visibility improvements that could be achieved by implementing LSFO.
    Both modeling results show significant SO2 visibility
impacts from Intalco in several Class I areas, with the greatest impact
at Olympic National Park. The tables below show these impacts and the
expected visibility improvement of greater than 75% in all Class I
areas after implementation of LSFO:
    Modeling With 1 km grid cells:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Current impact (98th        Impact with LSFO (98th         Percent
            Class I area             percentile dv,  of  percentile dv,  of    improvement in
                                            days >0.5 dv)              days >0.5 dvdays)         visibility (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine Lakes.......................  0.742, 18 days.............  0.158, 0 days..............                 79
Glacier Peak.......................  0.916, 24 days.............  0.190, 0 days..............                 79
Mount Rainier......................  0.660, 11 days.............  0.108, 0 days..............                 83
North Cascades.....................  0.986, 35 days.............  0.212, 0 days..............                 78
Olympic............................  1.527, 41 days.............  0.355, 2 days..............                 77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Modeling With 4 km grid cells:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Current impact
                                                ------------------------
                  Class I area                             days
                                                   dv        >0.5 dv
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alpine Lakes Wilderness........................     1.0               32
Goat RocksWilderness...........................     0.5                7
Glacier Peak Wilderness........................     1.0               33
Mount Adams Wilderness.........................     0.4                5
Mount Rainier NP...............................     0.8               21
North Cascades NP..............................     1.3               51
Olympic NP.....................................     2.1               52
Pasayten Wilderness............................     0.8               25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes these are significant impacts, not only based on the
maximum impact at Olympic National Park, but also the number of days
over 0.5 dv at several Class I areas and the number of Class I areas
with impacts greater than 0.5 dv. Installation and operation of LSFO
would significantly improve visibility in several Class I areas in
Washington.

EPA's Conclusion Regarding Washington's BART Determination for Intalco

    EPA disagrees with Washington's BART analysis for Intalco because
the cost of compliance was improperly determined and proposes to
disapprove their analysis. As discussed above, EPA calculated a
different cost effectiveness value based on eliminating the cost of a
backup tower; using the lower of the two vendor quotes rather than the
average; assuming the equipment life is 30 years rather than 15, and
assuming the gypsum by-product is re-used rather than landfilled. EPA
believes based on a cost effectiveness value in the range of $3875/ton
to $4363/ton and the facts presented above and considering the
following factors that LSFO would be BART:
     While the cost effectiveness is relatively high in the
range of $3875 to $4363/ton, it is in the range of other EPA
promulgated BART determinations. e.g. Four Corners Power Plant (77 FR
51619),
     A 95% reduction in SO2 emissions will result in
visibility improvement over 1 deciview at Olympic National Park and
over 0.5 deciview at 5 other Class I areas,
     There is insignificant non-air environmental and energy
impacts,
     The source is anticipated to remain in operation for the
foreseeable future, assuming no requirement to install new controls,
     The current control for SO2 on the potlines are
the pollution prevention measures, including the 3% sulfur limit for
incoming coke.
    However as discussed below, at the request of Alcoa, EPA considered
whether Alcoa would be able to afford LSFO and remain a viable entity.
    Affordability: The BART Guidelines provide that even if a control
technology is cost effective there may be some cases where installing
the controls would affect the viability of continued plant operations.
Specifically, the rule explains that there may be unusual situations
that justify taking into consideration the condition of the plant and
the economic effects of requiring the use of a given control
technology. The economic effects could include effects on product
prices, market share, and profitability of the source. See 40 CFR 51
appendix Y, IV.D.4.k. Alcoa indicated to EPA that it cannot afford
installation and operation of an LSFO control system and requested that
affordability be considered. As summarized below EPA conducted a
thorough ``affordability assessment'' of Alcoa and the Intalco
operations. Based on that analysis, EPA proposes to conclude that Alcoa
cannot afford to install LSFO at Intalco at this time. See ``Intalco
BART SO2 Affordability Assessment'' (Affordability
Assessment) in the docket for this action for

additional detail regarding EPA's affordability analysis.

