[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 112 (Wednesday, June 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33438-33456]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13491]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071; FRL-9911-83-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
Intalco Operations, Tesoro Refining and Marketing, and Alcoa Wenatchee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking
final action to partially approve and partially disapprove a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Washington (State)
on December 22, 2010, as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act (CAA
or the Act) section 169 and federal regional haze regulations and to
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the disapproved
elements of the SIP. As described in Part I of this preamble, this
final rule approves numerous elements in the SIP including the State's
Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinations for a number
of sources. This action also: Disapproves the NOX BART
determination and promulgates a Federal BART alternative for five BART
emission units at the Tesoro Refining and Marketing refinery (Tesoro
refinery) located in Anacortes, Washington; finalizes a limited
approval and limited disapproval of the State's SO2 BART
determination and promulgates a Federal BART alternative for the
Intalco Aluminum Corp. (Intalco facility) potline operation located in
Ferndale, Washington; and disapproves the State's BART exemption for
the Alcoa Wenatchee Works located in Malaga, Washington (Wenatchee
Works), determines that the Wenatchee Works is subject to BART, and
promulgates Federal BART for all emission units subject to BART at the
facility.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 11, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket Identification No. EPA-R10-OAR-2010-1071. All documents in the
docket are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, AWT-107,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101. The EPA
requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or at 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. Summary of our Final Action
II. Background
III. Response to Comments
IV. Conclusion
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Summary of our Final Action

    The EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove the Washington Regional Haze SIP submitted on December 22,
2010. In this action, the EPA is approving the following provisions of
the Washington SIP: The identification of affected Class I areas and
determination of baseline conditions, the natural conditions and
uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I area; the emission
inventories; the sources of visibility impairment in Washington's Class
I areas; the State's monitoring strategy; the State's consultation with
other states and Federal Land Managers (FLMs); the reasonable progress
goals (RPGs); the long-term strategy (LTS); and the commitment to
submit the periodic SIP revisions and 5-year Progress Reports.
    In today's action, we are also approving the State's BART
determinations for the BP Cherry Point Refinery, the Port Townsend
Paper Company, the LaFarge North America facility, and Weyerhaeuser's
Longview facility, as well as portions of the BART determinations for
the Tesoro refinery and the Intalco facility. The EPA is disapproving
Washington's NOX BART determination and promulgating a BART
Alternative for five emission units at the Tesoro refinery. The EPA is
also finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the
State's SO2 BART determination for the potlines at the
Intalco facility and promulgating an SO2 BART Alternative
for the potlines, consisting of an annual limit of 80% of base year
SO2 emissions. Finally, the EPA is disapproving the State's
BART exemption for the Wenatchee Works and promulgating BART for
SO2, NOX, and PM emissions at the facility.
    The resulting BART FIP for the Tesoro refinery, the Intalco
facility, and the Wenatchee Works does not require the purchase or
installation of new air pollution control equipment, but rather
establishes BART based on existing control technology. Thus, the only
additional costs incurred by these facilities will be minimal
expenditures for monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping. The benefit
to the environment is the prevention of visibility degradation due to
potential future increases in emissions from changes envisioned at the
facilities.
    This final action is consistent with our proposed actions and meets
the requirements of CAA sections 169A and 169B and 40 CFR 51.308.

II. Background

    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 plans to ensure reasonable progress toward
improving visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas \1\ (Class

I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); See also 70 FR 39104 (July 6,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6,000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a).
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, the 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.'' Id. 7602(i). When we
use the term ``Class I area'' in this action, we mean a ``mandatory
Class I Federal area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On behalf of the State of Washington, the Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology) submitted its Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan (Regional Haze SIP or SIP) to the EPA on December
22, 2010. In an action published on December 6, 2012, the EPA approved
BART provisions for the TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC coal-fired
power plant. 77 FR 72742.
    On December 26, 2012, the EPA proposed to partially approve and
partially disapprove the remaining portions of the Washington Regional
Haze SIP covering the first implementation period (77 FR 76714). In
that action, the EPA proposed to approve the following SIP elements:
    We proposed to approve Washington's identification of affected
Class I areas in the State. The State calculated the baseline
visibility conditions in each Class I area using data from the
Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) from
monitoring sites representing each Class I area.
    We proposed to approve the State's determination of natural
conditions and the uniform rate of progress (URP) for each Class I
area. Washington used the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
derived natural visibility conditions. In general, the WRAP based their
estimates on the EPA guidance document titled, ``Guidance for
Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions Under the Regional Haze
Program'' (EPA-45/B-03-0005 September 2003). However, the WRAP
incorporated refinements into its estimates that the EPA believes
provide results more appropriate for western states than the general
EPA default approach.
    We proposed to approve the statewide emission inventory of
pollutants that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to
visibility impairment in the Class I areas. The WRAP, with data
supplied by Washington, compiled emission inventories for all major
source categories in Washington for the 2002 baseline year and for
estimated emissions in 2018. Emission estimates for 2018 were generated
from anticipated population growth, growth in industrial activity, and
emission reductions from implementation of expected control measures,
e.g., implementation of BART emission limitations and reductions in
motor vehicle tailpipe emissions.
    We proposed to approve the State's identification of the sources of
visibility impairment in each Washington Class I areas, which used the
approach and modeling tools recommended by the WRAP. These modeling
tools were state-of-the-science, and the EPA determined that these
tools were appropriately used by WRAP for regional haze planning.
    We proposed to approve the State's monitoring strategy. The primary
monitoring network for regional haze in Washington is the IMPROVE
network. There are currently IMPROVE monitoring sites that represent
conditions for all Class I areas in Washington. The State commits to
rely on the IMPROVE network for future regional haze implementation
periods. Data from the IMPROVE network will be used for preparing the
5-year progress reports and the 10-year SIP revisions.
    We proposed to approve the State's consultation with other states
and FLMs. Through the WRAP, member states and the Tribes worked
extensively with the FLMs from the U.S. Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture to develop technical analyses that support the regional
haze SIPs for the WRAP states. In addition, the State provided its
proposed SIP to the FLMs for comment in March 2010. The State also
consulted with the states of Idaho and Oregon, as well as the other
WRAP member states and Tribes.
    We proposed to approve the State-identified visibility improvement
anticipated by 2018 in each of the Class I areas as a result of the
BART emission limits established in the SIP. The projected improvement
was determined by using the results of the Community Multi-Scale Air
Quality (CMAQ) modeling conducted by WRAP. The WRAP CMAQ modeling
predicted visibility impairment in each Class I area based on 2018
projected source emission inventories, which included federal and state
regulations already in place (``on the books'') and BART emission
limitations.
    We proposed to approve the State's LTS because it includes the
documentation and control measures necessary to achieve the RPGs at all
Class I areas affected by the State's sources. The State's LTS included
consideration of all anthropogenic sources of visibility impairment,
including major and minor stationary sources, mobile sources, and area
sources. The anticipated net effect on visibility over the first
planning period due to changes in point, area, and mobile source
emissions is an improvement in visibility in all Class I areas in
Washington.
    We proposed to approve the State's commitment to develop and submit
a comprehensive Regional Haze SIP revision to the EPA by July 31, 2018,
and every ten years thereafter. The State also committed to submit a
report to the EPA every five years that evaluates the progress being
made towards the RPGs and the need for any additional control measures.
    We proposed to approve the majority of the State's BART
determinations. The State appropriately identified all BART-eligible
sources located in Washington and, with one exception, appropriately
identified those BART-eligible sources that are subject to BART. In
this action, we are finalizing our approval of these SIP elements as
proposed.
    In our December 26, 2012 and December 30, 2013 actions, we also
proposed to disapprove the following SIP elements and promulgate a FIP
to fill any gaps left by our partial disapproval:
    We proposed a limited disapproval of the State's SO2
BART determination for Alcoa's Intalco facility potlines. The State
determined that installing new control technology was not cost-
effective and that the level of existing control for the potlines was
BART. We identified a number of errors with the State's cost analysis
that rendered the State's control determination unreasonable. We
conducted our own analysis and determined that limestone slurry forced
oxidation (LSFO) was SO2 BART. However, Alcoa asserted that
it could not afford LSFO at the Intalco facility and remain a viable
business. In response, we conducted an affordability analysis, which
included updated information as described in the December 30, 2013
proposal, and proposed to concur that LSFO was not affordable at the
Intalco facility. Alcoa offered a BART Alternative of implementing
pollution prevention measures, primarily the requirement of 3% or less
sulfur in the anode coke, and limiting potline SO2 emissions
to 80% of base year emissions. We included this BART Alternative in our
FIP. The BART Alternative makes Washington's pollution prevention
requirements federally enforceable and makes the 20% SO2
reduction from baseline permanent and federally enforceable.
    We proposed to disapprove the State's NOX BART
determination for five emission units subject to BART at the Tesoro
refinery. The State determined that NOX controls were not
cost-effective. We determined the State's cost estimates were
unreasonably high

because the State assumed that controls could not be installed when the
facility is shut down for maintenance in the estimated 2017 turnaround
cycle and still fall within the five year BART implementation period.
Tesoro offered a BART Alternative consisting of exclusive use of low-
sulfur refinery gas in several non-BART heaters and boilers in lieu of
installing the NOX BART controls. We included this BART
Alternative in our proposed FIP.
    We initially proposed to approve the State's determination that the
Wenatchee Works did not contribute to visibility impairment in any
Class I area and was therefore not subject to BART. During the comment
period, however, we received adverse comments that the State's
determination was based on visibility modeling that relied upon an
unapproved and unproven fine-grid modeling protocol. Consequently, we
issued a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking on December 30,
2013, and proposed to disapprove the State's determination that the
Wenatchee Works was not subject to BART and also proposed a BART FIP
(78 FR 79344). In that notice, we proposed to find that one of the four
potlines at the Wenatchee Works, as well as some of the supporting
emission units, are subject to BART. After evaluating various control
technologies, we proposed to find that the costs of compliance and the
anticipated visibility benefits did not warrant new controls at the
facility. We therefore proposed that the existing controls at the
facility were BART and proposed to adjust some emission limits in the
facility's operating permit to reflect the level of emission reductions
achievable by those existing controls.
    This final action is the result of our initial proposed action, the
re-proposal for the Wenatchee Works, and our consideration of all
public comments received. This final action is consistent with our
proposed actions. However, as explained below in the response to
comments we revised 40 CFR 52.2470(d) to correct the list of conditions
which are applicable to BP Cherry Point. Additionally, we revised the
NOX emission limit and made minor adjustments to the FIP
provisions related to the Wenatchee Works. Finally, the compliance
dates for the Wenatchee Works and the Tesoro refinery were slightly
modified.

