
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79344-79359]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-30894]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071, FRL-9904-68-Region 10]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of 
Washington; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan; Federal 
Implementation Plan for Best Available Retrofit Technology for Alcoa 
Wenatchee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
partially disapprove a Washington Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plan (RH SIP) element submitted by the State of Washington (the State) 
on December 22, 2010, that exempted Alcoa's Wenatchee Works aluminum 
smelting facility (Alcoa Wenatchee facility or Wenatchee facility), 
located near Wenatchee, Washington, from the Clean Air Act's Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements. On December 26, 
2012, the EPA proposed to approve, along with proposed action on other 
SIP elements, the State's determination that the Alcoa Wenatchee 
facility is exempt from BART requirements. The EPA received adverse 
comments regarding the dispersion modeling used for this determination. 
After further review, the EPA now proposes to disapprove the State's 
determination that the facility is not subject to BART and proposes to 
find that the Wenatchee facility is subject to BART. The EPA is also 
proposing a BART determination for the facility through a Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP). This Federal Register document also 
announces the availability of new information regarding Alcoa's ability 
to afford limestone slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) sulfur dioxide 
(SO2) control technology at the Intalco Aluminum Corporation 
facility in Ferndale, Washington (Intalco). Also available for public 
review is new air quality

[[Page 79345]]

dispersion modeling regarding the visibility improvement assessment for 
the BART Alternative for the Tesoro Refining and Marketing refinery in 
Anacortes, Washington (Tesoro).

DATES: Comments: Written comments must be received at the address below 
on or before February 20, 2014.
    Public Hearing: A public hearing is offered to provide interested 
parties the opportunity to present information and opinions to the EPA 
concerning today's proposal. Comments are limited to the specific 
elements and new information discussed in today's proposal and the 
comment period for other aspects of the Washington State Regional Haze 
Plan is not reopened. Interested parties may also submit written 
comments, as discussed below. If you wish to request a hearing and 
present testimony, you should notify Mr. Steve Body on or before 
January 8, 2014 and indicate the nature of the issues you wish to 
provide oral testimony during the hearing. Mr. Body's contact 
information is found in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below. At the 
hearing, the hearing officer may limit oral testimony to 5 minutes per 
person. The hearing will be limited to the subject matter of this 
proposal, the scope of which is discussed below. The EPA will not 
respond to comments during the public hearing. When we publish our 
final action, we will provide a written response to all written or oral 
comments received on the proposal. The EPA will not be providing 
equipment for commenters to show overhead slides or make computerized 
slide presentations. A transcript of the hearing and written statements 
will be made available for copying during normal working hours at the 
address listed for inspection of documents, and also included in the 
Docket. Any member of the public may provide written or oral comments 
and data pertaining to our proposal at the hearing. Note that any 
written comments and supporting information submitted during the 
comment period will be considered with the same weight as any oral 
comments presented at the public hearing. If no requests for a public 
hearing are received by close of business on January 8, 2014, a hearing 
will not be held; please contact Mr. Body at (206) 553-0782 to find out 
if the hearing will actually be held or if it was cancelled for lack of 
any request to speak.

ADDRESSES: Public Hearing: A public hearing, if requested, will be held 
January 21, 2014, beginning at 6:00 p.m. at the Washington Department 
of Ecology Offices, Room 34-36, 300 Desmond Drive, Lacey, WA 
98503.
    Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-
R10-OAR-2010-1071, 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, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics (AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, WA 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-
2010-1071. 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 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.

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. Overview and Summary of This Proposed Action
II. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action
    A. Definition of Regional Haze
    B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations
III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Related to this Proposal
    A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule
    B. Best Available Retrofit Technology
IV. The EPA's Analysis of the BART Exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee 
Facility
V. Proposed BART Determination for the Alcoa Wenatchee Facility
VI. New Information Relevant to the EPA's Previous Proposal
    A. Affordability Analysis of LSFO at Intalco
    B. Tesoro Modeling Demonstration for BART Alternative
VII. What Action is the EPA Proposing?
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Overview and Summary of This Proposed Action

    On December 22, 2010, the State of Washington submitted a RH SIP to 
address regional haze for the first implementation period. This plan 
was submitted to meet the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 
169A and 169B and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 that 
require states to prevent any future and remedy any existing man-made 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I areas. On December 26, 
2012, the EPA published a rule in the Federal Register proposing to 
approve the State's determination that the Alcoa Wenatchee facility is 
exempt from federal BART requirements. 77 FR 76174. At the same time, 
the EPA also: (1) Proposed to approve in part the Washington RH SIP as 
meeting most of the requirements of the regional haze program; (2) 
proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of the 
SO2 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination 
for Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco) facility and proposed a 
Better-than-BART

[[Page 79346]]

alternative (BART Alternative); and (3) proposed to disapprove the BART 
determination for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for five BART 
emission units at the Tesoro Refining and Marketing refinery (Tesoro) 
and proposed a BART Alternative.
    The Wenatchee facility is a primary aluminum smelter, located 
approximately ten miles south of Wenatchee, Washington, on the Columbia 
River. The State's BART exemption determination, that would exempt the 
Alcoa Wenatchee facility from BART requirements, was based on air 
quality dispersion modeling. As explained further below, the EPA 
received adverse comments on its proposal to approve the State's 
determination to exempt the Wenatchee facility from BART requirements. 
After further review and consideration, we now propose to disapprove 
that exemption determination and propose that the facility is subject 
to BART. We are also proposing a BART determination for the facility.
    This Federal Register notice also announces new information 
available for public review regarding whether Alcoa can afford LSFO 
SO2 control technology as BART for Alcoa's Intalco facility 
in Ferndale, Washington. As part of the December 26, 2012 action, we 
proposed that Intalco could not afford LSFO and referenced an 
affordability assessment of the Intalco facility and Alcoa Corporation. 
See Intalco BART SO2 Affordability Assessment, November, 
2012 (2012 Affordability Assessment). As explained in further detail 
below, we received adverse comments on the affordability determination 
requesting that we update the affordability assessment with current 
information and expressing concern with the use of information that was 
not publically available. In response to these comments, we have 
obtained updated information, revised the 2012 Affordability 
Assessment, and have made a final confidential business information 
(CBI) determination. See Revised Intalco BART SO2 
Affordability Assessment, September 2013 and Intalco Final CBI 
Determination, respectively. This information, including the 
aforementioned documents, is in the docket for this proposed action and 
is available for public review and comment.
    We also received adverse comments regarding the proposed 
determination that the BART Alternative for the Tesoro refining 
facility in Anacortes, Washington, provides for greater reasonable 
progress than BART. The initial demonstration was based on comparing 
the emissions allowed under BART to the emissions allowed under the 
BART Alternative. The comments suggested that air quality dispersion 
modeling should be used to make this demonstration. As explained below, 
Tesoro conducted this dispersion modeling and it is now in the docket 
for this action and is available for public review and comment.
    The EPA will respond to all comments received on the December 26, 
2012 proposal, that are not discussed today, and will take final action 
on the remaining Washington RH SIP elements in a future Federal 
Register notice.

II. Background for the EPA's Proposed Action

    In the CAA Amendments of 1977, Congress established a program to 
protect and improve visibility in 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 regulations in 1999 to implement 
sections 169A and 169B of the Act. These regulations require states to 
develop and implement SIPs 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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), particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 
2.5 micrometers, or secondary aerosol formed in the atmosphere from 
precursor gases (e.g., SO2, NOX, and in some 
cases, ammonia and volatile organic compounds). Atmospheric 
PM2.5 reduces clarity, color, and visual range of visual 
scenes. Visibility-reducing PM2.5 is primarily composed of 
sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon compounds, elemental carbon, and soil 
dust, and impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. 
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans, and contributes to environmental effects such as acid 
deposition and eutrophication.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

B. Regional Haze Rules and Regulations

    In section 169A of the 1977 CAA Amendments, Congress created a 
program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in Class I areas which impairment results from 
manmade air pollution.'' CAA section 169A(a)(1). On December 2, 1980, 
the 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. The 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. The EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze on 
July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713) (the Regional Haze Rule

[[Page 79347]]

or RHR). The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations by adding 
provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established 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 the 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 notice. 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) required states to submit 
the first implementation plan addressing regional haze visibility 
impairment no later than December 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

III. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs Related to This Proposal

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 the EPA's implementing regulations 
require states to establish long-term strategies for making reasonable 
progress toward meeting this goal. SIPs 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. The 
specific regional haze SIP requirements are discussed in further detail 
below.