Summary of Affordability Analysis

    In June 2012, Alcoa provided EPA an analysis (claimed as
Confidential Business Information) of the financial health of the
Intalco Operations from 2008 through 2013. Their analysis included
financial information for both Alcoa as a whole, and the Intalco
operations specifically, indicating that Intalco has not been a
profitable operation in recent years and that the projected profits for
this year and next are less than the annualized cost of LSFO. Their
analysis concluded that during this time frame, there was insufficient
after tax income to afford the annualized cost (capital and O&M) for
LSFO of $26 million.
    EPA conducted an independent analysis of the financial status of
the Alcoa Intalco operations, considering the current and future trends
in the cost of raw materials, operating expenses (labor and
electricity), revenue income, and increasing supply and anticipated
demand for aluminum in the future. Intalco is currently operating at
less than full capacity and is operating only two of its three
potlines. Operating the third potline is not economical given existing
market prices for aluminum and electricity, limited availability of
reasonably priced power and potline production costs. If Intalco were
to install the LFSO control technology, the annual cost of installing
and operating the equipment would represent approximately 8-10% of the
facility's sales revenue over the 30 year lifetime of the equipment at
current utilization at the facility. We recognize that the cost/sales
ratios may be higher or lower depending on plant utilization and future
aluminum prices, but they are substantial in even the most optimistic
cases.
    Alcoa is unlikely to be able to pass these costs along to
consumers, as shown by its historical inability to pass through higher
electricity prices, and is also unlikely to operate its third potline
to increase production in the near future. Additionally, as mentioned
in the Affordability Assessment, Alcoa's credit rating and low cash
reserves may limit its ability to obtain resources to purchase
pollution control equipment. Finally, the installation and operating
cost of LSFO would represent a significant initial and long-term
expenditure and a decision by Alcoa to close the facility rather than
incur the pollution control equipment expense could be consistent with
the findings of the independent affordability analysis. See
Affordability Assessment for additional detail.
    Based on this analysis EPA concludes that the Alcoa Intalco
operations cannot afford LSFO at the Intalco facility and remain a
viable operation.

Summary of Other, Less Costly Control Options for Potlines

    EPA also considered less costly control of partial scrubbing of the
potline emissions. There are six baghouses, each with multiple exhaust
stacks, controlling particulate from the three potlines. EPA considered
controlling SO2 from two of the six, and four of the six
baghouses. Under this scenario, the capital costs are reduced, however
the cost effectiveness values would increase due to the economies of
scale. At the same time, visibility improvement would decrease as
overall SO2 emission reduction decreases proportionally.
Thus, in light of the increased cost effectiveness values and decreased
visibility improvement, we determined partial scrubbing is not
reasonable.

EPA SO2 BART Determination for Potlines

    Based on all the considerations summarized above, EPA believes that
while LSFO is cost effective and would significantly improve
visibility, it is not affordable at this facility. Therefore, EPA
proposes to find that the pollution prevention measure of limiting the
sulfur content of anodes to 3% is BART for Intalco.

Regional Haze Rule Provision for Alternative BART Programs

    Pursuant to the RHR, a state may choose to implement measures as an
alternative to BART so long as the alternative measures can be
demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national
visibility goal than would be achieved through the installation and
operation of BART. See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). The demonstration must
include, among other things, a requirement that all necessary emission
reductions take place during the first long term strategy period and a
demonstration that the emissions reductions resulting from the
alternative measures will be surplus to those reductions resulting from
measures adopted to meet requirements of the CAA as of the baseline
date of the SIP.

Better Than BART Proposal for the Intalco Potlines

    In the letter dated June 22, 2012, from Alcoa to EPA, Alcoa
proposed an alternative that would be Better than BART. This
alternative consists of implementing pollution prevention measures,
primarily the requirement of 3% or less sulfur in the anode coke, and
limiting SO2 emissions from the potlines to 80% of the base
year emissions of 6550 t/y. For the reasons explained, EPA is proposing
to accept this Better than BART alternative and proposes a 5240 t/y
annual SO2 emission limit on the potlines.