III. Response to Comments

    We are responding to comments received on both the initial proposal
and the re-proposal. However, the re-proposal summarized and responded
to some comments received on the initial proposal. 78 FR 79347-79355.
Those comments and our responses will not be repeated here. The
following are our responses to the remaining comments received on the
initial proposal for which we have not yet responded and new comments
received on the re-proposal. We are also responding to comments
received on the additional information that was provided for public
review in the re-proposal.

Comments:

A. BP Cherry Point Refinery BART Determination

    Comment: One commenter noted that the BART Order 7836 for the BP
Cherry Point Refinery included BART emission limits for boilers
6 and 7, despite the fact that these units were
constructed in 2007 and are not BART-eligible emission units. These
units should not be regulated in the BART Order. Thus, conditions 1.1,
1.3.1, 2.1, 3.1, and 6.1 of the BART Order should not be approved into
the Washington SIP.
    Response: The EPA agrees that the BP Cherry Point Refinery boilers
6 and 7 are not BART-eligible and thus not subject to
BART. Subsequent to the publication of the initial proposal, the State
of Washington sent the EPA a letter dated July 31, 2013, requesting
that conditions 1.1, 1.3.1, 2.1 3.1 and 6.1 and Finding B.c. be
withdrawn from their SIP submittal. These conditions and Finding B.c.
will not be incorporated by reference into the SIP.

B. Tesoro-BART Alternative

    Comment: Several comments were received on our initial proposal
that the EPA should use dispersion modeling to demonstrate the
visibility improvement from the proposed BART Alternative for the
Tesoro Refinery and compare the results to the visibility improvement
from BART.
    Response: Based on consideration of the comments, we concluded that
additional modeling analysis was appropriate for the BART Alternative
demonstration at the Tesoro Refinery. The EPA requested Tesoro provide
such a modeling demonstration. The results of that modeling were
presented in the December 30, 2013 re-proposal. The modeling protocol
and results were posted in the docket for this action and the Federal
Docket Management System (FDMS) site on December 30, 2013. The public
was notified of its availability. 78 FR 79354-79355. The comments
received on the initial proposal and our response regarding the need
for dispersion modeling for the Tesoro BART Alternative, as set forth
in the re-proposal, will not be reiterated here. The following is our
response to the remaining comments received on the initial proposal, as
well as new comments received on the re-proposal and the additional
information that was provided for public review.
    Comment: One commenter inquired whether the EPA evaluated the model
input and output files that Tesoro used in modeling for the BART
Alternative. Such a review is needed to verify that the proper model
settings have been used and that only the emission rates for the listed
emission units have been changed from the original modeling.
    Response: The EPA reviewed the model input and output files and
verified the proper settings were used.
    Comment: A commenter questioned why the EPA used the annual average
concentration limit for total reduced sulfur (TRS) content of refinery
fuel gas rather than the maximum 24-hour rate as required by the BART
Guidelines. The justification to use the annual average vs. the 24-hour
maximum rate needs to be clearly included in the administrative record.
The commenter said that if the justification cannot be made, then the
BART Alternative should be rejected and the NOX BART should
be required.
    Response: As described in our December 30, 2013 proposal, the
purpose of visibility modeling is to demonstrate whether the BART
Alternative provides greater reasonable progress than BART considering
the different atmospheric chemistry between SO2 and
NOX. The modeling described in the BART Guidelines is for
determining the maximum potential impact of a source at Class I areas
and whether the source is subject to BART. The purpose of the more
recent modeling here is to evaluate the relative visibility impacts
from the atmospheric formation of visibility impairing aerosols of
sulfate and nitrate. The absolute value of emission rates is not of
concern, because we are evaluating the ratio of SO2 to
NOX emission rates and the resulting relative visibility
impairment.
    It should also be noted that the model used the maximum monthly
average total reduced sulfur (TRS) emission rate during the time period
2004-2006, not annual emission rates as stated by the commenter. See
May 14, 2013 letter from Tesoro to the EPA.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that trading SO2
emissions for NOX emissions does not meet the EPA's guidance
on BART alternative programs. The commenter specifically references an
EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Q&A
document, August 3, 2006, that states,

``The regulations, however, do allow States to adopt alternative
measures in lieu of BART, so long as the alternative measures provide
for greater reasonable progress than would be BART. Inter-pollutant
trading is not allowed in a trading program alternative to BART.''
    Response: We believe the commenter has misunderstood the Agency's
policy. The complete explanation of the policy is in the Federal
Register action referenced in the Q&A document cited by the commenter.
The Agency allows for inter-pollutant trading as long as it is based on
a technically acceptable approach for demonstrating the BART
Alternative provides for greater reasonable progress. The Federal
Register action for the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.308) (RHR)
explains:

    . . . interpollutant trading should not be allowed until the
technical difficulties associated with ensuring equivalence in the
overall environmental effect are resolved. Some other emissions
trading programs (e.g., trading under the acid rain program)
prohibit emission trades between pollutants. An emissions trading
program for regional haze might also need to restrict trades to
common pollutants. Each of the five pollutants which cause or
contribute to visibility impairment has a different impact on light
extinction for a given particle mass, making it therefore extremely
difficult to judge the equivalence of interpollutant trades in a
manner that would be technically credible, yet convenient to
implement in the timeframe needed for transactions to be efficient.
This analysis is further complicated by the fact that the visibility
impact that each pollutant can have varies with humidity, so that
control of different pollutants can have markedly different effects
on visibility in different geographic areas and at different times
of the year. Despite the technical difficulties associated with
interpollutant trading today, EPA would be willing to consider such
trading programs in the future that demonstrate an acceptable
technical approach. 64 FR 35743.

    This guidance on BART alternatives is primarily envisioned for
large statewide, or region-wide (multi-state) emissions trading
programs where emissions could be traded across large, geographically
separated areas. 64 FR 35741-35743. The technical difficulties
discussed in the above policy statement also are focused on situations
where a BART alternative trading program is based on emission reduction
equivalency in determining Better-than-BART results. In such a trading
program, when SO2 emissions are traded for NOX
emissions, the demonstration that the BART alternative provides greater
reasonable progress may be technically difficult, or impossible, due to
spatial, temporal, climate and meteorological differences between the
sources in the program. In particular, the OAQPS Q&A document refers to
a regional trading program. However, in this specific situation for the
Tesoro Refinery, the BART Alternative is not a state-wide or regional
trading program, but rather trading within the same facility.
Therefore, the technical difficulties that may be associated with
interpollutant trading in a state-wide or regional trading program are
of less concern.
    The Tesoro BART Alternative is confined to one facility with
emissions of SO2 and NOX coming from essentially
the same location. The CALPUFF model is used to estimate the impacts
from all visibility impairing pollutants, including SO2 and
NOX, and is the regulatory tool used to determine whether a
BART-eligible source is subject to BART. We believe that the CALPUFF
model used in Washington (and other states within EPA Region 10) to
demonstrate visibility impacts on Class I areas to evaluate whether
sources are subject to BART, is technically adequate to demonstrate
whether or not a BART Alternative measure that relies on interpollutant
trading results in greater reasonable progress. As described in the
Federal Register preamble to the RHR (64 FR 35734), it may be difficult
to assess the impacts of different pollutants due to the potential
difference in light extinction for a given particle mass and due to
seasonal and geographic variations. The CALPUFF model, using the
approved modeling protocol, addresses the different light extinction
properties of different pollutants. In the Tesoro Refinery case, the
emissions from both the BART and the BART Alternative emission units
are from the same facility. Thus, the potential concern regarding
interpollutant trading of emissions from emission units separated by
large distances is not present. Also, because the model includes the
three year baseline period, seasonal variation is also not a concern in
this instance.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that trading between BART and
non-BART sources is not allowed.
    Response: The preamble to the RHR encourages both BART and non-BART
sources to be included in a BART alternative. 64 FR 35743.
Specifically, ``the regional trading program may include sources not
subject to BART. Inclusion of such sources provides for a more
economically efficient and robust trading program. The EPA believes the
program can include diverse sources, including mobile and area sources,
so long as the reductions from these sources can be accurately
calculated and tracked.'' 64 FR 35743.
    Comment: One commenter states that the NOX controls for
the five Tesoro Refinery emission units should be imposed as reasonable
progress controls if they are not required as BART. The EPA should
still require unit-specific NOX controls on the five BART
units as reasonable progress controls.
    Response: The RHR provides states with the opportunity to establish
alternative measures as an alternative to BART. As discussed
previously, the RHR provides that a BART alternative measure can
include non-BART emission units. This approach can result in a more
cost-effective control strategy. Because we are proposing to approve
the State's reasonable progress goals as providing sufficient progress
for this planning period, we do not believe that any additional
reasonable progress controls are necessary on the BART-eligible units
at the Tesoro Refinery at this time. However, the State may consider
these units for reasonable progress controls in the next regional haze
SIP due for submittal to the EPA in 2018.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the CAA instructs states to issue
SIPs requiring BART, and provides a process for exempting a source from
BART. The statute does not authorize the EPA to allow a source to
escape its BART obligations other than through the exemption process.
    Response: The commenter seems to be saying that by imposing a BART
alternative, we are exempting Tesoro from BART. The Tesoro facility and
the emission units associated with the BART Alternative are not exempt
from BART. Rather, the facility is meeting its BART obligation through
a BART Alternative measure as allowed under the RHR. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2).
    Comment: Several commenters suggested the SO2 emission
reductions in the BART Alternative are not surplus reductions. They say
the emission reductions were needed to meet other CAA requirements
including Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements.
They also cite the H2S concentration limit that is already
part of a Federally enforceable permit. They also say the emission
reductions were achieved prior to the SIP submittal.
    Response: The RHR requires that emission reductions resulting from
the alternative measure must be ``surplus to those reductions resulting
from measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the
baseline date of the SIP.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). When promulgating
this requirement in 1999, the EPA explained that emission reductions
must be ``surplus to other Federal requirements as of the baseline date
of the SIP, that is, the date of the emissions inventories on which the
SIP

