hr. These emissions were permanently eliminated when the pulp dryers were shutdown. 

5 Current statewide regulations limit the sulfur content of coal to I 'Y., by weight. IDAP A 5R.O 1.0 1.725.04. This 

limit would not be affected by the action proposed today and the limit remains applicable to the T ASCO t:1cility. 

14 
Installation of LN B control and establishing emission limitations on the B& W Boilers, 

along with permanently eliminating the emissions associated with the three pulp dryers, result in 

a total reduction in N Ox of 221 tly, S02 of 20.6 t/y, and PM of I 13 t/y. The B& W Boilers are 

non-BART units. The pulp dryers were shutdown because installation of a drying process using 

waste steam ti·om the boilers instead of the pulp dryers reduced the fuel demand that resulted in a 

lower cost operation, eliminating the need t(w the pulp dryers. The shutdown of the pulp dryers is 

not required under the CAA. Thus, these emission reductions may be considered surplus. The 

total emissions are reduced under the BART Alternative measure compared to both the original 

2010 RH SIP approved BART determination and the revised BARTdetermination in the 2012 

RH SIP submittal. 

As presented in Table I above, dispersion modeling of visibility in all Class I areas 

within 300 km of the T ASCO h1cility demonstrates there is overall greater progress towards 

achieving natural conditions under the BART Alternative. In particular, there is greater progress 

in the Eagle Cap Wilderness Area (the Class I area most impacted by emissions from the 

TASCO facility) ofO.l 01 dv under the BART alternative than under the revised BART 

determination and in the Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area of 0.159 dv. 

The 20 II TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, Pennit Condition 3.3 requires compliance 

with the BART Alternative by July 22, 2016, the same compliance date as the approved BART. 

Additionally, the permit provides that unless LNBs have been installed and operating, as 

required in Pern1it Condition 3.7, on and after July 22, 2016, the Riley Boiler may be tired only 

using natural gas, and that on, and after July 22, 2016, the Riley Boiler may not be tired with 

coal until such date that the coal-tired LNBs are installed and operated in accordance with the 

permit. See 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, Pennit Condition 3.9. Permit condition 14.9 

15 
ofTASCO's Tier I Operating Permit T1-050020, issued May 23,2006, required the North and 

Central pulp dryers to be pennanently shut down and Permit Condition 4.1 of the 2011 TASCO 

Tier II Operating Permit, requires the South Pulp Dryer to be permanently shutdown. Thus, 

there is no delay in compliance with BART requirements under the BART Alternative. 

The 20 II T ASCO Tier II Operating Penn it contains the emission limitations discussed 

above. See 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, Pennit Condition 3.4 and 3.5. The permit 

also contains requirements tor a non-visibility impairing pollutant, specifically carbon monoxide 

(CO). Pcnnit Condition 3.12 requires performance testing for CO. The EPA proposes no action 

on this pennit condition, as it docs not pertain to visibility. 

The second paragraph of Condition 3.3 ofthe Pennit allows TASCO to submit a request 

to obtain IDEQ approved alternatives to BART and to revise the Permit and explains that IDEQ 

will process the request in accordance with its permitting rules. The condition further provides 

that the request must be submitted in time tor any such revision to the permit and the 

con·esponding revision to the RH SIP to be approved prior to July 22, 2016. This provision is 

administrative in nature and addresses the State's procedure tor possible future revisions to the 

permit. As such it is not necessary or appropriate tor EPA to act on this provision. Nevertheless, 

we note that a revision to a Federally approved permit must meet applicable Federal 

requirements before it could be incorporated into the Federally approved SIP. The EPA cannot· 

assure Idaho or TASCO that any submitted BART Alternative measure will be approved until 

that measure has been thoroughly evaluated by the EPA as meeting Federal requirements. 

V. The EPA's Proposed Action 

The EPA is proposing to vacate our previous BART determination tor the TASCO 

16 
facility and to approve Idaho's 2012 RH SIP submittal including the revised NOx BART 

determination for the T ASCO Riley Boiler and the 20 II T ASCO Tier II Operating Penn it 

containing the BART Alternative conditions 1.2 including the table of Regulated Emission Point 

Sources Table, 3.2, 3.3 (first parah'Taph only), 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 

3.16, and 4.1. Specifically, the EPA proposes to approve new BART emission limitations f(Jr 

NOx, the revised PM emission limitations and the BART Alternative at the TASCO facility 

because they provide greater overall reasonable proh'Tess toward achieving natural conditions in 

affected Class I areas than the previously approved BART determination for the TASCO facility. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Review 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that 

complies with the provisions ofthe 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 Oftice of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993); 

• does not impose an inf(mnation 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.); 

17 
• docs not contain a·ny unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Refonn Act of 1995 (Public Law 

I 04-4); 

• does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 

43255, August I 0, 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 ofthose 

requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and 

• docs not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, 

disproportionate human health or environmental cft'ects, using practicable and legally 

permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule docs 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 govemments, nor preempts tribal law. Therefore, the requirements of section 5(b) 

and 5(c) of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 

18 
and Visibility. 

Dated: _C--J,b:_:_I_Y (,_,_J-=-J __ 

R . "D ;t;:l"' \ p A L..'- "' '"' '' 

~c..'f'"""" ~E'"(q \~"-)At_ ~OM. \"-1 \~'\~'A\1)~ 

Region 10. 

19