B. Best Available Retrofit Technology

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

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

    On July 6, 2005, the 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. 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.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility-impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM2.5. The EPA has indicated that states should use their 
best judgment in determining whether volatile organic compounds or 
ammonia compounds contribute to visibility impairment in Class I areas.
    Under the BART Guidelines, states may select an exemption threshold 
value to determine those BART-eligible sources that are 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. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. 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. In setting an 
exemption threshold, 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 deciviews (dv).
    In their SIPs, states must identify BART-eligible sources, as well 
as those BART-eligible sources that have a visibility impact in any 
Class I area above the exemption threshold established by the state and 
are therefore subject to BART. States must document their BART control 
analysis and determination for all sources subject to BART.
    The term ``BART-eligible source,'' as used in the BART Guidelines, 
means the collection of individual emission units at a facility that 
together comprise 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. States are free to determine the weight and 
significance to be assigned to each factor.
    The regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each 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 5 years after the date the EPA approves the regional haze 
SIP. CAA section 169A(g)(4); 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 emission limits. 
States have the flexibility to choose the type of control measures they 
will use to meet the requirements of BART.

IV. The EPA's Analysis of the BART Exemption for the Alcoa Wenatchee 
Facility

    The Alcoa Wenatchee facility produces aluminum from alumina using 
an electrochemical reduction process commonly known as the Hall-Heroult 
process. The facility is capable of producing 184,000 metric tons of 
aluminum per year. The facility currently consists of a carbon anode 
production plant, four prebake aluminum potlines, and an ingot casting 
facility. It initially opened in 1952 with four potlines. These four 
potlines and associated processes were constructed prior to the BART 
window and are not BART-eligible. In 1967, a fifth potline

[[Page 79348]]

was added along with increased anode production capability and 
materials handling operations. The equipment associated with this 
expansion was constructed within the BART-eligibility window and is 
therefore BART-eligible. In 2004, one of the original potlines was 
decommissioned, resulting in the current operation of four potlines.
    The Alcoa Wenatchee facility is located in a river valley and sits 
on the banks of the Columbia River at an altitude of approximately 740 
feet. The river valley is approximately 1.8 miles wide and is 
surrounded by bluffs rising to 760 feet above the valley floor 
immediately adjacent to the river. The Cascade Mountain Range is to the 
west and is generally running north to south with peaks reaching more 
than 9000 feet. The Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area is located 
approximately 28 miles (45 kilometers (km)) west of the Alcoa Wenatchee 
facility, at the crest of the Cascade Mountain Range, and is 
characterized by complex terrain.
    As explained above, the BART Guidelines allow states to exempt 
sources from a BART determination if the source cannot reasonably be 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area. The State of Washington established an exemption 
threshold of 0.5 dv as the level above which a BART-eligible source may 
reasonably be considered to contribute to visibility impairment in any 
Class I area.
    In the Washington RH SIP, the State determined that the Wenatchee 
facility is exempt from BART because the facility's modeled visibility 
impact in all Class I areas was less than 0.5 dv. At the State's 
request, Alcoa initially conducted dispersion modeling following the 
three-state modeling protocol \6\ agreed upon by the EPA, Region 10 and 
using an EPA-approved version of the dispersion model CALPUFF,\7\ to 
model the visibility impact of the BART-eligible sources and to 
determine whether the facility is subject to BART. The State required 
all BART-eligible sources in Washington to follow the protocol to 
determine whether their impacts are greater than the BART exemption 
threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The three-state modeling protocol was an agreement between 
Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, the FLMs and EPA-Region 10. This 
protocol was submitted with the RH SIP and is also included as a 
separate document in the docket for this action.
    \7\ CALPUFF is a Gaussian puff dispersion model used to estimate 
pollutant concentrations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the agreed upon protocol, the modeling should be 
conducted with the surface wind field having a 4 km grid cell 
resolution. Alcoa completed the exemption modeling using CALPUFF 
version 6.112; Level 060412. Model results showed that the 98th 
percentile, or twenty-second highest visibility impact value, over a 
three-year period at Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area was predicted to be 
0.6 dv, exceeding the exemption threshold of 0.5 dv. As a result, the 
facility would be subject to BART. In the State's view, however, the 4 
km grid resolution did not provide realistic wind flow estimates 
between the Alcoa Wenatchee facility and the Alpine Lakes Wilderness 
Area.
    Alcoa re-ran the model using CALPUFF with 0.5 km grid resolution 
and the predicted visibility impact decreased to 0.4 dv, under the 0.5 
dv exemption threshold. In Appendix I of the Washington RH SIP, the 
State provided information to explain why the finer grid resolution of 
0.5 km was more appropriate. As explained in the Washington RH SIP, the 
State then determined that the facility was not subject to BART.
    In our December 26, 2012 action, we proposed to approve the 
exemption modeling for the Wenatchee facility and the State's 
determination that the facility is exempt from BART. 77 FR 76147. We 
received adverse comments on that part of the proposal. The comments 
claimed that the Wenatchee facility was improperly exempted from BART 
review and requested that EPA disapprove Washington's determination 
that the Wenatchee facility is not subject to BART. The comments 
indicated that the use of fine grid modeling (0.5 km grid resolution) 
did not follow the agreed upon three-state protocol, that the higher 
grid resolution underestimates the visibility impacts, and that 
allowing its use in this instance is contrary to numerous prior 
statements by the EPA. One comment cited an exchange of communications 
between the EPA, FLMs, and the State that was critical of using 0.5 km 
grid cells as not technically justified or in accordance with the 
agreed upon modeling protocol, and requested that these prior 
communications be included in the public record.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ We have included the correspondence in the docket as 
requested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, the EPA reevaluated the State's BART 
exemption determination. The EPA has previously addressed the use of 
CALMET \9\ horizontal grid resolutions less than 4 km. See, EPA, Model 
Clearinghouse Review of CALPUFF Modeling Protocol for BART, Memorandum 
from Tyler Fox, EPA, May 15, 2009. (May 15, 2009, Model Clearinghouse 
Memo). This memo discusses, among other items, the proper justification 
for adjusting the modeled wind field from the default 4 km horizontal 
grid resolution to a finer grid resolution. While the May 15, 2009, 
Model Clearinghouse Memo does not automatically preclude the use of a 
higher (finer) resolution meteorological grid, it discusses two 
conditions that should be addressed in considering the use of a finer 
meteorological grid. First, the memo explains that higher resolution 
data does not necessarily improve the model performance, but may in 
fact degrade it for some predicted meteorological parameters. 
Therefore, the memo states that ``. . . scientific evidence to support 
the claim that a 1 km CALMET grid resolution increases the objective 
accuracy of the final wind field'' is needed. Second, because CALMET's 
ability to independently capture the full three dimensional structure 
of complex flows is limited, there is the need for high resolution 
numerical weather prediction (NWP) data or a density of representative 
observational data to accurately simulate the meteorological fields. 
See May 15, 2009 Model Clearinghouse Memo at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ CALMET is a generalized-non-steady state air quality model 
used to characterize meteorology and is used in conjunction with 
CALPUFF to estimate visibility impacts from stationary sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix I of the Washington RH SIP presents the State's rationale 
for using a CALMET fine grid resolution of 0.5 km to model the Alcoa 
Wenatchee facility. However, Appendix I provides no objective 
evaluation of the fine grid modeling necessary for use in the RH SIP. 
The State's justification discussed the two conditions contained in the 
May 15, 2009, Model Clearinghouse Memo. To address the first condition, 
the State presented the wind fields layered onto topographic maps at 4 
km and 0.5 km resolutions and concluded that at 0.5 km, the wind fields 
conform to the topographic features better than at 4 km. The State also 
included a graphic of the terrain profile at 12 km, 4 km, 0.5 km and 
0.1 km resolution, which showed that at each succeeding finer grid 
resolution the ridges and valleys were more resolved. When the State 
addressed the second condition, however, it acknowledged that there 
were no meteorological observational data between the Alpine Lakes 
Wilderness Area and the Alcoa Wenatchee facility. It further 
acknowledged that there is ``no direct way to assess the improvement in 
the wind field by using the finer grid.'' Washington RH SIP, Appendix I 
at I-4. Instead, the State provided a qualitative discussion based on a 
combination of