relies. See 64 FR 35714, 35742; see also 70 FR 39143. ``[W]hatever the
origin of the emission reduction requirement, the relevant question for
BART purposes is whether the alternative program makes greater
reasonable progress.'' The Washington Regional Haze SIP relies on
emission inventories in the baseline period 2002-2005. See Washington
Regional Haze SIP, chapter 6, section 6.3, included in the docket for
this action. Thus, reductions resulting from any measure adopted after
2002 are considered `surplus' under 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv).
    The EPA examined the permitting history for the Tesoro Refinery and
confirmed that the emission reductions achieved through the
installation and operation in 2007 of the flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) system to remove sulfur from the refinery fuel gas (RFG) used to
fire several heaters and boilers occurred after the emission inventory
baseline and are surplus for the purposes of the alternative measure.
    Comment: A commenter noted that the SO2 reductions
resulting from the modifications to the refinery gas system occurred
for plant-specific reasons, not to meet a regulatory requirement. These
reductions occurred in the past and will not be the result of imposing
BART controls on any aspect of plant operations. The commenter requests
that the EPA reject the BART Alternative in favor of the EPA BART
proposal, which would result in additional reduction of nearly 500 tons
of NOX.
    Response: As described previously, even if the emission reductions
at this facility occurred for plant-specific reasons, the reductions
may be considered surplus for purposes of a BART alternative.
Additionally, as previously explained, the EPA has determined and
confirmed with modeling that the reductions resulting from the now
federally enforceable requirement to operate the FGD system result in
greater reasonable progress towards meeting natural visibility
conditions than the NOX controls that the EPA determined to
be BART.
    Comment: A commenter cited a letter dated September 16, 2011, from
the EPA Region 5 to the State of Wisconsin that describes what
emissions are considered surplus. The commenter further explained that
the Economic Incentive Program (EIP) defines ``surplus reductions to
mean emission reductions that are not otherwise relied on in any of
several programs, including reductions made to insure compliance with
the NAAQS as well as reductions included in the relevant SIP.'' Thus
the commenter stated that to the extent the SO2 emissions
requirements have been incorporated into the Washington SIP and relied
on to meet other applicable requirements, they are not ``surplus''
under the EIP.
    Response: As explained previously, we have determined that the
emission reductions are surplus for BART alternative purposes and as
such, this action is consistent with the EIP position that
consideration (or credits) may only be given for surplus reductions.
The SO2 emission reductions resulting from the combustion of
low-sulfur RFG in these heaters and boilers have not been incorporated
into the Washington SIP, nor have they been relied on to meet any other
applicable requirements of the Act. In our final action on the
Wisconsin SIP, we noted that, ``In cases like this where a subject is
addressed by both the general guidance in the draft Economic Incentive
Program Guidance and in program-specific guidance that more directly
addresses specific statutory requirements, the EPA gives more weight to
the regulatory provisions that are promulgated for the specific
statutory requirements, in this case to the provisions of the regional
haze rule. As noted above, the regional haze regulations promulgated in
40 CFR 51.308 allow credit for reductions achieved after the baseline
date of the SIP (2002), irrespective of any recommendations to the
contrary in the draft Economic Incentives Program Guidance.'' 77 FR
46592 (January 31, 2008.)
    Comment: A commenter requested that the EPA evaluate BART for the
Tesoro Refinery flare, Unit X-819, including consideration of flare
minimization efforts to reduce emissions from this unit.
    Response: BART is an emission limitation based on the five-factor
analysis and considers the degree of reduction available through the
application of the best system of continuous emission reduction for
each pollutant that is emitted by an existing stationary facility. As
reflected in our December 26, 2012, proposal, Unit X-819 is subject to
BART and we agree with the State's BART determination. We considered
the flare requirements of other regulatory air pollution agencies to
determine whether there are any available control techniques for
reducing emissions from flares. In particular we reviewed the
California, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Reg. 12,
Rule 12, which requires San Francisco Bay Area refineries to prepare a
flare management plan (FMP), to reduce the frequency and magnitude of
flaring events. The rule provides for no specific control technology.
Rather, it requires refineries to minimize the need to flare gases
through careful planning of maintenance, start-up, and shutdown of
various refinery processes. However, should an upset condition occur,
it does not prevent or otherwise restrict flaring. It does not appear
that the requirement for a FMP would represent BART.
    Additionally, Tesoro and the State evaluated whether adding a
second gas compressor to handle excess gas resulting from emergency
vents and directed to the RFG system would be cost effective. See SIP,
appendix L. Tesoro determined it would cost $21,960/ton of
SO2 removed and reduce emissions by 10 tons/year. We find
that it is not cost-effective to require the addition of a second gas
compressor at this facility as BART.

C. Intalco Facility

    As part of the December 26, 2012 proposal, we proposed that Alcoa
could not afford limestone slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) as the basis
for BART. As explained in the re-proposal, we received 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.
We responded to these comments in the re-proposal and explained that we
obtained updated information and revised the 2012 Affordability
Assessment. The Revised Affordability Assessment and supporting
documentation was made available to the public for review as part of
the re-proposal. We received no further comment on the Revised
Affordability Assessment. We believe the updated analysis continues to
support our determination that installation and operation of LSFO at
the Intalco facility is not affordable.
    A number of comments were received regarding our proposed BART
determination for the Intalco facility. The comments focused on
procedural issues, issues regarding the BART determination and the
affordability analysis, and the BART Alternative.
    Comment: A commenter asserted that the EPA proposed BART for
Intalco fails to comply with the public notice requirements of the CAA
because it is impossible for the public to understand and comment on
the affordability claim because critical information is not available.
The CAA forbids the EPA from promulgating a rule that relies in whole
or part on information not included in the docket. The commenter stated
that critical information regarding

Alcoa's affordability claim had been excluded from the record,
specifically Attachment 2 of Alcoa's June 2012 letter, and that the
failure to disclose this information means that they are unable to
provide meaningful comment on Alcoa's claim that they cannot afford
LSFO controls. Finally the commenter claimed that that the EPA has
failed to identify any support in the CAA that permits the EPA to
ignore the requirements of the CAA for public review and comment.
    Response: The EPA recognizes the importance of making information
available to the public so that the public can meaningfully comment
upon proposed rules and, if they choose, ultimately challenge its
rules. This task is somewhat more complicated when, as here, the
rulemaking necessarily requires consideration of material claimed as
Confidential Business Information (CBI). Nevertheless, the CAA, the
EPA's implementing regulations, and other statutes impose stringent
procedures for the use and availability of information claimed to be
CBI, See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7414, 33 U.S.C. 1318(b); 40 CFR 2.204, 2.205,
and 2.301. As explained in the BART Guidelines, an economic analysis
regarding how the installation of controls may impact the viability of
continued plant operation must preserve the confidentiality of
sensitive business information.
    Alcoa provided information to the EPA to support its claim that the
company cannot afford the installation of LSFO. See June 22, 2012 Alcoa
letter to the EPA. Alcoa requested that Attachment 2 of the letter be
treated as confidential.
    Under the CAA and EPA's regulations, a company may assert a
business confidentiality claim covering information furnished to the
EPA. 40 CFR 2.203(b). Once a claim is asserted, the Agency must
consider the information to be confidential and must treat it
accordingly either until the EPA determines that the information is not
subject to CBI protection or until the EPA determines that release of
the information is relevant to a proceeding and in the public interest.
40 CFR 2.205, 2.301(g). The EPA's regulations set forth the specific
procedures that the EPA must follow when making a CBI determination. 40
CFR 2.204, 2.205, and 2.301(g). Under the regulations, the EPA must
provide the affected businesses with notice and, usually, an
opportunity to comment on the impending CBI determination or release,
including an opportunity to justify their CBI claims. See, e.g., 40 CFR
2.204(e), 2.209(d), and 2.301(g)(2).
    Following the procedures outlined in 40 CFR part 2, the EPA
requested that Alcoa substantiate its CBI claim. The company narrowed
its CBI claim but informed us that portions of Attachment 2 were still
claimed as CBI and provided a version of Attachment 2 with the CBI
information redacted. The redacted information consists of six years
(2008-2013) of ``after tax'' cash flow values. After consideration of
applicable information, requirements and case law, the EPA completed
its CBI determination and found that the redacted information in
Attachment 2 constitutes CBI within the meaning of the CBI regulations.
The final CBI determination is dated July 10, 2013. Accordingly, the
information may not be disclosed to the public at this time.
    When the EPA assembled the record for this rulemaking, it
physically separated the CBI portion of the record from the rest of the
publicly available record. The EPA placed into the public record all
information for which no claim of CBI was asserted. Any information or
analyses based on CBI, was presented in such a way to avoid disclosing
the underlying CBI. In addition, the EPA placed into the public record
the Revised Affordability Analysis which included an extensive list of
references to other publicly available information relevant to the
economic analyses, such as company-specific public financial reports,
cost information reported in trade journals and industry conference
presentations, and price quotations obtained from vendors.
    Subsequent to the proposal and in response to comments, the EPA
conducted additional analysis regarding Alcoa's affordability claim.
More specifically, the EPA reviewed the recent long term power supply
contract between Alcoa and the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
which established the amount and rate at which electricity would be
supplied to the Intalco facility. The EPA also conducted additional
investigation to obtain publically available and updated financial
information and economic forecasts regarding the aluminum industry.
This new and additional information was placed in the docket and made
available for public review on December 30, 2013. The docket also
contains the June 22, 2011 Alcoa letter with the redacted version of
Attachment 2. As is evident by the list of documents in the docket, a
considerable amount of information regarding Alcoa's financial
condition is included and has been made available for public review.
    The publicly available information taken together with the EPA's
Affordability Analyses, and the description of our analysis in the
prior Federal Register proposals are sufficient to support and explain
today's final action. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the EPA
believes that the public record is adequate to allow meaningful review
of the EPA's decision regarding Alcoa's claim that they cannot afford
LSFO controls.
    Comment: Referring to CAA section 110(k)(5), a commenter asserts
that before the EPA may promulgate a FIP there must be a finding that
the state implementation plan is substantially inadequate to comply
with the CAA requirement. The commenter claims that because the
Administrator has not made such a finding, has not notified Washington
of the inadequacies of the SIP or that the SIP needs to be revised, and
has not established a reasonable deadline to revise and submit a
revised SIP, the proposed FIP is premature. This action is premature
under CAA section 110(k)(5).
    Response: The EPA disagrees with this comment. Section 110(k)(5) of
the CAA states ``[w]henever the Administrator finds that the applicable
implementation plan for any area is substantially inadequate to . . .
comply with any requirement of [the Act], the Administrator shall
require the State to revise the plan as necessary to correct such
inadequacies.'' This provision requires the EPA to issue what is known
as a ``SIP call'' whenever the EPA finds that a state's existing SIP is
substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements. Importantly, this
provision bears no relation to the EPA's authority to review SIP
submissions and revisions, which by definition are not incorporated
into the state's existing SIP until they have been approved by the EPA.
Rather, when the EPA receives a SIP submission or revision from a
state, CAA sections 110(k)(3) and 110(l) provide that the EPA can only
approve the SIP if it meets all CAA requirements and would not
otherwise interfere with any applicable requirement of the Act. If the
EPA determines that a SIP submission or revision does not comply with
all applicable CAA requirements, then the EPA must disapprove the SIP
in whole or in part. At that time, CAA section 110(c)(1)(B) provides
the EPA with the authority ``to promulgate a Federal implementation
plan at any time within 2 years'' of the disapproval. Additionally, the
EPA has the authority to promulgate a FIP after finding that a state
has failed to make a required SIP submission or revision entirely or
that a state has submitted an incomplete SIP. CAA section 110(c)(1)(A).
The EPA's obligation to promulgate a FIP does not