Better Than BART Visibility Impact

    Alcoa modeled the visibility difference between base year
SO2 emissions of 6550 t/y and a 20% reduction in emissions
to 5240 t/y from the Intalco facility. The modeled results are
summarized below for Olympic National Park. The deciview metric is the
98th percentile value for the year.

                                                  Base Year SO2
                                                   [6550 t/y]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Metric                           2003                     2004                     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th Percentile......................  2.36 dv................  1.86 dv................  2.14 dv
Days above 0.5 dv....................  59.....................  53.....................  42
Days above 1.0 dv....................  29.....................  21.....................  24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                         20% Reduction of SO2 Emissions
                                                   [5240 t/y]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Metric                           2003                     2004                     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
98th Percentile......................  1.20 dv................  1.56 dv................  1.82 dv
Days above 0.5 dv....................  50.....................  48.....................  41
Days above 1.0 dv....................  23.....................  19.....................  21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 80% SO2 emissions cap, limiting the SO2
emission to 5240 t/y, will prevent visibility from degrading on the
worst days (represented by the 98th percentile) and will also reduce
the number of days with impairment greater than 0.5 dv and 1.0 dv.

Anode Bake Ovens

    Intalco manufactures its own anodes from an on-site facility using
calcined coke and pitch. Green anodes are baked to remove volatile
organic impurities and hardened for use in the aluminum potlines.
During the baking process, some of the sulfur in the coke is released
as sulfur dioxide and emitted to the atmosphere. The Anode Bake Ovens
are fueled with natural gas and emit visibility impairing pollutants of
particulate matter, SO2, and NOX. Emissions are
currently controlled with an alumina scrubber to remove hydrogen
fluoride and volatile organics

and then the outflow from the scrubber is ducted to baghouses to remove
particulate. The baghouses provide 99% control of particulate matter.
    Washington evaluated SO2 scrubbers for the anode bake
oven exhaust using information from its evaluation of potline
SO2 control. Costs determined for LSFO for the potlines were
scaled to the lower gas flow rate of the bake oven. A 95% control
efficiency for SO2 was assumed. The cost effectiveness of
LSFO scrubbing was estimated to be $36,400/ton and the visibility
improvement would be 0.02 dv at Olympic National Park. Washington
determined, based on the high cost and small visibility improvement
that the petroleum coke sulfur limit of 3% is BART for anode bake
furnace SO2 emissions.
    Washington also determined that the existing level of particulate
matter control (based on baghouses on the alumina dry scrubbers) is
BART for particulate emissions.
    Washington rejected using an advanced firing system for reduced
energy use as BART for NOX because the technology would
result in a negligible emission reduction and visibility improvement.
Similarly, Washington rejected LoTOx\TM\ as BART because the cost of
the technology would be excessive and it has not been demonstrated in
practice on aluminum plant anode bake ovens.
    Washington determined that BART for anode bake furnace
NOX emissions is no controls. After review of available
control technologies, EPA agrees with Washington's BART determination
for this source and is proposing to approve the BART determinations for
the anode bake ovens.

Aluminum Holding Furnaces

    The aluminum holding furnaces are fueled with natural gas and emit
NOX. The emissions from the furnaces are small and result in
negligible visibility impairment in any Class I area. Washington
determined that BART for the aluminum holding furnaces is no controls.
Washington rejected additional controls as BART because any visibility
improvement would be negligible due to the low level of emissions from
the natural gas-fired burners. EPA agrees that no additional control of
emissions from the aluminum holding furnaces is BART.

Material Handling and Transfer Operations

    The PM emissions from the BART-eligible material handling and
transfer operations are all controlled using fabric filter technology,
and these operations are a negligible source of NOX and
SO2 emissions. Additional control of these pollutants would
provide negligible visibility improvement. Therefore, Washington
determined that the existing level of emissions control, fabric
filters, is BART for these material handling and transfer operations.
    EPA agrees that fabric filter (baghouse) is the appropriate control
technology and all emission units must meet 40 CFR part 63, Subpart
RRR, and emissions of PM shall not exceed 0.01 grains per dscf.