[[Page 79349]]

experience and scrutiny of the wind fields computed at the fine grid 
resolution and then concluded that the 0.5 km grid resolution provided 
a more accurate result in this instance. But the State failed to 
provide either high resolution NWP data or a density of representative 
data. An objective evaluation of the performance of the NWP data set 
was not performed. Accordingly, the justification provided in the 
Washington RH SIP Appendix I fails to demonstrate that CALMET had 
adequately captured the non steady-state meteorological conditions. 
Consequently, the second condition in the policy memorandum was not 
satisfied by the State. See EPA's Evaluation of Appendix I in the 
Washington Regional Haze State Implementation, November 21, 2013.
    We recognize the effort the State took to further assess the 
nuances of the complex meteorology, terrain, modeled wind fields and 
model grid spacing in an attempt to demonstrate that the results from 
the State's non-guideline approach are more accurate than the results 
from the approved approach. The 4 km and 0.5 km grid modeling predict 
visibility impacts at the Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area of 0.6 dv and 
0.4 dv respectively from the Alcoa Wenatchee facility. This difference 
of just 0.2 dv may, or may not be significant in terms of the accuracy 
of the CALPUFF model in general, or in justifying the appropriateness 
of one meteorological wind field representation over another. In this 
case, however, the difference is determinative in demonstrating whether 
the facility is exempt from BART requirements. Without an objective 
evaluation of the fine grid modeling, as required by the Model 
Clearinghouse Memo, we believe that conservatism is warranted in this 
instance, where the purpose of the modeling is solely to determine if 
the source contributes to visibility impairment such that it should be 
subject to BART review.
    Consideration of the modeling conducted, EPA's prior evaluations of 
CALPUFF and CALMET modeling using fine grid resolution, and the purpose 
for which the modeling was conducted all lead us to conclude that 
relying on the results from the fine grid modeling to exempt the 
facility from further BART review is not warranted in this instance. 
Therefore, we conclude that the State has not demonstrated that this 
facility is exempt from BART. We are proposing to disapprove the 
State's determination that the facility is exempt from BART and propose 
that the Alcoa Wenatchee facility is subject to BART. Additionally, we 
are proposing a BART FIP for the Alcoa Wenatchee facility.

V. Proposed BART Determination for the Alcoa Wenatchee Facility

    There are ten emission units at the Alcoa Wenatchee facility that 
are BART-eligible: potline 5, one anode bake furnace, three ingot 
furnaces, two coke-handling operations, and three alumina-handling 
operations, including rail car unloading. The emission rates for the 
BART-eligible units are presented in the exemption modeling report, 
``CALPUFF Modeling Report for BART Analysis at Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee 
Facility in Washington,'' September 2007, Table 2-3. The emission 
rates, converted to tons per year (t/y), are presented in the Table 
below.

                                      Table 1--BART-Eligible Unit Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Source name                                PM t/y          SO2 t/y         NOx t/y
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potline 5 Emissions.............................................           148.9          1000.8             4.6
Ingot Furnace 1.................................................             9.5             0.0             0.7
Ingot Furnace 2.................................................             9.9             0.0             0.7
Ingot Furnace 11................................................            17.7             0.0             1.1
Anode Bake Furnace..............................................             0.4           250.3            34.8
Dry Coke Scrubber...............................................             1.4             0.0             0.0
Dust Collector 2.......................................            11.5             0.0             0.0
Alumina Handling 21.............................................             0.3             0.0             0.0
Alumina Handling 19C............................................             0.3             0.0             0.0
Alumina Handling 43E............................................            16.7             0.0             0.0
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Totals......................................................           216.6          1251.1            41.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BART Determination Approach

    The EPA completed a BART review for the BART-eligible emission 
units at the Alcoa Wenatchee facility. In making the BART determination 
for this facility, the EPA considered the following:
     Existing air pollution controls for each BART emission 
unit;
     Technically feasible and available control technologies 
with higher control efficiency than existing controls;
     Costs of compliance;
     Energy and non-air environmental impacts; and
     Visibility improvement.
    A memorandum to the files included in the docket to this action 
contains the BART review. See memorandum dated December 10, 2013 from 
Steve Body, Alcoa Wenatchee Works BART Determination. This memorandum 
contains a more detailed discussion of our review and consideration of 
the five BART factors. The Alcoa Intalco facility in Ferndale, 
Washington and the Alcoa Wenatchee facility use the same aluminum 
smelting process with similar pollutant concentrations and exhaust 
gases temperatures. Because there are similarities between some of the 
BART-eligible units at the Alcoa Intalco facility and the BART-eligible 
units at the Alcoa Wenatchee facility, our BART determination for the 
Wenatchee facility uses, where appropriate, data and information from 
our Intalco BART analysis and the Washington RH SIP (which included an 
ENVIRON Corporation report (ENVIRON report) that contained a BART 
analysis for Intalco). In some instances, the data and information from 
the Intalco analysis was updated or scaled as needed for the Wenatchee 
facility. Additionally, as explained below, in some instances, the 
consideration of one factor alleviated the need for further evaluation 
of a control technology and a streamlined analysis was appropriate. For 
example, if an emission unit is currently controlled by the most 
stringent control technology available, additional technologies need 
not be considered and a comprehensive analysis of the remaining factors 
is not necessary.
    The Alcoa Wenatchee facility operates under a State-issued Title V 
operating permit, No. 000068-0, issued on March 1, 2010 (Alcoa 
Wenatchee Operating Permit). Where a proposed BART determination is 
also a requirement in the current operating permit, but the requirement 
is not yet federally

[[Page 79350]]

enforceable, the proposed BART determination will make the requirement 
federally enforceable and consistent with the requirements in the 
permit.
Anode Bake Furnace
    Process Description. Carbon anodes are used in the electric arc 
furnaces (pots) used to produce aluminum. They are manufactured on site 
from purchased calcined petroleum coke and anode butt material 
(residual anode material after its useful life and defective anodes) 
that is crushed and sized, mixed together with pitch, and formed into 
blocks called ``green anodes.'' The green anodes are then baked in the 
anode bake furnace to achieve the structural integrity necessary for 
use in the potlines.
    The Alcoa Wenatchee facility operates two anode bake furnaces, but 
due to their dates of construction, only one is BART-eligible. Both 
furnaces are fueled with natural gas and consist of a series of formed 
firebrick-lined pits. Exhaust gases from both furnaces are collected in 
an underground duct, combined and sent to the A446 anode bake scrubber. 
Thus, the exhaust gases from the BART-eligible and non-BART-eligible 
emission units are combined into a common duct and control device. The 
exhaust gases contain, among other pollutants, the visibility-impairing 
pollutants SO2, NOX, and PM2.5.
    Existing Control. The anode bake furnaces' emissions are controlled 
by the A446 anode bake scrubber, a dry alumina scrubber followed by 
fabric filtration. Fabric filters generally reflect the highest level 
of control for PM2.5, reducing emissions by more than 99 
percent. Recent source tests for PM2.5 emission rates from 
the A446 anode bake scrubber reflect a properly operating fabric 
filter. See CAA Site Visit Report, July 12, 2013, and Alcoa Wenatchee 
Works-Summary of Emission Test Data for BART-Eligible Emission Units. 
The A446 anode bake scrubber does not control for SO2 or 
NOX.
    Control Options. Because the anode bake furnace emission 
characteristics (i.e. pollutant concentration and temperature) of 
SO2 and NOX are similar to those from the 
potlines, the SO2 and NOX BART control options 
considered for the potlines are also applicable to the anode bake 
furnace. However, the emission gas flow rates for the anode bake 
furnaces are significantly less than the potline emission gas flow 
rates, only a small fraction of the airflow volume of the Potline 5 Gas 
Treatment Center (GTC). Gas flow rate dictates the size (and cost) of a 
potential control technology.
    Due to the operational similarities and similar exhaust gas 
characteristics between the anode bake furnaces at the Wenatchee 
facility and the Intalco facility, control options for the anode bake 
furnaces at the Wenatchee facility rely in large part on the analytical 
work completed for the Intalco anode bake furnaces and potlines. See 
Appendix L of the Washington RH SIP, the ENVIRON Report, and the EPA's 
proposed BART determination for the Intalco anode bake furnace.
    SO2 Control Options.After a review of the EPA's proposed 
BART determination for the Intalco facility and the BART analysis in 
the ENVIRON Report, a wet scrubber was identified as the only 
technically feasible add-on control option for the Wenatchee facility. 
Emissions of SO2 from the Intalco anode bake furnaces are 
181 t/y, while emissions from the Wenatchee facility bake furnaces are 
250 t/y. However, as discussed above, the Wenatchee emissions are from 
both the BART and non-BART units that are ducted to a common stack.
    At Alcoa's Intalco facility, the ENVIRON Report (and Appendix L of 
the Washington RH SIP) estimated that the installed capital cost of a 
retrofit wet scrubber that would remove 95 percent of the 
SO2 from the anode bake furnace exhaust would be 
approximately $29.5 million with a total annualized cost of $6.3 
million per year. The ENVIRON report explained that these costs 
corresponded to a cost-effectiveness of $36,400 per ton of 
SO2 removed. See ENVIRON Report, Table 5-3; Washington RH 
SIP, Appendix L, pg. L-73. With the greater gas flow rate at the 
Wenatchee facility, the capital and annual operating costs would be 
higher, but the cost-effectiveness values would only be slightly lower. 
Other than the gas flow rate, there are no significant differences 
between the emission characteristics, current control technology, and 
physical design of the anode bake furnaces at the Intalco facility and 
at the Wenatchee facility that would lead to significantly different 
cost-effectiveness values. Consequently, we believe that wet scrubbing 
of SO2 would not be cost-effective for the Wenatchee anode 
bake furnace.
    In addition to wet scrubbing, a pollution prevention option would 
be to establish a maximum sulfur content of the anode coke at 3% for 
the anode bake furnaces and potlines. The sulfur limit in anode coke 
would limit the emissions from the anode bake furnaces and, because the 
anodes are consumed in the potlines, would also result in reduced 
SO2 emissions from the potlines. The current permit for the 
Wenatchee facility limits the sulfur content of anode coke for potlines 
1, 2, and 3 to 3%. See Alcoa Wenatchee Air Operating Permit, condition 
D.12. There is no such restriction on the anodes made for potline 5. We 
believe that requiring the same limit for coke used to make anodes for 
potline 5 would add no cost to the operation, but would ensure that 
SO2 emissions from the anode bake furnaces would always 
reflect the use of no more than 3% sulfur coke.
    PM Control Options. Dry alumina injection with fabric filtration 
currently controls PM emissions from the anode bake furnaces. The 
installed fabric filter reflects high efficiency control for PM. An 
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is also a technically feasible control 
option, with a similar PM capture efficiency to fabric filtration. 
Because the control-effectiveness of these two options is largely 
equivalent, further evaluation of an ESP is not necessary. Other 
possible controls, such as cyclones, inertial separators, and wet 
scrubbers are less effective at removing small and submicron particles 
than fabric filters and ESPs.
    There is a current PM emission limit in the Alcoa Wenatchee Air 
Operating Permit of 0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) 
for anode bake furnaces. See permit condition B.1. We believe this 
limit does not accurately represent the performance of a properly 
maintained and operated fabric filter. A review of source tests 
conducted in 2011 to 2013 indicates that the A446 scrubber consistently 
controls PM emissions to concentrations of less than 0.01 gr/dscf. 
Therefore, because a BART emission limitation must be ``based on the 
degree of reduction achievable through the application of the best 
system of continuous emission reduction,'' see 40 CFR 51.301 (emphasis 
added), we are proposing to set a PM BART limit of 0.01 gr/dscf for the 
anode bake furnaces.
    NOX Control Options.The evaluation of available 
NOX control options for the anode bake furnaces, including 
the control technology descriptions, is based on the BART determination 
contained in the Washington RH SIP, the ENVIRON Report, and the EPA's 
proposed BART determination for the Intalco facility.
    The amount of NOX emitted from a natural gas-fired anode 
bake furnace varies depending on operating practices and burner design. 
The traditional methods of preventing NOX formation using 
staged combustion or low NOX burners are not applicable for 
the Alcoa Wenatchee anode bake furnaces because