expire unless the state corrects the deficiency, and the EPA approves
the SIP before promulgating a FIP. CAA section 110(c)(1).
    Here, Washington's Regional Haze SIP was due on December 17, 2007.
On January 15, 2009, the EPA published notice of its finding that
Washington and 36 other States, the District of Columbia, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands had failed to timely submit their regional haze SIPs. 74
FR 2392 (January 15, 2009). The notice explained that the finding
started the ``two year clock'' for the promulgation by the EPA of a
FIP. The notice also explained that the EPA's FIP obligation would
expire only if a state submitted a SIP and the EPA approved that SIP
before the EPA had promulgated a FIP. At approximately the same time as
the notice was signed, the Region 10 Administrator sent a letter to the
Department of Ecology informing the Director that Washington had failed
to make the required regional haze SIP submission and explaining that
within two years, the EPA would need to either fully approve the
Washington Regional Haze SIP or promulgate a FIP. EPA sent similar
letters to the other states, the District of Colombia, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
    Washington submitted its Regional Haze SIP on December 22, 2010. As
we explained in the December 26, 2012 proposal, the EPA could not
approve the entire SIP. 78 FR 79344. Thus, the EPA proposed to
disapprove in part the Washington Regional Haze SIP and proposed to
promulgate a FIP to fill the gaps left by the EPA's partial
disapproval. See CAA section 302(y). Thus, based on both the EPA's
prior finding of failure to submit and the EPA's partial disapproval of
the Washington Regional Haze SIP, the EPA has the authority and
obligation to promulgate a FIP. We also note that the EPA's authority
to issue a FIP in these circumstances has been upheld recently by both
the Eighth and Tenth Circuit Courts of Appeal. North Dakota v. EPA, 730
F.3d 750, 759 (8th Cir. 2013), Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1222-24
(10th Cir. 2013).
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA's proposed action of
limited approval and limited disapproval does not comport with the CAA
or the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 51, subpart P. More
specifically the commenter asserts that: (1) The CAA requires the
Administrator to approve a state's implementation plan `in whole' if it
meets applicable requirements; (2) Ecology dutifully executed its
statutory and regulatory obligations by preparing and submitting a
complete SIP, which included the requisite BART determinations,
consistent with the CAA and promulgated regulations; (3) the EPA's
partial disapproval is unfounded either because the EPA has not shown
that Ecology's BART determination is not grounded in its thorough
consideration of the five factors or because the EPA abused its
statutory discretion with regard to rendering its analysis of the cost
of compliance; and (4) it is the State's obligation to determine BART.
The EPA does not have the authority to override Ecology's cost
estimates and BART determinations.
    Response: As explained in our initial proposal, the Washington
Regional Haze SIP does not meet all of the applicable CAA requirements.
Therefore the EPA proposed a partial approval and partial disapproval.
Specifically, the EPA does not agree that the State's BART
determinations for the Intalco facility and the Tesoro Refinery are
consistent with the EPA's regulations. The EPA agrees that in the first
instance, it is State's obligation to determine BART, but contrary to
the comment, the EPA does have the authority to disapprove Ecology's
cost of compliance estimates and BART determinations when it finds that
they are not in compliance with the applicable CAA requirements.
    The commenter's claim that the EPA has failed to show that
Ecology's BART determination is not grounded in its thorough
consideration of the five factors or that it abused its statutory
discretion is not supported by the record. As explained in our initial
proposal, and further described here, there are deficiencies in the
State's cost of compliance calculations for the Intalco facility. As
also explained, the State's BART determination for Tesoro is no longer
accurate because it was based on the assumption that the retrofit would
need to occur before the next scheduled maintenance shutdown period
(turnaround) which would significantly increase the cost. This
assumption is no longer valid because the retrofit may occur during a
scheduled Tesoro turnaround and is now considered cost-effective. Also
importantly, Intalco and Tesoro both requested that the EPA consider a
BART Alternative. The EPA then found that each BART Alternative would
result in greater overall reasonable progress towards attaining the
national visibility goal than would requiring BART. We therefore
proposed these BART Alternative measures instead of BART.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA Region 10 referenced
sections of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual that are
irrelevant to SO2 control technologies but then the EPA
Region 10 disregarded an SO2-specific example in section 5
of the Control Cost Manual which uses a 15-year equipment lifetime. The
commenter further claimed that by using a 30-year equipment lifetime in
the cost effectiveness calculations for the LSFO scrubber, the EPA
Region 10 ignored agency precedent from the EPA Regions 4 and 8 and
that on more than one occasion Region 8 has had sources reanalyze
annualized costs for scrubbers using 15-years.
    Response: The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual \2\ (Cost
Manual) states that the actual expected equipment lifetime of an air
pollution control device should be used for purposes of cost
calculations. Section 1, chapter 2 of the Cost Manual addresses the
capital recovery factor (CRF), which is determined using the control
equipment lifetime and interest rate. The Cost Manual clearly defines
the control equipment lifetime as the entire life of the control. For
example, on page 2-19, the Cost Manual states: ``For each alternative:
calculate a discounting factor each year over the life of the equipment
. . .'' and on page 2-21: ``In essence, annualization involves
establishing an annual `payment' sufficient to finance the investment
for its entire life, using the formula . . . [CRF] . . . where PMT is
the equivalent uniform payment amount over the life of the control,
`n', at an interest rate, `i.' '' The variable `n' in the CFR equation
used to annualize total capital investment is thus the actual life of
the control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 1--Introduction,
Chapter 2--Cost Estimation: Concepts and Methodology. p. 2-19
through 2-21. EPA-452/B-02-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter provided no basis for the 15-year equipment lifetime.
Rather the comment simply pointed to examples of different situations
or types of control technologies where 15 years was used. The
commenter's citation of specific equipment lifetimes within
calculations in the Cost Manual implying that these specific lifetimes
must always be used for a particular control technology is incorrect.
The 15-year equipment lifetime contained within section 5 of the Cost
Manual does not preclude the use of a different, better supported time
period for the equipment lifetime of packed tower absorbers, the
technology addressed in section 5.
    In this case, as explained in the proposal, we determined that 30
years is a reasonable and well founded estimate of the expected life of
wet FGD systems, such as LSFO. This determination