Summary of Intalco BART Determination and EPA's Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Washington's BART determination for
Intalco with the exception of the SO2 BART determination for
the Intalco potlines. EPA is proposing a limited disapproval of
Washington's BART analysis for SO2 because, as explained
above, Washington did not properly calculate the cost effectiveness
value. Washington determined a cost effectiveness value of greater than
$6000/ton for LSFO and consequently dismissed LSFO as BART. EPA is
proposing a Better than BART FIP for control of SO2
emissions off the potlines.
    As described above, EPA revised some of the cost inputs and
assumptions and calculated a cost effectiveness value in the range of
$3875/ton to $4363/ton for LSFO. When considered in light of the
visibility improvement in Olympic National Park and several other Class
I areas surrounding Intalco, LSFO likely would be considered BART.
However, as also explained above, Alcoa claimed it cannot afford LSFO
at Intalco and still have it remain a viable entity. After
investigating the affordability claim, including an analysis of Alcoa's
financial status, market conditions, and electricity availability, EPA
agrees and thus rejects LSFO as BART for this facility.
    Washington issued Intalco a BART Order, (Order No. 7837, Revision
1) on July 7, 2010, that establishes Washington's determined BART
control technology, pollution prevention measures, emission limits,
compliance dates, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. EPA is
simultaneously issuing a limited approval of Washington's
SO2 BART Order for the potlines, as a SIP strengthening
measure. Intalco can afford to continue to implement of the pollution
prevention measures and limiting the sulfur content of anodes in the
furnace to 3% as required under the Washington's BART Order. Intalco is
currently operating the potlines with SO2 emissions below
the proposed Better than BART alternative. The Better than BART
alternative makes Washington's pollution prevention requirements,
including a 3% limit on anode coke federally enforceable. The proposed
alternative imposes a 5240 t/y annual SO2 emission limit,
makes the 20% SO2 emission reduction from baseline permanent
and federally enforceable, and prevents any future visibility
degradation should Intalco decide to increase production in the future.
Compliance with the annual SO2 emission limit will be
demonstrated using the same information that Intalco is required to
collect under existing Washington requirements. So while the proposed
alternative would impose additional recordkeeping and reporting
obligations related to the annual cap, it would not impose any
additional monitoring requirements.
    The table below summarizes the proposed BART determination and
Better than BART FIP for each BART emission unit:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Emission unit                       BART technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potlines...............................  SO2: 80% emission cap from
                                          baseyear (5,240 tons for any
                                          calendar year) and pollution
                                          prevention limit of 3% sulfur
                                          in the coke used to
                                          manufacture anodes.
                                         PM: Use of the current level of
                                          control, which is the use of
                                          baghouses to control PM
                                          emissions from the alumina dry
                                          scrubbers, and wet roof
                                          scrubbers to control secondary
                                          PM emissions from the potroom
                                          roofs.
                                         NOX: no control.
Anode Bake Furnace.....................  SO2: pollution prevention limit
                                          of 3% sulfur in the coke used
                                          to manufacture anodes.
                                         PM: The current baghouse.