[[Page 79351]]

of the unique configuration of the furnaces, with fuel injected at 
several points in narrow flues. However, advanced firing systems that 
measure and regulate fuel flow precisely using a computerized control 
system can reduce total fuel usage. By reducing fuel usage, advanced 
firing also reduces NOX emissions. Prevention of 
NOX formation using a more efficient advanced firing control 
system is technically feasible for the anode bake furnaces. While 
specific cost estimates were not determined for an advanced firing 
system, we did determine that it would entail the purchase and 
installation of equipment and computers for measuring and metering a 
variety of parameters. Total gas usage could be reduced by up to 20%, 
which would result in a corresponding 20% reduction in NOX 
emissions, or approximately 7 t/y. This reduction represents a 0.05% 
reduction in emissions from all BART units that would result in 
negligible visibility improvement in any Class I area. Thus, we believe 
it is unreasonable to require an advanced firing system at the 
Wenatchee facility.
    The LoTOXTM system is the patented technology of Linde 
Industrial Gases. At a control efficiency of 90%, the resulting 
reduction in NOX emissions would be 31 t/y if it was 
installed at the Wenatchee facility. As explained in the Alcoa 
Wenatchee Works BART Determination memorandum, dated December 10, 2013, 
the cost per ton of removal is expected to be in excess of $18,000 per 
ton. Due to the extremely high cost and only a 31 t/y NOX 
emission reduction, it is unreasonable to require emission limits based 
on LoTOx\TM\ at the Wenatchee facility.
    BART is therefore proposed to be the existing operating conditions 
of firing the furnaces on natural gas. There is no information 
available that can be used to establish a numerical emission 
limitation, so the proposed NOX BART requirement for the 
anode bake furnace will be a fuel specification that requires that only 
natural gas may be combusted in the anode bake furnaces.
Proposed BART Limits for the Anode Bake Furnaces
PM: 0.01 gr/dscf
SO2: 3% sulfur content in anode coke
NOX: combust only natural gas
Potline 5
    Process description. The potlines are where electrical current is 
passed through the alumina mix in a number of small ``pots'' or 
crucibles to produce aluminum. Because it is an electrical chemical 
heating process, and not a combustion process, very limited amounts of 
NOX are emitted. Thermal NOX is created when 
ambient air comes into contact with the hot surface of the alumina in 
the pots. Sulfur in the anode coke does react with the oxygen liberated 
from the alumina, resulting in emissions of SO2. Because of 
the high PM control efficiency of the potline 5 GTC, minimal amounts of 
PM are emitted.
    Existing Control. Potline emissions at the Wenatchee facility are 
collected by hoods and ducted the GTC control device. The GTC consists 
of dry scrubbing with alumina followed by fabric filtration. This 
control system provides control of PM, fluorides, and polycyclic 
organic matter (POM). It provides no control for SO2 or 
NOX.
    SO2 Control Options. As discussed in our proposed BART 
determination for the Intalco potlines, the Washington RH SIP Appendix 
L, and the ENVIRON report for the Alcoa Intalco facility, limestone 
slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) is a technically feasible add-on control 
option for SO2 emissions from the potlines. Several 
potential control technologies were evaluated by Alcoa for both the 
potlines and anode bake furnace, including LSFO, limestone slurry 
scrubbing with natural oxidation (LSNO), conventional lime wet 
scrubbing, seawater scrubbing, dual alkali sodium/lime scrubbing 
(dilute mode), conventional sodium scrubbing, dry injection, and semi-
dry scrubbing. As described in the proposed EPA BART determination for 
Intalco and the ENVIRON Report, LNSO, conventional wet lime scrubbing 
and dual alkali sodium/lime scrubbing either have clear disadvantages 
or are likely to be more costly than LSFO. Dry scrubbing is technically 
infeasible for control of SO2 emissions from the potlines 
because dry scrubbing requires temperatures of 250-260 [deg]F, whereas 
the potlines have a flue gas temperature of ~205 [deg]F. Spray dry 
control technology requires evaporation of the moisture introduced into 
the exhaust gas. Spray drying generally requires temperatures higher 
than those needed for dry scrubbing, thus spray drying is also 
technically infeasible for control of SO2 from the potlines. 
Due to the inland location of the Wenatchee facility, seawater 
scrubbing is infeasible. The infrastructure and associated capital 
costs for a sodium scrubber would be similar to that of LSFO, although 
sodium-based reagents are generally more expensive than limestone or 
lime. Thus, sodium scrubbing, while technically feasible, would be less 
cost-effective than LSFO.
    LSFO was determined to be a technically feasible retrofit control 
option for the potlines and the anode baking exhausts even though it is 
not ideally suited for scrubbing SO2 concentrations that are 
less than or equal to 105 parts per million, that is the case for the 
Wenatchee facility.
    The EPA conducted a cost analysis of LSFO scaled from the Intalco 
analysis to the Wenatchee facility. See ``Alcoa Wenatchee Works Cost 
Analysis for Limestone Slurry Forced Oxidation (LSFO) Scrubbing--
Wenatchee, Washington,'' September 18, 2013. That analysis found that 
the cost-effectiveness values for LSFO at the Wenatchee facility ranged 
from $7500/ton to $8500/ton of SO2 removed.
    The cost-effectiveness values are at the high end of what the EPA 
would generally consider reasonable unless the controls would result in 
significant visibility improvement in one or more Class I areas. The 
dispersion modeling in this instance shows that the Wenatchee facility 
contributes to impairment in only one Class I area at about the level 
of the BART threshold. Thus, due to the high cost and limited 
visibility improvement, we are eliminating LSFO as BART for the 
Wenatchee facility.
    The operating permit for the Wenatchee facility currently controls 
SO2 from potlines 1, 2, and 3, by limiting the sulfur 
content of anode coke to a maximum of 3% and SO2 emissions 
are also limited to 46 pounds per ton of aluminum produced. See permit 
condition D.12. This permit condition (which represents Best Available 
Control Technology (BACT) as established in an EPA PSD permit) does not 
apply to potline 5. The same coke is used for the anodes in all four 
potlines. Thus, EPA understands that potline 5 currently complies with 
both the 3% maximum coke sulfur content and the 46 pounds per ton of 
aluminum produced limit currently in effect for potlines 1, 2, and 3. 
As such, we believe there would be no cost involved in applying these 
same limits to potline 5. Therefore, EPA is proposing that 
SO2 BART is to limit sulfur in the anode coke for potline 5 
to 3% and limit SO2 emissions from potline 5 to 46 pounds 
per ton of aluminum produced.
    NOX Control Options. The potlines are electrically heated and none 
of the raw materials used in the potlines contain significant 
quantities of nitrogen. As a result, the NOX emissions from 
the potlines are insignificant. Potline 5 NOX emissions are 
just 4.5 t/y. We reviewed the ENVIRON Report and agree with its 
determination that there are no technically feasible options to control 
NOX from the potlines at Intalco. We believe that due to the 
similarities discussed above between the Intalco