considered among other things standard cost estimating handbooks,\3\
published papers,\4\ and published EPA reports \5\ that report 30 years
as a typical life for a scrubber as well as industry reports that
identify specific scrubbers in operation since the 1970s and 1980s.\6\
Additional support for a 30 year scrubber life can also be found in the
EPA Response to Comments for the final Oklahoma Regional Haze FIP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Vatavuk, W.M., Estimating Costs for Air Pollution Control.
1990: Lewis Publishers. p. 198.
    \4\ Warych, J., Szymanowski, M., Optimum Values of Process
Parameters of the ``Wet Limestone Flue Gas Desulfurization System''.
Chemical Engineering Technology, 2002. 25: p. 427-432.
    \5\ Kaplan, N., Retrofit Costs of SO2 and
NOX Control at 200 U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants,
September 11, 1990.
    \6\ Electric Power Research Institute, Flue Gas Desulfurization
Systems: Component Material Performance and Welding. December 2005.
    \7\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Response to Technical
Comments for Sections E. through H. of the Federal Register Notice
for the Oklahoma Regional Haze and Visibility Transport Federal
Implementation Plan, December 13, 2011. Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2010-
0190.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Region 10's use of a 30-year life is not inconsistent with other
Agency decisions; the EPA Region 6 used 30 years for SO2
spray dry scrubbing on energy generation units in the final Oklahoma
FIP. The EPA Region 6 research included wet FGD technologies such as
LSFO, and indicated that the 30-year lifetime was equally applicable to
both wet and spray dry FGD scrubbing. The EPA action on the Oklahoma
Regional Haze FIP occurred subsequent to the EPA Region 8 letters cited
by the commenter. The Region 4 action cited by the commenter reflects
the EPA approval of a case-specific BART determination made by the
State of Tennessee, and does not necessarily reflect EPA endorsement of
all aspects of the underlying BART analysis conducted by the facility
in question.
    Combined, the EPA Region 6 research and analysis and the subsequent
related work by the EPA Region 10 reflect a current and robust
technical basis for both spray dry and wet scrubbing FGD equipment
life. We therefore find that use of 30 years as the equipment life for
LSFO in the Intalco BART analysis remains appropriate.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EPA Region 10 decision to use
the lower of two vendor air pollution control cost quotes is arbitrary
and instead we should have used the average of the two quotes. The
commenter states that it is inconsistent that the EPA Region 10 would
assert that it was improper for Washington to rely on the average of
the two quotes when the EPA Region 4 concluded that Tennessee's BART
analysis relying on the same average costs was reasonable. The comment
also states that the EPA Region 10's use of the lower of the two quotes
is inconsistent with an EPA Region 9 action that ``relied primarily on
the highest of several cost estimates. . . .''
    Response: As described in the initial proposal and supporting
documents, it is appropriate to base the cost of compliance calculation
on the lower of the two vendor quotes. While not explicitly stated as a
directive in section 1, chapter 2 of the Cost Manual (which discusses
general methodology), the Cost Manual includes a discussion indicating
support for the use of the most competitive, lowest responsive bid
within cost effectiveness calculations. In Section 6, chapter 3, the
Cost Manual states that ``[s]ignificant savings can be had by
soliciting multiple quotes,'' \8\ and in section 4.2, chapter 1, the
Cost Manual suggests that vendor quotes be ``compare[d] to other
bids.'' \9\ These sections inherently recognize the practice of
competitive bidding in the contracting process with the goal of
procuring air pollution control equipment using the most cost effective
option.\10\ That these statements are made within chapters of the Cost
Manual that address specific control technologies does not reduce their
applicability to cost effectiveness calculations in general.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 6--Particulate
Matter Controls, Chapter 3--Electrostatic Precipitators. p. 3-38.
EPA-452/B-02-001.
    \9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 4.2--
NOX Post Combustion, Chapter 1--Selective Non-catalytic
Reduction. p. 1-29. EPA-452/B-02-001.
    \10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Pollution Control
Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, January 2002. Section 4.2--
NOX Post Combustion, Chapter 1--Selective Non-catalytic
Reduction. p. 1-30. Chapter 2--Selective Catalytic Reduction. p. 2-
40. EPA-452/B-02-001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The two vendor quotes were from experienced, reliable equipment
vendors, and the lower of the two quotes was in fact more robust and
detailed.
    Using the lowest responsive bid also makes common sense from a
contracting perspective. Given multiple responsive bids from well
qualified equipment suppliers, it is reasonable to expect that the
lower cost supplier is most likely to be chosen to provide the control
equipment. The use of the average of multiple bids, as advocated by the
commenter, is illogical since the resulting cost does not reflect the
actual cost of control equipment from any supplier.
    We acknowledge that the EPA Region 4 approved the State's decision
regarding the BART analysis for the Alcoa facility in Tennessee.
However, Region 4 did not initiate this approach, but rather approved
the State's approach. In instances where the EPA is conducting the BART
analysis (rather than the EPA reviewing a state's analysis), we are
consistent.
    Contrary to the comment, the Region 9 and Region 10 approaches
regarding cost are consistent. The EPA Region 9 BART cost analysis for
the Four Corners Power Plant (FCPP) was based on a combination of cost
information submitted from equipment suppliers as well as information
based on the Cost Manual. In the course of developing the FCPP FIP, the
EPA Region 9 received three bids from the same vendor containing
pricing information that was updated as the project proceeded. The
second bid submitted was the highest cost bid. The EPA Region 9 used
the second bid in their cost analysis because the third bid, which
reflected lower costs, was submitted later in the BART analysis process
and the overall difference between the three bids was not significant
enough to affect the cost effectiveness determination.
    The EPA Region 9 statement in the action cited by the commenter
\11\ was intended to communicate that the EPA Region 9 considered the
costs to be conservatively high, which still resulted in the control
equipment being determined to be cost effective. This position is
stated more explicitly in the technical support document for the FCPP
BART FIP developed by the EPA Region 9: ``. . . the EPA's revised cost
information and our additional analysis that rely on the capital and
annual costs are conservatively overestimated.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Source Specific
Federal Implementation Plan Best Available Retrofit Technology for
Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation. Final Rule. Docket Number
EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683. 77 FR 51620.
    \12\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Rule: Source
Specific Federal Implementation Plan Best Available Retrofit
Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation, Technical
Support Document. Docket Number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0683, p. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, we note that the EPA Region 9 did not accept the bid
as submitted, but revised numerous cost elements based on independent
research, competing equipment supplier bids for certain control
equipment elements, and information contained in the Cost Manual.
Therefore, the final cost numbers used in the EPA Region 9's analysis,
while based on the highest of the three base vendor bids, were lower
than the third vendor bid due to the changes made by the EPA Region 9.

    Thus, the EPA Region 9 action in fact relied on the principles of
competitive bidding where appropriate, consistent with the EPA Region
10 action.
    Comment: A commenter states that the EPA Region 10 cost analysis
disregarded the fact that the EPA Region 10's internal economic
analysis concluded that the gypsum by-product market is speculative and
did not prove there would be a guaranteed market for the gypsum in the
future. The commenter also states that the EPA Region 10 ignored
relevant market information provided by Alcoa and that this biased the
EPA Region 10's control cost estimate in favor of controls being deemed
cost effective.
    Response: The EPA Region 10 continues to believe it is unreasonable
to assume that the gypsum produced by LSFO would require disposal in a
landfill given its suitability as a feedstock in many re-use
applications and that it is appropriate to eliminate the disposal cost
for purposes of the cost effectiveness analysis. The assumption that
the by-product gypsum would be reused is consistent with the approach
taken in a 2003 technology evaluation conducted by Sargent and Lundy,
where a disposal cost of zero was used.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Sargent & Lundy LLC, Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization
Technology Evaluation, January 2003. http://www.lime.org/documents/uses_of_lime/wet_fgdte2003.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the comment, the EPA Region 10 did consider all
information submitted by Alcoa, including the letter dated June 22,
2012. In this letter, Alcoa outlines technical challenges associated
with re-use of the gypsum in various potential applications, but
includes no discussion regarding potential resolutions of these
technical challenges. The EPA Region 10 found that the financial
incentive to avoid disposal costs for a re-usable product would
encourage reuse. For example, although moist synthetic gypsum may be
inappropriate for use in cement manufacturing, dry synthetic gypsum may
be appropriate. In a cost analysis conducted by Sargent and Lundy for
the LSFO scrubber built for the coal-fired power plant in Centralia
Washington,\14\ it was assumed that the gypsum by-product would be re-
used, and a gypsum credit of $5/ton was assumed. In fact the gypsum
produced by Centralia plant was re-used by local wallboard
manufacturers.15 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Sargent & Lundy LLC, Cost Study for a 1,400 MW Flue Gas
Desulfurization Unit, Centralia Units 1 & 2, October 1996.
    \15\ ``TransAlta and George Pacific Share Win-Win Situation''.
Daniel Brunell. Association of Washington Business online article.
July-August 2004. http://www.awb.org/articles/environment/transalta_and_georgia_pacific_share_win_win_situation.htm.
    \16\ ``Why Centralia Matters to Washington State''. TransAlta.
April 2010. http://www.transalta.com/sites/default/files/Why-Centralia-Matters.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA Region 10 further believes that, were landfill disposal
required, the disposal cost assumed in the original Alcoa BART analysis
of $145/ton is excessively high. The 1996 Sargent & Lundy report cites
landfill disposal costs of only $6/ton, and a more recent Sargent &
Lundy paper cites landfill disposal costs of only $12/ton for a similar
waste product from dry FGD.\17\ A disposal cost several times higher
than that cited by Sargent & Lundy would not significantly impact the
cost effectiveness determination for LSFO at Intalco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Sargent & Lundy LLC, Economics of Lime and Limestone for
Control of Sulfur Dioxide, 2003. http://www.graymont-mx.com/technical/Economics_of_Lime_and_Limestone_Control_Sulfur_Dioxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while recognizing some gypsum market uncertainty, we conclude
that the gypsum disposal costs are properly excluded in the cost
effectiveness calculation for LSFO.
    Comment: One commenter requested the EPA reject the affordability
argument as the affordability claim is unprecedented and the EPA's
reliance on affordability in this instance is inconsistent with the
EPA's approach to BART determinations across the country. The commenter
asserted that because the EPA has proposed and/or finalized BART
determinations in other areas that have contributed to power plants
shutting down because the electrical generating units (EGUs) were not
profitable enough after accounting for the cost of pollution controls
(e.g. New York, Oklahoma, Four Corners, Boardman, and TransAlta) that
the EPA must explain the different outcome for this BART determination.
Intalco is the only BART determination where a company is excused from
complying with the law on the grounds that it cannot `afford' the law.
    Response: The BART Guidelines explain that, even where a control
technology is cost-effective, ``there may be cases where the
installation of controls would affect the viability of continued plant
operations.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.E.3.1. In these
unusual circumstances, the BART Guidelines allow states and the EPA to
take into consideration how requiring controls could affect ``product
prices, the market share, and profitability of the source.'' Id.
section IV.E.3.2. Nevertheless, only when these effects are ``judged to
have a severe impact on plant operations'' can they play a role in the
ultimate control determination. The affordability analysis we conducted
for Intalco was therefore proper. As explained in our re-proposal, the
results of the analysis demonstrated that requiring controls at the
Intalco facility would have a ``severe impact'' on the facility's
ability to continue business operations. The examples cited by the
commenter, on the other hand, are inapposite. In those instances, none
of the sources submitted affordability analyses to the EPA as part of
the BART evaluation process. While the sources may have determined that
it was in their financial interest to cease operating certain EGUs
rather than install pollution control technology, the EPA has no reason
to believe that the sources could not afford the controls in question.
Rather, the sources made voluntary business decisions that the benefits
of continuing to generate electricity at the affected units were
outweighed by a number of factors, which likely included the costs of
controls, potential future regulatory requirements, market trends, the
availability of alternative generating strategies, etc. The EPA has no
evidence to suggest, however, that the costs of controls in those
instances were so onerous that the sources simply could not afford them
or that the sources' decisions to cease operations were in essence
involuntary.
    Comment: One commenter requested the EPA's or Ecology's commitment
to revisit the BART determination for the Intalco facility every 10
years based on then current information. Two commenters recommended
that the EPA explain how the Intalco facility will be reevaluated in
the 5-year report or next SIP planning cycle to determine if LSFO does
become affordable in the future.
    One commenter would like the EPA or Ecology to commit to revisiting
the BART determination for Intalco in each round of revised regional
haze SIPs (i.e., every 10 years) utilizing the technological and
financial information that is current for this source at that time.
    Response: BART is a `one time' decision that is not required to be
revisited in future planning cycles. However, the source could in the
future be subject to an analysis of control to achieve reasonable
progress, should a new breakthrough in technology occur and cost
effective controls be identified. The RHR explains that ``After a state
has met the requirements for BART, or implemented an emission trading
program, or other alternative measure that achieves more reasonable
progress than the installation and operation of BART, BART eligible
sources will be