Aluminum Holding Furnace...............  No control.
Material Handling and Transfer.........  PM Use of the current level of
                                          control, which is use of
                                          fabric filters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Tesoro Refining and Marketing
    The Tesoro refinery (Tesoro) near Anacortes, Washington, processes
crude oil into refined oil products, including ultra low sulfur diesel
oil, jet fuel, 6 fuel oil, and gasoline. Modeling of
visibility impairment was done following the Oregon-Idaho-Washington
Region 10 BART modeling protocol. Modeled visibility impacts of
baseline emissions show impacts on the 8th highest day in any year (the
98th percentile value) of greater than 0.5 dv at five Class 1 areas.
The highest impact was 1.72 dv at Olympic National Park.
    Ten process heaters, one flare, one boiler, and two cooling towers
at the plant are BART-eligible. The primary emission units of concern
are the process heaters, boiler, and flares which have significant
emissions of SO2 and NOX. Direct PM emissions
from the BART-eligible units are low because almost all burn either
refinery fuel gas or natural gas. Only one BART-eligible unit subject
to BART, the crude oil distillation heater (unit F-103), is currently
permitted to burn fuel oil. Tesoro reported 3 tons of PM2.5
emissions from this unit in 2009.
    Eleven of the 74 storage tanks at Tesoro emit VOCs and meet the
1962-1977 timeframe for BART-eligibility. Washington considers VOCs as
visibility impairing pollutants (see appendix L, page 104 of the SIP
submittal), but since the CALPUFF model, which is used to evaluate
visibility impairment from single sources, cannot effectively model
VOCs, Washington decided that VOC emissions from BART-eligible storage
tanks and other units would not be evaluated for BART. Note that the
facility's reported total VOC emissions in 2008 were 1,082 tons. The
BART determination for the Tesoro refinery focuses only on
SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA agrees that it is not
necessary to further evaluate visibility impacts from VOCs for this
planning period since, in addition to the modeling uncertainties, the
majority of VOC emissions already have controls in place (for example
to meet the applicable NSPS, MACT, and VOC fugitive emission control
regulations). In addition, not all of the VOC emitted will convert to
light scattering particles, so visibility impact due to VOC emissions
is expected to be minimal.
    The following are units at Tesoro subject to BART:

F-103 Crude Oil Distillation
F-104 Gasoline Splitter/Reboiler
F-304 CO Boiler No. 2
F-654 Catalytic Feed Hydrotreater
F-6600 Naphtha Hydrotreater
F-6601 Naphtha Hydrotreater
F-6602 Naphtha Hydrotreater
F-6650/6651 Catalytic Reformer
F-6652/6653 Catalytic Reformer
F-6654 Catalytic Reformer
F-6655 Catalytic Reformer
X-819 Flare
CWT 2 Cooling Water Tower
CWT 2a Cooling Water Tower

NOX Controls Evaluated for All Combustion Units

    Tesoro evaluated available NOX control technologies
generally applicable to combustion units. Unit-specific evaluations
were completed based on technologies found generally feasible.
    Flue Gas Recirculation: Flue gas recirculation was determined to be
unacceptable due to safety factors.
    Low NOX burners: LNB and ULNB retrofits are commonly installed on
combustion units, often as a result of BACT or LAER determinations and
could be feasible at Tesoro depending on the specific unit application.
Emission limits from EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse range from 0.08
to 0.1 lb/MMBtu (NOX) for LNBs and ULNBs.
    Staged Air Low NOX Burners: For this burner design, retrofitting
heaters with less than three feet between the burner and the opposite
wall of the firebox may not be practical due to potential flame
impingement on the firebox refractory materials or heat transfer tubes.
Emission reductions achieved by staged-air LNBs range from 30 to 40
percent below emissions from conventional burners. Tesoro used a 40
percent NOX reduction for its initial cost analysis review.
    Staged-fuel, low-NOX burners: Staged-fuel LNBs have several
advantages over staged-air LNBs. First, the improved fuel/air mixing
reduces the excess air necessary to ensure complete combustion. The
lower excess air both reduces NOX formation and improves
heater efficiency. Second, for a given peak flame temperature, staged-
fuel LNBs have a more compact (shorter) flame than staged-air LNBs. Up
to 72 percent NOX emissions reductions for staged-fuel LNBs
have been reported over conventional burners based on vendor test data.
Tesoro used a 60 percent average NOX reduction for its
initial cost analysis review.
    Ultra Low NOX Burners: Tesoro used a 75% average NOX
reduction for its initial cost analysis based on EPA methods. After
receiving vendor guaranteed average NOX emission reductions
ranging from 60 to 73.5 percent for specific units, Tesoro developed a
vendor cost factor analysis for each unit based on the vendor guarantee
and the unit-specific emission rate.
    Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR): Vendor NOX
reduction guarantees ranged from 35 to 40% based on Tesoro's fuel gas
compositions and measured bridgewall temperatures. EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse lists an emission limit of 127 ppmdv NOX at
seven percent oxygen for a SNCR used to control emissions from a Fluid
Catalytic Cracking Regenerator unit followed by a CO Boiler.
    NOX tempering (steam or water injection): To date, NOX
tempering has only been used on large utility boilers and was not
considered for further analysis.
    Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR): Typical SCR NOX
removal efficiencies range from 70 to 90+ percent removal, depending on
the unit being controlled. Tesoro used a 90 percent NOX
removal in its cost analyses.