[[Page 79352]]

and Wenatchee facilities, the conclusions regarding NOX 
controls for the potlines at the Intalco facility also apply to the 
Wenatchee facility. Current operating conditions therefore represent 
BART. Currently, the Wenatchee facility determines NOX 
emissions based on an emission factor of 0.34 pounds of NOX 
per ton of aluminum produced. Based on the production capacity for 
potline 5, NOX emissions will be limited to 0.95 tons per 
calendar month.
    PM Control Options. PM emissions from the potlines are currently 
effectively controlled by fabric filters. The existing Air Operating 
Permit limits PM emissions to 0.005 gr/dscf. See permit condition D.5. 
We believe that fabric filtration is the most effective PM control 
device for this source and a limit of 0.005 gr/dscf is an appropriate 
limit for a highly efficient fabric filter. We are proposing 0.005 gr/
dscf as the BART emission limit for PM.
Proposed BART Limits for Potline 5
PM: 0.005 gr/dscf
SO2: 46 pounds per ton of aluminum produced
NOX: 0.95 tons per calendar month
Ingot Furnaces 1, 2, and 11
    Process Description, Existing Controls, and Control Options. The 
ingot furnaces are natural gas-fired furnaces that heat molten aluminum 
after it has been siphoned out of the pots, prior to casting. The 
furnaces are used to remove aluminum dross from the molten aluminum. In 
the past, they also were used to create aluminum alloys by mixing other 
metals with the molten aluminum. There are a total of five ingot 
furnaces located in the casthouse, three of which were constructed or 
modified within the BART-eligibility window and are subject to BART. 
All ingot furnaces operate uncontrolled, and the emissions are 
periodically tested by facility personnel.
    Emissions of visibility impairing pollutants from the three ingot 
furnaces subject to BART are insignificant. In total, the furnaces emit 
37.1 t/y of PM2.5, no SO2, and only 2.5 t/y of 
NOX. It is therefore unnecessary to control these three 
sources because their emissions are likely to have only a negligible 
impact on visibility. We are therefore proposing that BART for PM and 
NOX is no additional controls beyond the continued use of 
natural gas as fuel. The current operating permit for the Wenatchee 
facility contains a PM emission limit of 0.1 gr/dscf. See permit 
condition G.1. We believe that this limit is appropriate for natural 
gas fired furnaces without add-on PM controls and propose to establish 
it as the BART emission limit for the ingot furnaces. For 
NOX BART, we propose to establish a fuel specification 
requiring the furnaces burn only natural gas.
Proposed BART Limits for the Ingot Furnaces
PM: 0.1 gr/dscf
SO2: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
SO2 emissions
NOX: combust only natural gas
Green Mill
    Process Description. The green mill is where ``green'' anodes 
(i.e., un-baked) are formed from a mixture of coke and petroleum pitch. 
The coke and pitch mixture is placed into a vibratory anode-forming 
mold that uses elevated temperature of the raw materials, vibration, 
and pressure from an overhead weight to form the coke/pitch mixture 
into solid green anodes. The vibratory former was installed in 1972. 
All emissions from the green mill, including the vibratory forming 
unit, are collected and sent either to the dry coke scrubber or dust 
collector 2.
    Existing Controls. There are two air emission control devices 
currently operating for emissions from the green mill and vibratory 
forming unit. Emissions from various processes within the green mill 
are collected and sent either to the dry coke scrubber or dust 
collector 2. The dry coke scrubber is a dry scrubber using powdered 
coke, followed by fabric filtration. The dust collector 2 is a fabric 
filter.
    Proposed BART Limits for Dry Coke Scrubber. The dry coke scrubber 
uses fabric filters to capture PM from the green mill. There is no more 
efficient technology for PM, thus analysis of additional PM control 
options is not necessary. The State has established an emission limit 
for this unit of 0.005 gr/dscf, which represents the capture efficiency 
for high efficiency fabric filters. See permit condition A-5. A recent 
source test shows this source is capable of meeting this limit. We 
therefore propose that 0.005 gr/dscf as the BART emission limit for PM 
for the dry coke scrubber.

PM: 0.005 gr/dscf
SO2: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
SO2 emissions
NOX: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
NOX emissions

    Proposed BART Limits for Dust Collector 2. The dust collector 2 
uses fabric filtration to capture PM from the green mill. There is no 
more efficient control technology for PM, so the existing technology is 
the basis for BART. Emissions from the dust collector 2 are 11.5 t/y. 
The State has established an emission limit for this unit in the 
operating permit for the facility at 0.1 gr/dscf. See permit condition 
A-9. However, this limit does not adequately represent the control 
efficiency for properly operated and maintained fabric filters. The EPA 
has obtained and reviewed recent source test data from the State for 
this emission point and finds that 0.01 gr/dscf is more representative 
of a properly operated and maintained fabric filter. Because BART must 
be ``an emission limitation based on the degree of reduction 
achievable'' by the selected control technology, 40 CFR 51.301, and 
because the available data demonstrates that the existing fabric filter 
in dust collector 2 can readily achieve an emission limit of 0.01 gr/
dscf, we are proposing it as PM BART.

PM: 0.01 gr/dscf
SO2: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
SO2 emissions
NOX: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
NOX emissions
Alumina Handling Equipment
    Process Description, Existing Controls, and Control Options. There 
are two alumina handling emission points. The first is a very small 
fabric filter dust collector on an alumina conveyance line that is 
identified as unit 21M. The second is a small fabric filter dust 
collector controlling emissions from an alumina handling unit situated 
above an alumina storage silo that is identified as unit 19C. Combined 
emissions from 21M and 19C total less than 1 t/y. Because these PM 
emissions are currently controlled by fabric filters, which represent 
high efficiency PM control, an analysis of additional PM control 
options is not necessary. However, due to physical constraints, PM 
emissions from these two units cannot be tested or measured, therefore 
we are proposing to establish the PM BART limits for 21M and 19C in the 
form of an opacity standard instead of a PM emission limitation. 
Because there are no SO2 or NOX emissions from 
alumina handling, BART for these pollutants is not applicable.
Proposed BART Limits for Alumina Handling Equipment 21M and 19C
PM: 20% opacity
SO2: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
SO2 emissions
NOX: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
NOX emissions
Alumina Railcar Unloading Facility
    Process Description, Existing Controls, and Control Options. The

[[Page 79353]]

alumina railcar unloading facility is equipped with below-ground 
hoppers controlled by a large fabric filter and is identified as unit 
43E. The PM emissions from unit 43E are 17 t/y.
    Because PM emissions are currently controlled by a fabric filter, 
which represents high efficiency PM control, analysis of additional PM 
control options is not necessary. The current PM emission limit for the 
railcar unloading facility is the statewide PM limit of 0.1 gr/dscf. 
However, Alcoa provided source test data that demonstrates that unit 
43E can achieve a much lower limit representative of a high efficiency 
fabric filter. Based on this source test data, we are proposing a PM 
BART emission limit of 0.005 gr/dscf. Because there are no 
SO2 or NOX emissions from the railcar unloading 
facility, BART for these pollutants is not applicable.
Proposed BART Limits for Alumina Railcar Unloading Facility
PM: 0.005 gr/dscf
SO2: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
SO2 emissions
NOX: BART limit not necessary because there are no 
NOX emissions

VI. New Information Relevant to the EPA's Previous Proposal

    We received adverse comments on our proposed action on two FIP 
elements: Our analysis regarding the affordability of LSFO control 
technology for SO2 at the Intalco facility in Ferndale, 
Washington, and our demonstration that the BART Alternative for the 
Tesoro refinery in Anacortes, Washington provides greater reasonable 
progress than NOX BART. In response to the comments 
regarding these specific issues, new information is now available for 
public review, as discussed below.

