Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30467 

set forth in section 169A and 169B of 

the Act and in 40 CFR 51.300–308 

regarding regional haze. 

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); 

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 

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 

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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30468 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1Areas 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.’’ 

2See 64 FR at 35715. 

3 Id. 

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). 

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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30469 

4Albuquerque/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). 

5The set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART is listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). 

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. 

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. 

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 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

30470 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6Flex 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.) 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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. 

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 Visibility criterion Baseline 

emissions 

Control 

scenario 

1SNCR 

Control 

scenario 

2Flex fuel 

Control 

scenario 

3Flex fuel 

Control 

scenario 

4SCR 

Alpine Lakes Wilderness .............. Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

4.871 4.393 3.564 2.949 3.057 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

4.346 3.844 2.994 3.057 2.531 

Glacier Peak Wilderness .............. Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

3.615 3.209 2.403 2.049 2.036 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

2.622 2.294 1.905 1.532 1.562 

Goat Rocks Wilderness ................ Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

4.993 4.398 3.676 3.069 3.137 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

4.286 3.708 3.108 2.637 2.385 

Mt. Adams Wilderness ................. Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

3.628 3.118 2.646 2.194 1.984 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

3.628 3.152 2.591 2.147 1.934 

Mt. Hood Wilderness .................... Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

3.471 3.051 2.345 1.978 2.082 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

2.830 2.388 1.997 1.665 1.543 

Mt. Jefferson Wilderness .............. Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

2.079 1.784 1.399 1.150 1.159 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

1.888 1.596 1.267 1.053 1.061 

Mt. Rainier National Park ............. Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

5.447 4.774 4.318 3.606 3.359 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

5.489 4.743 4.225 3.501 3.275 

Mt. Washington Wilderness .......... Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

2.027 1.756 1.323 1.106 1.170 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

1.414 1.248 1.323 0.737 0.855 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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 Visibility criterion Baseline 

emissions 

Control 

scenario 

1SNCR 

Control 

scenario 

2Flex fuel 

Control 

scenario 

3Flex fuel 

Control 

scenario 

4SCR 

North Cascades National Park ..... Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

2.821 2.496 1.852 1.570 1.658 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

2.212 1.887 1.486 1.570 1.183 

Olympic National Park .................. Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

4.645 4.040 3.192 2.695 2.506 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

4.024 3.456 2.991 2.486 2.339 

Pasayten Wilderness .................... Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

1.954 1.701 1.287 1.075 1.160 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

1.482 1.318 0.999 0.822 0.864 

Three Sisters Wilderness ............. Max 98% value (8th high) in any 

year.

2.172 1.910 1.333 1.139 1.172 

3-yrs Combined 98% value (22nd 

high).

1.538 1.328 0.993 0.819 0.902 

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 °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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 23, 2012 / Proposed Rules 30473 

1EPA 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. 

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 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS