Document ID: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0581-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Air Quality Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Idaho Amalgamated Sugar Company Nampa BART Alternative
Posted Date: 2013-06-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 125 (Friday, June 28, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38872-38877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15442]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0581; A-1-FRL-9827-7]

Approval 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 determination 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 determination for the TASCO facility, a revised emission 
limitation for particulate matter (PM), and an alternative control 
measure for TASCO to replace the Federally approved sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) BART determination. The EPA proposes to vacate the 
previously approved SO2 BART determination for TASCO, 
approve the revised BART determination, the revised emission 
limitation, and the alternative control measure at TASCO.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2012-0581, by one of the 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, AWT-
107, 1200

[[Page 38873]]

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    C. Email: body.steve@epa.gov [or R10-Public_Comments@epa.gov]
    D. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Steve Body, 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-
2012-0581. 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 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 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.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, 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 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 free 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 information 
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 form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or 
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Office of Air, Waste 
and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, 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. Information 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

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 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. The EPA promulgated 
regional haze regulations (RHR) 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 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 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 fine particles 
(PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, elemental 
carbon, and soil dust), and their precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide 
(SO2), 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. 
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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 alternative 
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 (2010 RH SIP submittal). The 2010 RH SIP 
submittal covers the planning

[[Page 38874]]

period of 2008 through 2018 and, among the other required elements, 
includes a BART determination for the TASCO facility in Nampa, Idaho. 
On June 22, 2011, the EPA approved the BART related provisions of 
Idaho's 2010 RH SIP submittal, including the final BART determination 
for the TASCO facility.\3\ 76 FR 36329. That approval incorporated by 
reference the September 7, 2010, TASCO Tier II Operating Permit No. T2-
2009.0105 (2010 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit) that contained the 
emission limitations representing BART for TASCO. On November 8, 2012, 
EPA took final action to approve the remaining elements in the Idaho 
Regional Haze SIP. 77 FR 66929. Thus, Idaho's 2010 RH SIP is fully 
approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Upon EPA's final action, TASCO filed 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 Cir.) The case is pending before the 
Ninth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 29, 2012, Idaho submitted revisions (2012 RH SIP submittal) 
to the 2010 RH SIP that includes: a revised NOX BART 
determination; a more stringent particulate matter (PM) emission 
limitation; and an alternative control measure to replace the 
SO2 BART determination for TASCO's fossil fuel-fired 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 permanent shutdown of three coal 
fired pulp-dryers. The revised NOX BART determination, more 
stringent PM emission limitation, and the BART Alternative are 
contained in a revised Tier II Operating Permit, T2-2009.0105 issued to 
TASCO December 23, 2011 (2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit). As 
explained below this alternative measure and revised permit result in 
greater reasonable progress toward natural visibility conditions than 
the improvement expected from the BART determination previously 
approved.

II. Regional Haze Rule Provisions for BART Alternative Measures

    The RHR contains provisions whereby a state may choose to implement 
an alternative 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 for alternative measures are 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 2018) 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 date of the SIP.
    The Idaho rules provide IDEQ authority to consider and adopt 
alternative measures as an alternative to BART. See IDAPA 
58.01.01.668.06.\4\ The EPA approved this BART Alternative rule when it 
approved the Idaho BART Authority rule. 76 FR 33652 (June 9, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Specifically the IDEQ BART Alternative rule provides: ``BART 
Alternative. As an alternative 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 alternative 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 alternative shall include in the BART 
analysis an analysis and justification of the averaging period and 
method of evaluating compliance with the proposed emission 
limitation. IDAPA 58.01.01.668.06.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
51.308(e)(1)(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 permit, 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.

III. Idaho's SIP Revision Submittal

    TASCO operates a sugar beet processing facility in Nampa, Idaho, 
that includes a fossil fuel fired boiler referred to as the ``Riley 
Boiler''. The Riley Boiler is a BART eligible source and is subject to 
BART. In the final action on the BART provisions in the 2010 RH SIP 
submittal, the EPA approved IDEQ's BART determination for the Riley 
Boiler. 76 FR 36329. The approved BART level technology and emission 
limitations identified for the Riley Boiler and contained in the 2010 
TASCO Tier II Operating Permit are:
    PM: 14 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) and requires the emissions to be 
controlled using a baghouse;
    SO2: 115 lbs/hr and requires the emissions to be 
controlled with spray-dry flue gas desulfurization (spray-dry FGD); and
    NOx: 186 lbs/hr and requires the NOX 
emissions to be controlled using low NOX burners with 
overfire air (LNB-OFA).
    Subsequent to the 2010 RH SIP submission and approval, TASCO 
submitted to IDEQ additional site-specific engineering analyses and a 
proposal for an alternative measure to replace the SO2 BART 
determination for its facility. Dispersion modeling was conducted to 
compare the visibility improvement expected from the alternative 
control measure to visibility improvement expected from implementation 
of BART. Based on the new information and proposal, IDEQ revised 
portions of Chapter 10 of the 2010 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 NOX BART 
determination for the Riley Boiler and the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating 
Permit for the Riley Boiler.
    The 2012 RH SIP submittal revises the NOX BART 
determination for the Riley Boiler. The 2010 RH SIP submittal 
identified low NOX burners (LNB), LNB with overfire air 
(OFA), and selective catalytic reduction (SCR) as all technically 
feasible NOX controls for the Riley Boiler. The State 
evaluated the cost effectiveness of each technology and determined 
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 determined that SCR had a cost effectiveness value of $3768/
ton and an incremental cost over LNB-OFA of $10,245/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 TASCO, Idaho subsequently determined 
that neither LNB-OFA nor SCR are technically feasible at this facility. 
See 2012 RH SIP submittal, Chapter 10, Section 10.5. In

[[Page 38875]]

the detailed engineering analysis conducted for installation of LNB-
OFA, TASCO determined that there is insufficient space in the 
combustion chamber for LNB-OFA for adequate combustion and flame 
management. As also explained, TASCO and the State now consider SCR to 
be technically infeasible due to inadequate space between the boiler 
and baghouse and concerns about catalyst fouling and erosion. The 
analysis also determined that installation after the baghouse would not 
provide adequate exhaust temperature for SCR to function properly. Id. 
Thus, the 2012 RH SIP submittal finds that LNB is the only technically 
feasible NOX control technology for the Riley Boiler.
    Regardless of the revised determination of what NOx control is 
technically feasible for the Riley Boiler, new, more stringent, BART 
emission limitations for NOx were included in the State's revised BART 
determination and the new, more stringent, NOx and PM emission 
limitations are included in the revised 2011Tier II Operating Permit. 
See 2012 RH SIP submittal Chapter 10, Section 10.5 Table 3, and 2011 
TASCO Tier II Operating Permit Condition 3.4. The revised NOx BART 
determination is based on LNBs for NOx control. The revised NOx BART 
determination 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 determination for the Riley Boiler. It 
also changes the identified control technology for 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 progress to achieve natural visibility 
conditions than BART.
    The 2012 RH SIP submittal also proposes as a BART Alternative an 
alternative measure to the SO2 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 
SO2 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-fired low-NOx burners on the B&W Boilers and 
resulting NOx reductions and credit for the permanent shutdown of the 
three pulp dryers are intended to replace the BART SO2 
emission limitation for the Riley Boiler. The controls for the B&W 
Boilers 1 & 2 and shutdown requirements for 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 permanent shutdown of the Center and North pulp dryers is Federally 
enforceable, as required by the September 30, 2002, TASCO Tier II 
permit currently in the 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 11% reduction 
in PM emissions from the emissions expected from the BART determination 
previously approved.
    TASCO 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 SO2, NOx 
and PM were determined for all six emission units included in the 
alternative measure: the Riley Boiler (SO2, NOx, and PM), 
B&W Boilers 1 and 2 (NOx), and the three coal-fired 
pulp dryers (SO2, NOx and PM). Three scenarios were modeled 
for all six emission units: baseline (pre-BART), revised BART for Riley 
Boiler, and the BART Alternative.
    Emissions from the TASCO facility impairs visibility at seven 
mandatory Class I areas within 300 kilometers (km): Eagle Cap 
Wilderness Area, Oregon; Craters of the 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 for all seven Class I areas are presented in the 2012 
RH SIP submittal, Chapter 10, Section 10.5, Table 6. The deciview 
impact 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 impairment 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                   Additional
                                                                                  Visibility      Visibility       visibility                                                      Decrease in
                                                                   Baseline      impact under    impact under     improvement    Days above 0.5  Days above 0.5  Days above 0.5    days >0.5 dv
                         Class I area                             visibility       proposed      proposed BART     with BART      dv  baseline      dv under      dv under BART     from BART
                                                                  impact (dv)    revised BART     alternative    alternative vs        \e\        revised BART     alternative    alternative vs
                                                                    \a\ \d\      (dv) \b\ \d\    (dv) \c\ \d\     revised BART                         \e\             \e\         revised BART
                                                                                                                    (dv) \d\                                                           \e\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Cap Wilderness, OR......................................           2.201           1.512           1.411           0.101              195             149             126              23
Craters of the Moon Wilderness, ID............................           0.393           0.267           0.245           0.022               10               4               3               1
Hells Canyon Wilderness, ID/OR................................           1.582           1.092           1.059           0.033              129              87              80               7
Jarbidge Wilderness, NV.......................................           0.375           0.256           0.234           0.022                8               5               5               0

[[Page 38876]]

 
Sawtooth Wilderness, ID.......................................           0.47            0.319           0.307           0.012               18               6               6               0
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, ID..............................           0.439           0.281           0.298          (0.017)              15               3               4              (1)
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness, OR............................           1.462           1.076           0.917           0.159               80              62              51              11
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes pre-BART emissions of all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative: Riley Boiler, B&W Boilers 1&2 and three pulp dryers.
\b\ Includes all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative under BART operations: Riley Boiler (LNB + SD-FGD), B&W Boilers 1&2, three pulp dryers operating.
\c\ Includes all sources involved in BART and the BART Alternative under BART Alternative operations: Riley Boiler (LNB), B&W Boilers 1&2 (LNB), three pulp dryers shut down.
\d\ The 22nd highest dv value for the three-year 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

1. Revised BART Determination for the Riley Boiler

    The provisions of 40 CFR part 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 TASCO, 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 if SCR 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 for 
the Riley Boiler of 186 lbs/hr, based on LNB-OFA control technology. 
However, TASCO's further engineering analysis determined that while 
there is insufficient space in the combustion chamber for LNB-OFA for 
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, 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 147 lbs/hr based on TASCO's reassessment of 
LNB performance for the Riley Boiler. In light of TASCO's revised 
analysis that the original BART determination 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 determination and approve the revised 
NOX BART determination and this new limitation for the TASCO 
facility.
    The EPA previously approved Idaho's PM BART emission limitation for 
the Riley Boiler of 14 lbs/hr, based on baghouse control technology as 
provided in the 2010 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 of the performance of the 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 for the TASCO facility

    The 2012 RH SIP submittal includes a proposed alternative measure 
to the previously approved SO2 BART determination for Riley 
Boiler. This alternative measure is intended to replace the 
SO2 BART emission limitation of 115 lb/hr for the Riley 
Boiler \5\ with a combined NOX emission limitation on the 
B&W Boilers 1 and 2 of 103 lbs/hr, and takes into 
account the emission reductions resulting from the permanent shutdown 
of three coal-fired pulp dryers. The baseline emissions for all three 
pulp dryers are: NOX--191.2 lbs/hr; SO2--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 1% by weight. IDAPA 58.01.01.725.04. This limit would not be 
affected by the action proposed today and the limit remains 
applicable to the TASCO facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Installation of LNB 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 
NOX of 221 t/y, SO2 of 20.6 t/y, and PM of 113 t/
y. The B&W Boilers are non-BART units. The pulp dryers were shutdown 
because installation of a drying process using waste steam from the 
boilers instead of the pulp dryers reduced the fuel demand that 
resulted in a lower cost operation, eliminating the need for 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 BART determination in the 2012 RH SIP submittal.
    As presented in Table 1 above, dispersion modeling of visibility in 
all Class I areas within 300 km of the TASCO facility 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) of 0.101 dv under the BART 
alternative than under the revised BART determination and in the 
Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area of 0.159 dv.
    The 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, Permit Condition 3.3 
requires compliance with the BART Alternative by July 22, 2016, the 
same compliance

[[Page 38877]]

date as the approved BART. Additionally, the permit provides that 
unless LNBs have been installed and operating, as required in Permit 
Condition 3.7, on and after July 22, 2016, the Riley Boiler may be 
fired only using natural gas, and that on, and after July 22, 2016, the 
Riley Boiler may not be fired with coal until such date that the coal-
fired LNBs are installed and operated in accordance with the permit. 
See 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, Permit Condition 3.9. Permit 
condition 14.9 of TASCO's Tier I Operating Permit T1-050020, issued May 
23, 2006, required the North and Central pulp dryers to be permanently 
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 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit contains the emission 
limitations discussed above. See 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit, 
Permit Condition 3.4 and 3.5. The permit also contains requirements for 
a non-visibility impairing pollutant, specifically carbon monoxide 
(CO). Permit Condition 3.12 requires performance testing for CO. The 
EPA proposes no action on this permit condition, as it does not pertain 
to visibility.
    The second paragraph of Condition 3.3 of the Permit 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 for any such revision to the 
permit and the corresponding 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 for possible future revisions to the 
permit. As such it is not necessary or appropriate for 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 for 
the TASCO facility and to approve Idaho's 2012 RH SIP submittal 
including the revised NOX BART determination for the TASCO 
Riley Boiler and the 2011 TASCO Tier II Operating Permit containing the 
BART Alternative conditions 1.2 including the table of Regulated 
Emission Point Sources Table, 3.2, 3.3 (first paragraph 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 
for NOX, the revised PM emission limitations and the BART 
Alternative at the TASCO facility because they provide greater overall 
reasonable progress toward achieving natural conditions in affected 
Class I areas than the previously approved BART determination for the 
TASCO facility.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Review

    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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, and 
Visibility.

    Dated: June 14, 2013.
R. David Allnutt,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2013-15442 Filed 6-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P