A. Affordability Analysis of LSFO at Intalco

    As explained in our prior proposal, the BART Guidelines provide 
that even if a control technology is determined to be reasonable after 
consideration of all five BART factors, there may be some cases where 
installation of the controls will affect the viability of continued 
plant operations. After we initially found that SO2 BART for 
the potlines at the Intalco facility was an LSFO control system, Alcoa 
indicated to EPA that it could not afford to install and operate LSFO. 
In response, we conducted an affordability analysis to confirm the 
company's assertion. We contracted with RTI International (RTI) to 
conduct the requested affordability analysis. See 2012 Affordability 
Assessment. In our December 2012 proposal, we concluded that the 2012 
Affordability Assessment demonstrated that Alcoa could not afford to 
install LSFO at this time while maintaining the Intalco facility as a 
viable operation and requested comment. 77 FR 76191-76192.
    Several commenters questioned the sufficiency of the 2012 
Affordability Assessment, suggesting that the analysis lacked an 
adequate explanation or basis for the affordability determination. The 
commenters alleged that the 2012 Affordability Assessment did not 
provide a clear argument why Alcoa cannot afford the cost of LSFO at 
the Intalco facility. The commenters also argued that RTI improperly 
relied on the OAQPS Control Cost Manual to determine the rate at which 
Alcoa would have to borrow funds to install LSFO when RTI should have 
used site-specific data. One commenter also said that the 2012 
Affordability Assessment did not describe what the cost/sales ratio 
means, what ratio would suggest LSFO is affordable, or why the cost/
sales ratio is significant in determining affordability. The commenters 
also pointed out that the 2012 Affordability Assessment acknowledged 
that a long-term power contract with the Bonneville Power 
Administration, which had expired at the time of the analysis, would 
affect the affordability analysis. Because a new long-term power 
contract was signed and became effective shortly after the 2012 
Affordability Assessment was finalized, the commenters asserted that it 
should be considered in a final affordability determination. The 
commenters claimed that the foundation for the EPA's conclusion was 
factually incorrect because the determinative fact on which the 
affordability conclusion was based (the existence of a long-term power 
supply contract) substantially changed less than a month after the 2012 
Affordability Assessment was finalized. The commenters also argued that 
the 2012 Affordability Assessment failed to disclose what amount of 
power at the IP rate \10\ is actually necessary for Intalco to run all 
3 potlines. The 2012 Affordability Assessment did not analyze whether 
LSFO would be affordable if Intalco were able to obtain power for two 
lines under a long-term contract and other power for the third. The 
commenters requested that the affordability analysis be redone in light 
of Intalco's new long-term power supply contract and other facts absent 
from the 2012 Affordability Assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``IP rate'' means the Industrial Firm Power Rate contained 
in BPA's 2012 Wholesale Power Rate Schedules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to these comments, we asked RTI to update its 
Affordability Assessment based on the availability of new and updated 
information. RTI considered, for example, new information regarding 
commodity price forecasting for the aluminum market, updated investment 
ratings, the December 2012 Long-Term Power Sales Agreement between 
Alcoa and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) (2012 Power Sales 
Agreement), and the 2012 Alcoa Annual Report. RTI completed its Revised 
Intalco BART SO2 Affordability Assessment in September 2013 
(Revised Affordability Assessment). The Revised Affordability 
Assessment includes an improved explanation of the various data used to 
determine financial health in the context of an affordability analysis 
for a BART determination. The Revised Affordability Assessment now 
specifically addresses the long-term power supply contract, cost/sales 
ratio, ability to borrow funds, the price of electricity, updated 
investment ratings, aluminum market conditions and other factors 
relevant to the affordability determination.
    RTI analyzed the information to determine the impact that requiring 
the LSFO control technology could have on the profitability of Alcoa 
and on the Intalco facility. RTI describes how it calculated the 
Intalco cost/sales ratio to be a range of 5.1% to 21.7%. This range of 
values depends on assumptions about control costs, capacity 
utilization, and aluminum prices. It further explains that the cost/
sales ratios may be higher or lower depending on plant utilization and 
future aluminum prices, but that the ratios are high in even the most 
optimistic scenarios. RTI also suggests that even in the absence of 
requiring the LSFO technology, the profitability of operating Intalco 
is highly sensitive to external factors. The Revised Affordability 
Assessment describes the current demand for aluminum and the fact that 
several aluminum smelters in the northwest have shut down within the 
past 10 years. It also reviews the 2012 Power Sales Agreement and the 
electricity price forecasts in the northwest. It concludes that 
Intalco's ability to run at full capacity depends on the availability 
of affordable power, but explains that even with the long-term power 
contract, Intalco may not be able to operate profitably if additional 
regulatory costs are factored into the plant's operating cost. Revised 
Affordability Assessment at 4-4 through 4-6.
    The Revised Affordability Assessment also describes why Alcoa is 
unlikely to be able to pass the cost of controls on

[[Page 79354]]

to consumers. As explained, aluminum is a commodity traded on global 
markets, such as the London Metal Exchange. Aluminum producers can 
affect the cost/sales ratio by negotiating long-term contracts with 
alumina suppliers, but have little control over product price. In the 
case of Intalco, the increased costs of installing and operating LSFO 
would affect only this one aluminum facility, so the increased costs 
would have little impact on global supply. Therefore, RTI concluded, 
the market price would remain essentially unaffected, and Intalco would 
be unable to pass much, if any, of its cost increase along to its 
customers. Intalco would experience increased costs due to LSFO, with 
little to no change in the price of its products. Revised Affordability 
Assessment at 4-7. As a result, its profits, per-ton and overall, could 
be reduced to unacceptable levels by LSFO that would likely lead to a 
business decision to close the facility.
    As explained in the Revised Affordability Assessment, RTI also 
analyzed Alcoa's ability to fund using cash, or finance using debt, the 
control technology costs. As explained, the cost of installing and 
operating LSFO will represent approximately 5-21% of the facility's 
sales revenue over the 30-year lifetime of the equipment at current 
utilization. Although limited cash reserves are available, the control 
technology expenditure would use over 8% of Alcoa's cash reserves. 
Additionally, as of 2013, the credit ratings provided by Standard & 
Poors, Moody's, and Fitch showed that Alcoa's financial outlook was 
negative or under review for downgrade. Alcoa's 2013 BBB-credit rating 
may also limit its ability to borrow money to purchase pollution 
control equipment. The Revised Affordability Assessment concluded that:

    [W]hile we cannot definitively determine what business decisions 
Alcoa will make, should installation and operation of LFSO be 
required, it is our belief based on our analysis and sound business 
practices that Alcoa would seriously consider other options, such as 
shifting production to other facilities, rather than installing and 
operating LSFO and continuing aluminum production at Intalco. 
Revised Affordability Assessment at 5-1.

    As previously explained in our December 2012 notice, Alcoa 
submitted financial information to the EPA in support of its 
affordability claim. A portion of the information, Attachment 2 of the 
letter from Robert Wilt, Alcoa Inc., to Dennis McLerran, EPA Region 10 
Administrator, dated June 22, 2012, was claimed as confidential 
business information (CBI). Thus, Attachment 2 was not available at 
that time for public review. Subsequently, in accordance with EPA 
regulations regarding CBI at 40 CFR Part 2, the EPA asked Alcoa to 
substantiate its CBI claim. In response, Alcoa submitted a redacted 
version of Attachment 2 reducing the amount of information it claimed 
as confidential and providing substantiation for the redacted 
information. The information Alcoa continued to claim as confidential 
consists of several years of `after tax' cash flow values. After 
considering the criteria specified in 40 CFR 2.208, the EPA made a 
final CBI determination finding that the redacted information 
constituted CBI within the meaning of the EPA's regulations. The 
redacted Attachment 2, the substantiation, and the final CBI 
determination are included in the docket for this action and are 
available for public review.
    The additional and updated information regarding the affordability 
of LSFO at Intalco, including the Revised Affordability Assessment, is 
also included in the docket for this proposed action and is available 
for public review. Comments regarding this additional and updated 
information may be made in accordance with the procedures explained in 
the public comment section above. Other aspects of our previously 
proposed action related to Intalco are outside the scope of this 
notice. Accordingly, other comments we previously received in response 
to our December 2012 proposal related to the proposed Intalco BART and 
affordability determination will be responded to in a future Federal 
Register notice.