SO2 Controls Evaluated for All Combustion Units

    Plant-Wide SO2 Control: Plant-wide SO2 control is
accomplished by reducing the sulfur content of fuel burned in various
combustion units. Requiring the use of ``low sulfur fuel'' is the most
common SO2 control technique applied to oil refinery process
units. ``Low sulfur fuel'' is usually defined as refinery fuel gas
meeting the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS) requirements of 40
CFR part 60, Subpart J. This NSPS limits the H2S in fuel gas
to 0.1 gr/dscf.
    Tesoro has already implemented improvements at the facility to
reduce the H2S concentration in the flue gas; any additional
reduction in refinery fuel gas sulfur content will require construction
of a new sulfur recovery unit (SRU). Tesoro evaluated the construction
of a new 50 ton/day SRU and refinery modifications to route sulfur
streams to the new unit. The

capital cost is estimated to be $58 million to continuously treat all
refinery gas to the level of the NSPS standard (162 ppm of
H2S). Attributing all the cost to the SO2
reductions to all combustion units (not just the BART eligible units)
results in a plant wide reduction from the 2003 to 2005 average
emissions of 395 tons of SO2 with a cost effectiveness of
$16,100/ton of SO2 (not including O&M costs). Tesoro also
evaluated the cost effectiveness of continuously meeting a limit of 50
ppm of H2S (a plant wide annual decrease of 451 tons per
year), with the use of a new SRU. To meet a 50 ppm H2S
concentration would increase the cost effectiveness value to $14,100/
ton (also not including O&M costs).
    Washington determined that the construction of a new SRU to meet
either 162 ppm H2S or 50 ppm H2S is not cost
effective and that SO2 BART for combustion units burning
refinery fuel gas is the current H2S limit of 0.10 percent
by volume (1000 ppm) . See Washington's BART Compliance Order 7838.

PM Controls Evaluated for All Combustion Units

    With the exception of emissions from unit F-304 (which primarily
burns carbon monoxide from the fluid catalytic cracking unit and emits
negligible amounts of PM), PM controls applicable to the process
heaters at this facility are tied directly to the use of combustion
fuel. Using low sulfur refinery fuel gas reduces potential particulate
emissions. The refinery gas system includes process steps to remove
particulates and some heavier hydrocarbons from the refinery gas prior
to being sent to the various fuel burning units.
    Washington determined PM BART is the curtailment of fuel oil for
combustion with the substitution of refinery fuel gas. The specific
emission limit for unit F-304 is 0.11 gr/dscf, corrected to 7%
O2. Particulate matter BART for all other BART units is 0.05
gr/dscf, corrected to 7% O2.