subject to the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section in the
same manner as other sources.'' 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5).
    A commitment to revisit whether cost effective controls are
available for a particular source in the future is not a required SIP
element of this planning cycle and is not required for the EPA to
approve the regional haze plan. A stated intention in the State's SIP
submittal to revisit controls in the future is not an enforceable
requirement. Accordingly the EPA's approval today is not conditioned
upon the State's commitment to conduct future control technology
reviews on a specific schedule.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the EPA consider the number
of Class I areas impacted.
    Response: The EPA considered the fact that Intalco had impacts
greater than 0.5 deciview (dv) at six Class I areas. Additionally, we
took into account Intalco's significant impact of over 1 dv at Olympic
National Park. Thus, as explained in the proposal, the EPA considered
cumulative visibility impacts, as well as the other BART factors in
reaching its BART determination for this facility. See 77 FR 76191.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that it was improper to use baseline
emissions rather than future (or even current) conditions to assess
visibility improvement.
    Response: As previously described in our response regarding
Tesoro's baseline emissions, the BART Guidelines (40 CFR part 51,
appendix Y) provide, ``In general, for existing sources subject to
BART, you will estimate the anticipated annual emissions based upon
actual emissions from a baseline period.'' 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y,
section IV.D.4.d.1. The baseline period in the Washington SIP submittal
for emissions used in the BART analysis is 2002-2005. The BART
Alternative analysis correctly used the highest 24-hour emission rate
in the baseline period to assess visibility improvement.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA clarify that the
modeled BART Alternative improvements are not improvements from current
conditions.
    Response: Intalco has seen dramatic fluctuation in production over
the last decade ranging from no production to production at
approximately 80% of full operation. Thus, visibility improvement in
Class I areas impacted by the Intalco facility will vary based on
operating rates. The Intalco facility is currently operating at
slightly less than 80% of full operation. As stated in the Federal
Register proposal of December 26, 2012, the proposal to limit
SO2 emissions to 80% of baseline, combined with making the
other components in the BART Alternative permanent and federally
enforceable, will prevent degradation if the Intalco facility increases
production above 80%. 77 FR 76193.

D. Alcoa Wenatchee Works

    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Alcoa Wenatchee
Works was improperly exempted from BART review. This comment is based
on Ecology's use of refined air quality dispersion modeling (0.5 km
grid) which the commenters believe underestimates visibility impact.
The commenters asserted that the use of fine grid modeling
inappropriately underestimates the Wenatchee Works impacts at the
Alpine Lakes Wilderness Area to a level below the BART threshold thus
allowing it to be improperly exempt from BART. Allowing the use of fine
grid modeling is contrary to numerous prior statements by the EPA. The
commenters requested that the EPA disapprove Washington's BART
exemption determination and conduct a BART analysis for the Wenatchee
Works.
    Response: In response to the comments, the EPA re-evaluated the
dispersion modeling that the State used to exempt the Wenatchee Works
from BART. On December 30, 2013, we published a proposed rulemaking
action where we explained our rationale for proposing to disapprove the
State's BART exemption determination, proposing that the facility was
subject to BART, and proposing a BART FIP for the Wenatchee Works. 78
FR 79344. The adverse comments on that re-proposal are addressed below.
    Comment: A commenter asserts that the EPA failed to address and
resolve deficiencies in the Draft ``Modeling Protocol for the
Application of the CALPUFF Modeling System Pursuant to the Best
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) Regulation'' (the draft Three
State Protocol) as identified by Alcoa to the EPA in a June 30, 2006
letter to EPA Region 10. The commenter claimed that this failure
adversely affected the subject-to-BART modeling activities and
improperly determined visibility impairment within the State of
Washington.
    Response: The major concern raised in the June 30, 2006 letter was
that the draft Three State Protocol did not include a provision to
allow for site specific protocols that include technical enhancements,
such as better resolution and other site specific improvements. The
June 30, 2006 letter requested that such enhancements be allowed in the
BART exemption modeling and the BART determination modeling. It also
stated that the 4 kilometer (km) grid resolution \18\ did not replicate
on-the-ground terrain features such as valley flow and land/water
boundaries. For purposes of this action, a 4 km grid is considered a
course grid and a 0.5 km grid is considered to be a fine grid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Grid resolution is the distance between points for which
model data is established. In this case the data is the elevation
above mean sea level. A course grid may miss changes in elevation in
mountainous terrain (i.e. river valley features) and the model may
not account for channeling of wind flow. The grid points are also
the points where estimated pollutant concentrations and visibility
impairment are calculated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final Three State Protocol provided for site specific
protocols. Deviations from and site specific improvements to the Three
State Protocol are allowed. 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 (the final Three State Protocol) states in section 1.1 that:

    This modeling protocol is a cooperative effort among Idaho
Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ), and Washington Department of Ecology
(WDOE) to develop an analysis that will be applied consistently to
the Idaho, Washington, and Oregon BART-eligible sources. The U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Forest
Service, and U.S. EPA Region 10 were consulted during the
development of this protocol (EPA 2006a, b, c). This protocol adopts
the BART Guideline and addresses both the BART exemption as well as
the BART determination modeling. The three agencies are also
collaborating on the development of a consistent three-year
meteorological data set. Collaboration on the protocol and
meteorological data set helps ensure modeling consistency and the
sharing of resources and workload.

    As stated above, the development of the Three State Protocol was a
collaborative effort that included seven government agencies. The Three
State Protocol was viewed as guidance and not a prescription of how the
modeling must be done in all cases. Consequently, if a BART-eligible
source preferred to deviate from the Three State Protocol, such as
generate its own predicted mesoscale meteorology simulations or employ
a different grid resolution, as in the Wenatchee Works case, the state
with jurisdiction would consult with the other six government agencies,
including the EPA, before accepting the deviation. The purpose of the
consultation is to resolve differing opinions on the deviation, ensure
consistency and the integrity of the

Three State Protocol, and maintain fairness to the BART-eligible
sources. The EPA's endorsement of significant deviations from the Three
State Protocol is necessary to effectively evaluate the SIP for
technical adequacy in this important case of exempting a source from
BART. As described below, the EPA had concerns with the deviation.
    In July 2008, the EPA Region 10 communicated to Washington our
concerns regarding use of fine grid modeling for the Wenatchee Works.
In a July 8, 2008 email message to Ecology we stated, ``Nevertheless,
R10 is willing to allow the use of new procedures, techniques or
options as long as an acceptability demonstration is made in accordance
with applicable guidance and is fully vetted by peers.'' The email also
explained that, ``[t]he CALPUFF modeling system has never been
evaluated or tested against tracer gas studies/experiments using a fine
grid. As a minimum, Ecology and TRC should have submitted a protocol to
R10 for acceptance to evaluate and test the sensitivity using a fine
grid resolution in CALPUFF Version 5.8.'' The State failed to address
these concerns.
    Comment: A commenter claims that the EPA ``cherry picked''
statements and portrayed out of context, portions of the EPA's 2009
Modeling Clearinghouse Memorandum and misrepresented its relevance to
the Wenatchee Works BART exemption modeling.
    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter that the Modeling
Clearinghouse Memorandum, dated May 15, 2009, was taken out of context
to justify the rejection of the Wenatchee Works BART exemption
modeling. The memorandum states in part that, ``. . . the Otter Tail
Protocol presents no scientific evidence to support the claim that 1 km
CALMET resolution increases the objective accuracy of the final wind
field, especially in areas of relatively modest topographic relief,
such as for each of the three proposed domains.'' Similarly, the
commenter did not present any scientific evidence to support its claim
that the proposed 500 meter grid resolution will adequately capture the
terrain influenced wind flows (e.g., valley and slope) at its river
valley location.
    CALMET is a diagnostic meteorological model that produces non-
steady-state hourly meteorological data but has limited ability to
independently capture the full three-dimensional structure of complex
wind flows at the Wenatchee Work's river valley location. Unlike the
Otter Tail situation where the benefit may be limited, the EPA believes
a network of meteorological monitoring stations (e.g., surface and
upper air measurements) at the river valley location would better
capture the three-dimensional, non-steady-state meteorology of this
site. These data could be used to create a more accurate wind field
that could then be used to more accurately predict the visibility
impact from the Wenatchee Works.
    Comment: A commenter questioned the value of revising the PM
emission limitations that are being required of various emission units
at the Wenatchee Works. The commenter states that the potential
visibility improvement resulting from the reduction in allowable
emissions is below the capability of the model to determine. Any
potential visibility improvement that may accrue from imposing the
SO2 limit on Potline 5 would far exceed that of the direct
PM2.5 being emitted by these stacks. However another
commenter said, ``We support retaining the existing particulate matter
limit of .005 gr/dscf.''
    Response: We acknowledge that tightening the particulate matter
emission limits may have little effect on visibility improvement
because the existing fabric filters are high efficiency control
devices. However, in some instances the existing emission limits are
well above the level that a properly operating fabric filter can
achieve. BART is defined as an emission limit based on the degree of
reduction achievable through the application of the best system of
continuous emission reduction. The existing emission limits in some
cases are not based on the degree of reduction achievable at this
facility. The BART emission limits we are establishing reflect the
achievable emission reductions for these units, and result in tighter
limits.
    Comment: A commenter said that they have been unable to ascertain
the source of the emission factor for NOX emissions from
Potline 5. Additionally, they wonder about the value of an emission
limitation based solely on the potline aluminum production rate and an
emission factor. The commenter suggests three options; that the
NOX emission limit be removed, the emission factor be
substantiated, or the emissions be based on actual monitoring.
    Response: The EPA understands that this emission factor has been
used by Alcoa to report NOX emissions to the Department of
Ecology for years. However, we recognize the lack of substantiation for
the emission factor and Alcoa has indicated that they cannot quickly
provide the EPA with a basis for the factor. In response to this
comment, the EPA has revised the NOX BART emission limit
from the proposed 0.95 tons per calendar month to a ``test and set''
requirement that will require Alcoa to conduct source tests and develop
a unit-specific NOX emission factor for Potline 5. That
emission factor will then be used to establish a monthly NOX
emission limit for Potline 5.
    Comment: A commenter states that the EPA erroneously asserts that
there are ``no'' SO2 emissions associated with Ingot
Furnaces No. 1, 2, and 11. The commenter requests that the statement be
corrected to indicate there are trivial amounts of SO2
created during the combustion of natural gas. Should the EPA elect not
to withdraw its proposed actions and approve the Washington SIP, the
commenter asks that the EPA determine that BART for SO2 for
these furnaces be comparable to the BART limit proposed for
NOX, which is a limitation on the type of fuel that may be
combusted.
    Response: There are trivial amounts of SO2 emissions
from the Ingot furnaces. The total SO2 emitted from the
three Ingot furnaces is 0.014 t/yr. We consider these insignificant,
but as requested by the commenter, we will establish a BART requirement
for SO2. We agree with the commenter that BART for
SO2 would be the continued combustion of natural gas in the
Ingot Furnaces. Thus, we are requiring the combustion of natural gas as
BART for NOX emissions and are adding a provision that
requires the combustion of natural gas as BART for SO2
emissions as well.
    Comment: A commenter suggests that the EPA appears to be
inconsistent in the cost analyses produced for limestone scrubbing for
SO2. The commenter explains that, in what appears to be the
final cost analysis (document 501 in the docket), the EPA has
included no costs for gypsum disposal, but that documents 503
and 504 in the docket do contain a disposal cost for gypsum.
Based on experience with similar useable waste materials the commenter
states that the EPA should include a disposal cost for the gypsum
produced by the limestone scrubbing system. The commenter has found
that even a useful waste like gypsum cannot be disposed of or given
away at no cost to the source. At a minimum, the company generating the
waste material has to cover the cost of storage and transport to a
user.
    Response: The commenter appears to be confusing cost analyses
conducted by Alcoa (documents 503 and 504) with the
EPA's cost analysis (document 501). A detailed response to the
comment with regard to the inclusion of gypsum disposal cost in the
cost analysis has been provided above addressing a similar comment
regarding