B. Tesoro Modeling Demonstration for BART Alternative

    In our December 2012 notice, we proposed to disapprove the State's 
NOX BART determination for five BART emission units at the 
Tesoro Refining and Marketing refinery (Tesoro) and proposed a federal 
BART Alternative. The proposal explained that the EPA's proposed BART 
Alternative provides for greater reasonable progress towards meeting 
natural visibility conditions than BART.
    The RHR provides two methods by which this demonstration can be 
made. First, if the distribution of emissions is not substantially 
different than under BART, and the alternative measure results in 
greater emission reductions, then the alternative measure may be deemed 
to achieve greater reasonable progress. Second, for disperse or widely 
distributed sources in a regional emissions trading program, dispersion 
modeling is to be used. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3). Because in this case, the 
emission sources covered by BART and the BART Alternative are within 
the same facility and the distribution of emissions is not 
substantially different, applying the first method's emissions test 
would meet regulatory requirements. The demonstration in the December 
2012 proposal relied on the emission test. It compared the allowed 
emissions under BART to the emissions that would be allowed under the 
BART Alternative. We determined that the BART Alternative would reduce 
SO2 emissions by 1068 tons per year, which exceeds the 466 
tons of NOX per year expected to be reduced under BART. 
Thus, in accordance with the RHR, because the alternative measure 
results in greater emission reductions, the alternative ``may be deemed 
to achieve greater reasonable progress.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3).
    Several commenters stated that even with the greater SO2 
emission reductions under the BART Alternative, the EPA made an 
inappropriate greater-reasonable-progress demonstration. The commenters 
explained that in cool moist climates (like the Pacific Northwest), the 
CALPUFF model predicts that the conversion of NOX to nitrate 
is enhanced in the winter months. The commenters suggested that 
dispersion modeling should have been used to demonstrate whether the 
BART Alternative truly resulted in greater reasonable progress. The 
dispersion modeling results would compare the visibility improvement 
expected from the proposed BART Alternative to the visibility 
improvement expected from source-specific NOX BART. The 
commenters asserted that it was not sufficient for the EPA to simply 
compare the emission reductions expected from BART with emission 
reductions expected from the BART Alternative. The commenters said that 
SO2 and NOX have significantly different chemical 
aerosol formation mechanisms in the atmosphere, depending on 
meteorology. They also said that the presence of more sulfate than 
nitrate at a Class I area does not necessarily indicate, without more 
analysis, that one ton of SO2 has more or less impact than 
one ton of NOX. One commenter specifically suggested that 
NOX emissions have a greater ``per ton'' impact on 
visibility than SO2 emissions. The commenters suggested that 
air quality/visibility dispersion modeling, similar to the modeling 
used in determining whether a BART-eligible source is subject to BART, 
should be conducted. Therefore, the commenters argued that the EPA had 
not adequately shown that the Tesoro BART

[[Page 79355]]

Alternative was in fact `Better than BART'.
    After consideration and in response to these comments, the EPA 
decided that a modeling analysis was appropriate for the Tesoro `Better 
than BART' demonstration. At the EPA's request, Tesoro agreed to 
provide such a modeling demonstration. Tesoro used the `Modeling 
Protocol for Washington, Oregon, and Idaho: Protocol for the 
Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System Pursuant to the Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Regulation' that was used for 
determining which BART-eligible sources were subject to BART. That 
protocol, as supplemented with detailed information specific to the 
Tesoro `Better than BART' demonstration, including the Class I areas to 
be evaluated, parameters used for comparison (i.e., 98th percentile 
change in daily haze index, and maximum change in the daily haze 
index), and emission sources, was approved by the EPA on March 28, 
2013. (The approved protocol is found in the April 11, 2013 letter from 
Tesoro, Appendix I). The modeling was conducted to assess whether the 
visibility improvement from the BART Alternative's SO2 
emission reductions would be greater than the visibility improvement 
from the BART NOX reductions. The modeling assessed both 
pollutants' chemical aerosol formation mechanisms and impacts on 
visibility. The modeling demonstrated that the visibility improvement 
associated with the SO2 reductions under the BART 
Alternative was greater than the improvements associated with the 
NOX reductions under BART.
    The results of the modeling effort confirm that the BART 
Alternative provides greater reasonable progress toward natural 
conditions in all Class I areas within 300 km of the Tesoro facility 
over the three year baseline period. Tesoro April 11, 2013, letter 
Appendix 2. The Tables below show the Class I areas evaluated, the 
baseline impacts, the visibility impacts with BART controls, and the 
visibility impacts with the BART Alternative. The values shown in Table 
2 are the number of days over the three-year period from 2003 through 
2005 that the Tesoro facility is predicted to cause visibility impacts 
of greater than 0.5 dv.

                                   Table 2--Tesoro `Better Than BART' Impacts
                    [Number of Days With a Haze Index (Deciview (dv)) Above 0.5 dv 2003-2005]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Impact with
                          Class I area                               Baseline       Impact with        BART
                                                                      impact           BART         alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area....................................              94              39              28
Glacier Peak Wilderness Area....................................             111              48              33
Goat Rocks Wilderness Area......................................              10               4               2
Mt. Adams Wilderness Area.......................................               9               4               1
Mt. Rainier National Park.......................................              44              21               8
North Cascades National Park....................................             128              58              47
Olympic National Park...........................................             116              78              73
Pasayten Wilderness Area........................................              31               9               2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 presents modeling results showing the 98th percentile 
visibility impacts of Tesoro over the same three-year period (2003-
2005) at the seven Class I areas within 300 km of the Tesoro facility.

               Table 3--Tesoro `Better Than BART' Impacts
  [Daily Haze Index (dv) 2003-2005, based on the 22nd highest value in
                   three years within a Class I Area]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Impact with
         Class I area             Baseline     Impact with      BART
                                   impact         BART       alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area..         0.932         0.639         0.558
Glacier Peak Wilderness Area..         0.963         0.649         0.566
Goat Rocks Wilderness Area....         0.317         0.212         0.172
Mt. Adams Wilderness Area.....         0.277         0.168         0.146
Mt. Rainier National Park.....         0.737         0.498         0.394
North Cascades National Park..         1.035         0.707         0.666
Olympic National Park.........         1.736         1.212         1.106
Pasayten Wilderness Area......         0.575         0.387         0.332
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dispersion modeling conducted for the Tesoro BART Alternative 
demonstrates that the BART Alternative provides for greater reasonable 
progress than NOX BART at all seven Class I areas.
    The new information regarding the Tesoro BART Alternative modeling 
demonstration, including the approved modeling protocol, Tesoro's April 
11, 2013 letter explaining the modeling results, and the modeling 
results (including the input files), is included in the docket for this 
proposed action and is available for public review. Comments regarding 
this additional information may be made in accordance with the 
procedures explained in the public comment section above. Other aspects 
of our previously proposed action related to the Tesoro BART 
Alternative are outside the scope of this notice. Accordingly, other 
comments we previously received in response to our December 2012 
proposal related to the Tesoro BART Alternative will be responded to in 
a future Federal Register notice.

VII. What action is the EPA proposing?

    The EPA is proposing to disapprove Washington's determination that 
the Wenatchee facility is not subject to BART, determine that the 
facility is subject to BART, and propose BART for the BART-eligible 
emission units

[[Page 79356]]

through a FIP. The EPA is also notifying the public of new information 
available in the docket for this action related to our BART 
affordability assessment for Alcoa's Intalco facility and our 
previously proposed BART Alternative for the Tesoro refinery.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the 
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011). The proposed FIP applies to only one 
facility and is not a rule of general applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, a ``collection of 
information'' is defined as a requirement for ``answers to . . . 
identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or 
more persons . . .'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because the proposed FIP 
applies to just one facility, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not 
apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). Burden means the total time, effort, or 
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, 
or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, 
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of 
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and 
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable 
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to 
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review 
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. 
The OMB control numbers for our regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 
CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, 
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes 
of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, 
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the 
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; 
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, 
county, town, school district or special district with a population of 
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for 
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 
dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this 
proposed action on small entities, I certify that this proposed action 
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The FIP for the one Washington facility being proposed 
today does not impose any new requirements on small entities. We 
continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule 
on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA 
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit 
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that 
may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more 
(adjusted for inflation) in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule 
for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally 
requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory 
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least 
burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The 
provisions of section 205 of UMRA do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 
EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator 
publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was 
not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that 
may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
Tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of UMRA a 
small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 
potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected 
small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    Under Title II of UMRA, EPA has determined that this proposed rule 
does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that 
exceed the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million by state, 
local, or Tribal governments or the private sector in any 1 year. In 
addition, this proposed rule does not contain a significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandate as described by section 203 of UMRA nor does 
it contain any regulatory requirements that might significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct -effects on the states, on the 
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state

[[Page 79357]]

and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed 
regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism 
implications and that preempts state law unless the Agency consults 
with state and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. This action does not have federalism implications. 
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on 
the relationship between the national government and the states, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely 
addresses the state not fully meeting its regional haze SIP obligations 
established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to 
this action. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent 
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and 
local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed 
rule from State and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the 
SIP and FIP do not have substantial direct effects on tribal 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to 
any rule that: (1) Is determined to be economically significant as 
defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that we have reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. EPA interprets EO 13045 as 
applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety 
risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO 
has the potential to influence the regulation. This action is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it implements specific standards 
established by Congress in statutes. However, to the extent this 
proposed rule will limit emissions of NOX, SO2, 
and PM10 the rule will have a beneficial effect on 
children's health by reducing air pollution.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes 
to use American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods and 
generally accepted test methods previously promulgated by EPA. Because 
all of these methods are generally accepted and are widely used by 
State and local agencies for determining compliance with similar rules, 
EPA believes it would be impracticable and potentially confusing to put 
in place methods that vary from what is already accepted. As a result, 
EPA believes it is unnecessary and inappropriate to consider 
alternative technical standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect 
of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to 
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to 
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes 
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States. This FIP, if finalized, will limit 
air emissions from one facility. We have determined that this proposed 
rule, if finalized, will not have disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income 
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection 
for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population, 
including any minority or low income populations.

