[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 250 (Monday, December 30, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 79344-79359]
[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

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<PHONE_NUMBER> 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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