the SO2 BART analysis for the Intalco facility.
    Comment: A commenter states that the EPA Region 10 ignored agency
precedent and other factual information in the development of the
Wenatchee Works cost of compliance analysis when it relied on the cost
analysis for a similar scrubber at the Intalco facility. The commenter
states that the EPA made the same flaws in the Wenatchee analysis that
it made in the Intalco analysis specifically: Equipment life, use of
vendor quotes, use of unsubstantiated costs, ignoring cost data
provided by Alcoa, and using data that underestimate the cost of LSFO.
    Response: This comment for the Wenatchee Works is similar to a
comment about the Intalco BART analysis addressed above. See our
response regarding the cost of compliance calculation for the Intalco
facility. The same rationale for our response to the Intalco BART
analysis comment applies to this comment regarding the Wenatchee Works.
    Comment: A commenter suggests that the process description for the
anode bake furnace at the Wenatchee facility is incorrect in the
preamble to the December 30, 2013 re-proposal.
    Response: The commenter is correct in that the carbon anodes are
not used in an electric arc furnace, rather the facility produces
aluminum from alumina via an electrochemical reduction process that
occurs in ``electrolytic reduction cells'' commonly known as (pots)
using the Hall-Heroult process.
    Comment: A commenter said that provisions for alternative fuel use
should be included, when a change to fuel use is permitted or required
pursuant to governmental dictate.
    Response: We understand that Alcoa may change to an alternate fuel
in the future. However, we cannot ensure that the requirement for BART
is met by simply allowing for the use of an alternative fuel that is
permitted or required by the government. If Alcoa choses to change to a
fuel other than natural gas, the normal process would be to request the
EPA to revise this rule and establish an appropriate BART emission
limit for the alternative fuel. We do, however, believe that we can
provide for the situation where the use of an alternative fuel may be
approved in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit. It
is the EPA's position that a Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
emission limit for a pollutant established in a PSD permit will likely
be at least as stringent as a BART emission limit for that pollutant.
We have added a provision to this rule that would allow a federally-
enforceable BACT emission limit for NOX which is established
in a PSD permit to supersede the BART emission limit for NOX
established in this rule.
    Comment: A commenter notes there appears to be a discrepancy
between the baseline SO2 emissions and emissions reduced
through LFSO at Potline 5. The proposal states that Potline 5 has a
baseline emissions rate of 1000.8 tons of SO2 per year.
However, the supporting BART analysis appears to assume that an LFSO
scrubber could reduce emissions by 1955 tons per year which would be
greater than the annual baseline emissions.
    Response: The EPA does not agree that there is a discrepancy
between the SO2 emission values for Potline 5 in the
proposal and in the BART analysis. The 1000.8 tons per year value in
the proposal is the baseline SO2 emission rate which
represents the actual annual emissions from the Potline during the
baseline period. The 1955 tons per year emission reduction in the BART
analysis represents an estimate of the potential emission reduction
from the maximum potential to emit from the Potline that could be
expected from the application of LFSO.
    Comment: A commenter said that the EPA should consider ways to
monitor and make more easily enforceable the proposed BART emissions
limits. Most of the units at the Wenatchee Works do not have continuous
emissions monitoring systems (``CEMS''), and for many of the units, the
EPA is proposing limits based on the content of the fuel or emissions
per unit of production. For Potline 5, the EPA proposes a BART limit
expressed as pounds of SO2 per ton of aluminum produced, per
calendar month. Potline 5 has the highest SO2 emissions of
any BART-eligible unit at the Wenatchee facility, but it does not
currently have a CEMS. To gather more accurate data on the unit's
actual emissions and to ensure compliance with any emissions limit, the
commenter believes that the EPA should require installation of a CEMS
and express the emissions limit in terms of SO2 emitted per
month, as a rolling 30-day average.
    Response: Emissions from primary aluminum plants have traditionally
been regulated with emission standards in the form of pounds of
emissions per ton of aluminum produced (see, e.g., the EPA's New Source
Performance Standards for aluminum plants at 40 CFR part 60, subpart S,
the EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards for aluminum
plants at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL, and Ecology's emission limits for
aluminum plants at WAC 173-415). The EPA believes that establishing
BART emission limits in the same form as the limits for other
pollutants set under other programs will both ensure enforceable limits
on visibility impairing pollutants as well as provide a consistent set
of requirements for the regulated sources. The EPA also believes that
for SO2 emissions, a mass balance approach to demonstrating
compliance, rather than CEMS, is appropriate for Potline 5.
SO2 from Potline 5 is emitted both from the gas treatment
centers air pollution control units (GTC) and the roof vents. Measuring
SO2 emissions from the roof vents with CEMS is not feasible.
In addition, a mass balance approach with frequent monitoring of the
sulfur in the anodes adequately accounts for the SO2
emissions from both the GTC and the roof vents. Similarly, restricting
BART-eligible units to a particular fuel (e.g., natural gas) and then
monitoring the fuel combusted in the units that have no other
SO2 emission controls also adequately accounts for the
SO2 emissions from those units.
    Comment: A commenter said that the EPA merged monitoring and
compliance demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 52.2502(c)(1)(i) and
created ambiguity that requires further clarification.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the proposed rule merged
the monitoring and compliance demonstration requirements for the sulfur
limit for incoming coke in a way that was confusing. We have
reformatted the provision to more clearly specify how compliance is
demonstrated for the sulfur limit for incoming coke and the required
monitoring to determine the sulfur content of incoming coke. Note that
this SO2 BART limit for the anode bake furnaces does not
affect the SO2 BACT emission limit in the 1982 EPA PSD
permit (PSD-X82-04) for Potlines 1 through 3.
    Comment: A commenter notes that the emissions in excess of the
various BART limits proposed throughout the final rule must not be
exceeded one-hundred twenty days after the final rule is published in
the Federal Register. The commenter claims a more appropriate
compliance date for these emission limits is the requirement to comply
with the BART limits ``within 120 days of the final rule becoming
effective,'' not when the final rule is published in the Federal
Register. The EPA should restate the compliance date for the BART
requirements affected by this proposed regulation.

    Response: We have changed the compliance dates throughout the rule
to reflect both the expected effective date of this action as well as
to tie the compliance date to the effective date of the final rule.
Specifically, the compliance date for the Intalco facility's calendar
year SO2 BART limit is set at January 1, 2015. The
compliance date for the NOX `test and set' emission limit is
180 days after the effective date of the final rule. The compliance
dates for all other BART emission limits are 120 days after the
effective date of this action. The compliance date for the Tesoro
refinery was also revised to 120 days after the effective date of this
action.

IV. Conclusion

    EPA is taking final action to partially approve and partially
disapprove Washington's SIP for Regional Haze and to promulgate a FIP
for the disapproved elements. The EPA is approving portions of the
Washington Regional Haze SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308 for the first planning period and disapproving other portions.
The disapproved portions are corrected with today's promulgation of FIP
elements.
    As discussed above, promulgation of the FIP BART elements for the
Tesoro refinery, the Intalco facility, and the Wenatchee Works does not
require the purchase or installation new air pollution control
equipment, but rather establishes BART based on existing control
technology. Thus, the only additional costs incurred by the owners of
these facilities will be minimal expenditures for monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping. EPA expects that this action will prevent
visibility degradation in the Class I areas by limiting potential
future increases in emissions from changes at the facilities.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    This action finalizes approval of portions of the Washington SIP
and a FIP for emission units subject to BART at three facilities. 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). It is therefore not a rule of general
applicability.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the final FIP applies to
just three facilities, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply. See
5 CFR 1320(c).