Unit Specific BART Determinations for NOX

    Unit F-103, Crude Oil Distillation Heater: ULNB, SCR, SNCR, ULNB
plus SCR, and ULNB plus SNCR were evaluated for cost effectiveness.
Only ULNB, with a control efficiency of 75% had a reasonable cost
effectiveness value at $3398/ton, using EPA calculation methods, and.
All others cost effectiveness values exceeded $6374/ton. Washington
determined ULNB to be BART for Unit F-103.
    Unit F-104, Gasoline Splitter Reboiler: This reboiler currently has
ULNB installed. The next more efficient control technology would be the
addition of SCR with a cost effectiveness of $100,000/ton. See Table
2.1 of appendix L, Tesoro BART determination. Washington determined
this cost to be unreasonable.
    Unit F-6650, Catalytic Reformer Feed Heater; Unit F-6651, Catalytic
Reformer Inter-Reactor Heater; Unit F-6652, Catalytic Reformer Inter-
Reactor Heater; Unit F-6653, Catalytic Reformer Inter-Reactor Heater:
These four heater units are ducted into two common exhaust stacks.
However, the BART evaluations regarding burner design (e.g. LNB vs
ULNB) and add on control (e.g. SCR) were made separately for each unit
by the State, and are presented below.
    Unit F-6650: The SIP submittal analyzed LNB, ULNB, SCR, SCR with
LNB, and SCR with ULNB. ULNB is not technically feasible since there is
insufficient space to install it. LNB is estimated to achieve a 60%
reduction in NOX, is cost effective at $3349/ton if
installed during turnaround and over $10,000/ton outside normal
turnaround. All of the SCR combinations are not cost effective with
costs exceeding $10,000/ton during turnaround and even greater during
non-scheduled turnaround refinery maintenance. Washington determined
BART for NOX emissions to be existing control.
    Unit F-6651: The SIP submittal analyzes LNB, ULNB, SCR, SCR with
LNB and SCR with ULNB. There is insufficient space to install ULNB thus
it is not technically feasible. The cost of installing SCR on the
common exhaust duct in addition to LNB is not reasonable with a cost
effectiveness of greater than $10,000/ton. LNB with 60% control
efficiency and a cost effectiveness of $3349/ton within the routine
maintenance turnaround was determined to be reasonable. Washington
found that the cost effectiveness increases to over $10,000/ton if the
controls were required to be installed during non-routine turnaround
and stated that the routine turnaround will be outside the BART
implementation window requirement. However, as explained below this is
no longer the case.
    Washington determined BART for NOX emissions to be
existing control.
    Unit F-6652: The SIP submittal analyzes LNB, ULNB, SCR, SCR with
LNB and SCR with ULNB. Cost effectiveness of SCR options exceed
$10,000/ton and thus these options are not reasonable. LNB and ULNB are
cost effective and technically feasible. ULNB with a control efficiency
of 75% and cost effectiveness of $3349/ton was determined to be BART
for NOX emissions, if installed during routine turnaround.
Washington found that the cost effectiveness values increase to over
$10,000/ton if installed outside routine turnaround, and stated that
the routine turnaround will be outside the BART implementation window
requirement. However, as explained below this is no longer the case.
Washington determined BART for NOX emissions to be existing
control.
    Unit F-304: The cost effectiveness of LNB, SCR, SNCR, LNB plus SCR,
and LNB plus SNCR was evaluated. LNB with SNCR, with a control
efficiency of 39% and cost effectiveness of $4592/ton when installed
during turnaround was determined to be reasonable Washington calculated
the cost effectiveness to be over $10,000/ton if the installation was
conducted outside of the regularly scheduled turnaround. SNCR without
LNB has a 35% control efficiency at a cost of $4534/ton and was not
considered further as the control efficiency is less than LNB with
SNCR. All other options are not cost effective. See Table 2-3 of the
Tesoro BART Determination, appendix L of the SIP submittal.
    Washington's NOX BART determination for unit F-304 (CO
Boiler No. 2) indicated that an emission limit, representative of the
installation of LNB plus SNCR, would be reasonable if the controls
could be installed during routine maintenance ``turnaround'' at Tesoro.
Turnarounds are the only occasion when process units are intentionally
taken out of operation, and during a turnaround, major maintenance
occurs on all process units that are shut down. During a routine
turnaround, low-NOX burners or other appropriate controls
could be installed and loss of production would not be included in the
cost-effectiveness calculations. However, for the analysis contained in
the SIP submittal, Washington assumed that the date for EPA's action to
approve or disapprove the SIP submittal, plus the time allowed to
comply with BART (i.e., as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than five years after SIP approval), would occur prior to the next
scheduled turnaround. More specifically, Tesoro informed Washington
that the next scheduled turnaround would not occur until 2017, which
Washington had estimated would be after the date the BART controls
would need to be installed. Consequently, Washington estimated costs
for BART to include lost production, since, in order to comply within
BART timeframe, the facility would be required to install the controls