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, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: December 13, 2013.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For reasons discussed in the preamble the Environmental Protection 
Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. Section 52.2498 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2498  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) The requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act 
are not met because the plan does not include approvable provisions for 
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas, 
specifically the Best Available

[[Page 79358]]

Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement for regional haze visibility 
impairment (Sec.  51.308(e)). The EPA BART regulations are found in 
Sec. Sec.  52.2500, 52.2501, and 52.2502
0
3. Section 52.2502 is added to read as follows.


Sec.  52.2502  Best available retrofit technology requirements for the 
Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee Works primary aluminum smelter.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to the Alcoa Inc.--
Wenatchee Works primary aluminum smelter located near Wenatchee, 
Washington and to its successors and/or assignees.
    (b) Best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitations 
for Potline #5--(1) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit. Starting 120 
days after publication, SO2 emissions from Potline 
5 must not exceed 46 pounds per ton of aluminum produced 
during any calendar month as calculated in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. SO2 emissions, on a 
calendar month basis, shall be determined using the following formulas:

    SO2 emissions in pounds = (carbon ratio) x (tons of 
aluminum produced during the calendar month) x (% sulfur in baked 
anodes/100) x (% sulfur converted to SO2/100) x (2 pounds of 
SO2 per pound of sulfur)
    SO2 emissions in pounds per ton of aluminum produced = 
(SO2 emissions in pounds during the calendar month)/(tons of 
aluminum produced during the calendar month)

    (A) The carbon ratio is the calendar month average of tons of baked 
anodes consumed per ton of aluminum produced as determined using the 
baked anode consumption and aluminum production records required in 
paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
    (B) The % sulfur in baked anodes is the calendar month average 
sulfur content as determined in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (C) The % sulfur converted to SO2 is 90%.
    (ii) Emission monitoring. The % sulfur of baked anodes shall be 
determined using ASTM Method D6376 or an alternative method approved by 
EPA Region 10.
    (A) At a minimum, Alcoa must collect no less than four baked anode 
core samples during each calendar week.
    (B) Calendar month average sulfur content shall be determined by 
averaging the sulfur content of all samples collected during the 
calendar month.
    (2) Particulate matter (PM) emission limit. Starting 120 days after 
publication, PM emissions from the Potline 5 Gas Treatment 
Center stack must not exceed 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot 
of exhaust gas.
    (3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit. Starting 120 days after 
publication, NOX emissions from Potline 5 must not 
exceed 0.95 tons per calendar month.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. NOX emissions, on a 
calendar month basis, shall be determined using the following formula:

    NOX emissions in tons per calendar month = (0.34 
pounds of NOX per ton of aluminum produced) x (number of 
tons of aluminum produced in the calendar month)/(2000 pounds per 
ton).

    (c) Best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitations 
for Anode Bake Furnace #62. (1) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit. 
Starting 120 days after publication, the sulfur content of the coke 
used in anode manufacturing must not exceed 3.0 percent by weight.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. Each shipment of coke must be tested 
for sulfur content using ASTM Method D6376 or an alternative method 
approved by EPA Region 10. Written documentation from the coke supplier 
certifying the sulfur content is an approved alternative method.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (2) Particulate matter (PM) emission limit. Starting 120 days after 
publication, the PM emissions from the anode bake furnaces stack must 
not exceed 0.01 grains per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit. Starting 120 days after 
publication, the anode bake furnaces must only combust natural gas.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. Compliance shall be demonstrated 
through fuel purchase records.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (d) Best available retrofit technology (BART) emission limitations 
for Ingot Furnace 1 (IP-1), Ingot Furnace 2 (IP-2), and Ingot Furnace 
11 (IP-11)--(1) Particulate matter (PM) emission limits. Starting 120 
days after publication, the PM emissions from each of ingot furnaces 
IP-1, IP-2, and IP-11 must not exceed 0.1 grains per dry standard cubic 
foot of exhaust gas.
    (2) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission limit. Starting 120 days after 
publication, each of the ingot furnaces IP-1, IP-2, and IP-11 must only 
combust natural gas.
    (i) Compliance demonstration. Compliance shall be demonstrated 
through fuel purchase records.
    (ii) [Reserved].
    (e) Best available retrofit technology (BART) particulate matter 
(PM) emission limitations for the Green Mill. (1) Starting 120 days 
after publication, the PM emissions from the Green Mill Dry Coke 
Scrubber must not exceed 0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot of 
exhaust gas.
    (2) Starting 120 days after publication, the PM emissions from the 
Green Mill Dust Collector 2 must not exceed 0.01 grains per dry 
standard cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (f) Best available retrofit technology (BART) particulate matter 
(PM) emission limitations for alumina handling operations. (1) Starting 
120 days after publication, the opacity from the alumina handling 
fabric filters (21M and 19C) must not exceed 20 percent.
    (2) Starting 120 days after publication, the PM emissions from the 
alumina rail car unloading baghouse (43E) must not exceed 0.005 grains 
per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust gas.
    (g) Source testing. (1) Alcoa must perform source testing to 
demonstrate compliance with emission limits established in this section 
upon request by the EPA Region 10 Administrator.
    (2) The reference test method for measuring PM emissions is EPA 
Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A.
    (3) The reference test method for measuring opacity from the 
alumina handling fabric filters (21M and 19C) is EPA Method 9 (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A).
    (4) EPA Region 10 may approve the use of an alternative to a 
reference test method upon an adequate demonstration by Alcoa that such 
alternative provides results equivalent to that of the reference 
method.
    (h) Recordkeeping. Starting 120 days after publication Alcoa must 
keep the following records:
    (1) Alcoa must retain a copy of all calendar month potline 
5 SO2 emissions calculations.
    (2) Alcoa must maintain records of the baked anode consumption and 
aluminum production data used to develop the carbon ratio.
    (3) Alcoa must retain a copy of all calendar month carbon ratio and 
potline SO2 emission calculations.
    (4) Alcoa must record the calendar day and calendar month 
production of aluminum.
    (5) Alcoa must record the calendar month average sulfur content of 
the baked anodes.
    (6) Alcoa must retain a copy of all calendar month potline 
NOX emission calculations.
    (7) Alcoa must record the sulfur content of each shipment of coke.
    (8) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase records showing the type(s) of 
fuel combusted in the anode bake furnaces.

[[Page 79359]]

    (9) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase records showing the types(s) of 
fuel combusted in the ingot furnaces.
    (10) Records must be retained at the facility for at least five 
years and be made available to EPA Region 10 upon request.
    (i) Reporting. (1) Alcoa must report SO2 emissions by 
calendar month to EPA Region 10 on an annual basis at the same time as 
the annual compliance certification required by the Part 70 operating 
permit for the Alcoa plant is submitted to the Title V permitting 
authority.
    (2) Alcoa must report NOX emissions by calendar month to 
EPA Region 10 on an annual basis at the same time as the annual 
compliance certification required by the Part 70 operating permit for 
the Alcoa plant is submitted to the Title V permitting authority.
    (3) Alcoa must report the sulfur content of each shipment of coke 
received at the facility during the compliance period to EPA Region 10 
at the same time as the annual compliance certification required by the 
Part 70 operating permit for the Alcoa plant is submitted to the Title 
V permitting authority.
    (4) Alcoa must report the fuel purchase records for the anode bake 
furnaces and the ingot furnaces during the compliance period to EPA 
Region 10 at the same time as the annual compliance certification 
required by the Part 70 operating permit for the Alcoa plant is 
submitted to the Title V permitting authority.
    (5) All documents and reports must be sent to EPA Region 10 
electronically, in a format approved by EPA Region 10, to the following 
email address: R10-AirPermitReports@epa.gov.

[FR Doc. 2013-30894 Filed 12-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