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 final 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
today's final rule on small entities, I certify that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The FIP that the EPA is finalizing for purposes of the
regional haze program consists of imposing Federal controls to meet the
BART requirements for three specifically identified facilities. The net
result of this FIP action is that the EPA is finalizing emission limits
on selected units at only three sources which are not considered small
business. The sources in question are two aluminum smelters and a
petroleum refinery. The final partial approval of the SIP merely
approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements.

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, the EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for 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 one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a
written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires the
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
the 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 the 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 the EPA regulatory actions with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Under
title II of UMRA, the EPA has determined that this final rule does not
contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures that exceed
the inflation-adjusted UMRA threshold of $100 million ($150 in 2013
when adjusted for inflation) by State, local, or Tribal governments or
the private sector in any one year. The private sector expenditures
that will result from the FIP, including BART emission limits, are
insignificant. The BART emission limits for the Alcoa Intalco
Operations and Alcoa Wenatchee Works do not involve installation of new
control technology, but rather establish BART emission limits based on
the existing control technology. The BART Alternative for the Tesoro
refinery involves taking credit for voluntary SO2 emission
reductions in-lieu of installing BART-level NOX control
technology on emission units subject to BART. Thus, because the annual
expenditures associated with the FIP are less than the inflation-
adjusted threshold of $150 million in any one year, this rule is not

subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This rule
is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because
it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, Federalism, (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999)
revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875
(Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132
requires the 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, the 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 the EPA consults with
state and local officials early in the process of developing the final
regulation. The 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
final regulation. 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 obligation
under the CAA to include in its SIP provisions to meet the visibility
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA and to prohibit emissions
from interfering with other states measures to protect visibility.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

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 the
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 final 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. The EPA nonetheless
provided a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and
Washington in letters dated January 14, 2011. The EPA received one
request for consultation. We followed-up with that Tribe and the Tribe
does not think consultation is necessary at this time. On September 20,
2012, EPA provided an additional consultation opportunity to seven
Tribes in Washington near the facilities that would be regulated under
the FIP. We received no requests for consultation.

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

    The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 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 final
rule will limit emissions of NOX and PM, 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 the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS 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 the EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable VCS. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to the
partial approval of the SIP that if merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. The FIP portion of this rulemaking
involves technical standards. The EPA is using American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods and generally accepted test
methods previously promulgated by the EPA. Because all of these methods
are generally accepted and are widely used by State and local agencies
for determining compliance with similar rules, the EPA believes it
would be impracticable and potentially confusing to put in place
methods that vary from what is already accepted. As a result, the EPA
believes it is unnecessary and inappropriate to consider alternative
technical standards.

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. We have determined that this final
action 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 population.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. Section
804 exempts from section 801 the following types of rules (1) rules of
particular applicability; (2) rules relating to agency management or
personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice
that do not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-
agency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not required to submit a
rule report regarding today's action under section 801 because this is
a rule of particular applicability.

L. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by August 11, 2014. Pursuant to CAA section
307(d)(1)(B), this action is subject to the requirements of CAA section
307(d) as it promulgates a FIP under CAA section 110(c). Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: May 30, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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 52.2470 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (d) by adding footnote 1 to the table and adding six
entries to the end of the table.
0
b. In paragraph (e) by adding in TABLE 2--ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND
OTHER PLANS an entry ``Regional Haze SIP'' at the end of the section
with the heading ``Visibility and Regional Haze Plans.''

Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                            EPA-Approved Washington Source-Specific Requirements \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          State
         Name of source           Order/permit number   effective    EPA approval date         Explanation
                                                           date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BP Cherry Point Refinery........  Administrative          7/7/2010  6/11/2014 [Insert    The following
                                   Order No. 7836.                   page number where    conditions: 1.2,
                                                                     the document         1.2.1, 1.3, 1.3.2,
                                                                     begins].             1.3.3, 2.2,
                                                                                2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3,
                                                                                2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.3,
                                                                                2,3,1, 2.3.2, 2.4,
                                                                                2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.5,
                                                                                2.5.1, 2.5.2, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                2.6, 2.6.1, <IP_ADDRESS>.,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, 2.6.2, 2.6.3,
                                                                                2.6.4, 2.7, 2.7.1,
                                                                                2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.8,
                                                                                2.8.1, 2.8.2, 2.8.3,
                                                                                2.8.4, 2.9, 2.9.1,
                                                                                2.9.2, 2.9.3, 2.9.4,
                                                                                2.9.5, 2.9.6, 3., 3.2,
                                                                                3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3,
                                                                                3.3.1, <IP_ADDRESS>, 3.3.2,
                                                                                3.3.3, 3.3.4, 4, 4.1,
                                                                                4.1.1, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, 5., 6, 6.2,
                                                                                6.3, 6.4, 7.
Alcoa Intalco Works.............  Administrative          11/15/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
                                   Order No. 7837,                   page number where    conditions: 1, 2.,
                                   Revision 1.                       the document         2.1, 3., 4., 4.1,
                                                                     begins].             Attachment A
                                                                                conditions: A1, A2,
                                                                                A3, A4, A5, A6, A7,
                                                                                A8, A9, A10, A11, A12,
                                                                                A13, A14.
Tesoro Refining and Marketing     Administrative            7/7/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
 Company.                          Order 7838.                       page number where    conditions: 1., 1.1,
                                                                     the document         1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.2,
                                                                     begins].             1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>,<IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, 1.5.2, 1.5.3,
                                                                                1.5.4, 1.5.5, 1.5.6,
                                                                                2., 2.1, 2.1.1,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, 2.1.2, 2.1.3,
                                                                                2.2, 2.2.1, 3. 3.1,
                                                                                3.1.1, 3.1.2, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, 3.2,
                                                                                3.2.1, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>.1,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>.2, <IP_ADDRESS>.3,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>.4, <IP_ADDRESS>.5,
                                                                                3.3, 3.3.1, 3.4,
                                                                                3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4., 4.1,
                                                                                5., 5.1, 6., 6.1,
                                                                                6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3,
                                                                                6.1.4, 7., 7.1, 7.1.1,
                                                                                7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4,
                                                                                7.1.5, 7.2, 7.2.1,
                                                                                7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4,
                                                                                8. 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2,
                                                                                8.2, 8.2.1, 8.2.2,
                                                                                8.2.3, 8.3, 8.3.1,
                                                                                8.3.2, 9., 9.1, 9.1.1,
                                                                                9.1.2, 9.2, 9.2.1,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, 9.3.2,
                                                                                9.3.3,9.4, 9.4.1,
                                                                                9.4.2, 9.4.3, 9.4.5,
                                                                                9.4.6, 9.5, 10, 11,
                                                                                12, 13, 13.1, 13.2,
                                                                                13.3, 13.4, 13.5,
                                                                                13.6.
Port Townsend Paper Corporation.  Administrative          10/20/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
                                   Order No. 7839,                   page number where    Conditions:1, 1.1,
                                   Revision 1.                       the document         1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1, 3,
                                                                     begins].             3.1, 4.

Lafarge North America, Inc.       Administrative           7/28/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
 Seattle, Wa.                      Revised Order No.                 page number where    Conditions: 1, 1.1,
                                   7841.                             the document         1.2, 2, 2.1, 2.1.1,
                                                                     begins].             2.1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 3,
                                                                                3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2,
                                                                                3.1.3, 3.2, 3.3, 4,
                                                                                4.1, 5, 5.1, 5.1.1,
                                                                                5.1.2, 5.2, 5.3, 6,
                                                                                6.1, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3,
                                                                                7.4, 7.5, 8, 8.1, 8.2,
                                                                                8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 9, 10,
                                                                                11, 12.
Weyerhaeuser Corporation,         Administrative            7/7/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The following
 Longview, Wa.                     Order No. 7840.                   page number where    Conditions: 1, 1.1,
                                                                     the document         1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3,
                                                                     begins].             1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,
                                                                                1.2.3, 1.3, 1.3.1,
                                                                                1.4, 2, 2.1, 3, 3.1,
                                                                                4, 4.1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a
  demonstration that their removal would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any
  prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Washington Department of
  Ecology may require removal by submitting such a demonstration to the EPA as a SIP revision.

    (e) * * *
* * * * *

                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Applicable         State
      Name of SIP provision          geographic or      submittal    EPA approval date           Comments
                                   nonattainment area      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Visibility and Regional Haze Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional Haze SIP...............  State-wide.........     12/22/10  6/11/14 [Insert      The Regional Haze SIP
                                                                     page number where    including those
                                                                     the document         provisions relating to
                                                                     begins].             BART incorporated by
                                                                                reference in Sec.
                                                                                52.2470
                                                                                `Identification of
                                                                                plan' with the
                                                                                exception of the BART
                                                                                provisions that are
                                                                                replaced with a BART
                                                                                FIP in Sec.   52.2498
                                                                                Visibility
                                                                                protection., Sec.
                                                                                52.2500 Best available
                                                                                retrofit technology
                                                                                requirements for the
                                                                                Intalco Aluminum
                                                                                Corporation (Intalco
                                                                                Works) primary
                                                                                aluminum plant--Better
                                                                                than BART
                                                                                Alternative., Sec.
                                                                                52.2501 Best available
                                                                                retrofit technology
                                                                                (BART) requirement for
                                                                                the Tesoro Refining
                                                                                and Marketing Company
                                                                                oil refinery--Better
                                                                                than BART
                                                                                Alternative., Sec.
                                                                                52.2502 Best available
                                                                                retrofit technology
                                                                                requirements for the
                                                                                Alcoa Inc.--Wenatchee
                                                                                Works primary aluminum
                                                                                smelter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
3. Section 52.2475 is amended by revising the heading of paragraph (g)
and paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2475  Approval of plans.

* * * * *
    (g) Visibility protection. (1) The EPA approves portions of a
Regional Haze SIP submitted by the Washington Department of Ecology on
December 22, 2010, as meeting the requirements of Clean Air Act section