well before the 2017 turnaround. Including lost production into the
costs, results in most cases in a cost effectiveness figure well in
excess of $10,000/ton and the controls are not cost-effective. As a
result, Washington determined that no additional control was required
for BART for NOX for boiler F-304.
    However, as it turns out, the BART compliance time frame (which is
now estimated to be no later than mid-2018) is much later than
Washington originally estimated and now could indeed accommodate the
2017 turnaround cycle. When calculating cost-effectiveness without
considering lost production, Washington concluded that controls for
BART would in fact be reasonable. For example, see appendix L-3, Table
2-3, page L-125 of the SIP submittal showing a vendor cost estimate of
$4,592/ton for installation of LNB plus SNCR for the boiler F-304.
Therefore, Washington would have concluded that, except for the costs
associated with taking units offline outside of the turnaround cycle,
BART for NOX for unit F-304, would be an emission limit
associated with installation of LNB plus SNCR. Yet, because of the
added costs estimated for lost production, Washington proposed no add
on controls in the SIP submittal.
    A similar circumstance applies to heaters F-6650, F-6651, F-6652,
and F-6653. The SIP submission indicates that LNB would be cost-
effective for F-6650 and F-6651, while ultra-LNB would otherwise be
cost-effective for F-6652 and F-6653, except for the added costs due to
lost production. Again, Washington determined BART was no add-on
controls on these units, due to costs of lost production because of the
assumption that Tesoro would need to take the units offline outside of
the normal turnaround schedule in order to comply with BART. It is now
evident however, that the BART compliance deadline could be structured
to include time for the scheduled turnaround. Thus, Washington's BART
determination of no controls for these units is not appropriate since
the controls are cost effective if installation is conducted during a
scheduled turnaround period.
    In today's action, we are proposing to disapprove Washington's BART
determinations for NOX for units F-304, F-6650, F-6651, F-
6652, and F-6653. We are proposing to approve Washington's BART
determinations for SO2 and PM for all of Tesoro's BART
subject units, and for NOX for units F-103, F-104, F-654, F-
6600, F-6601, F-6602, F6654, and F-6655.

Tesoro Request for Alternative BART Program

    As discussed above under the Intalco BART section, a state may
choose to implement measures as an alternative to BART, so long as the
alternative measures can be demonstrated to achieve greater reasonable
progress toward the national visibility goal than would be achieved
through the installation and operation of BART. See 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2).
    In light of the currently expected date estimated for EPA's final
action on the SIP submittal, EPA does not consider Washington's BART
determination for NOX for several units at the facility to
be approveable. Tesoro submitted a request to EPA on November 5, 2012,
for an alternative to BART for NOX for units F-304, F-6650,
F-6651, F-6652, and F-6653. Based on the analysis described below, EPA
agrees that the alternative proposed by Tesoro is Better than BART, and
because we are proposing to disapprove Washington's BART determination
for NOX for those units, we are also proposing a FIP as an
alternative to BART, that results in greater reasonable progress than
BART would for units, F-304, F-6650, F-6651, F-6652, and F-6653. We
believe that the proposed Tesoro NOX BART alternative meets
the requirements for an alternative measure.

Tesoro NOX BART Alternative

    EPA is proposing a BART alternative for the NOX
emissions from the CO boiler 2 (unit F-304) and the four
heaters, units F-6650, F-6651, F-6652, and F-665. This BART alternative
achieves greater visibility progress than BART would for those units.
40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) of the regional haze rule
specify the requirements that a state must meet to show that an
alternative measure or alternative program achieves greater reasonable
progress than would be achieved through the installation and operation
of BART. Pursuant to those requirements, Tesoro has identified seven
non-BART units at the facility that achieve substantially more
SO2 emission reductions compared to their baseline emissions
than the NOX emission reductions that would be achieved from
BART on the five BART subject units compared to their baseline
emissions. The facility has requested SO2 emission
limitations on those non-BART units as an alternative to emission
limits for NOX on the BART-subject units. EPA believes it is
appropriate to consider SO2 reductions as a substitute for
NOX reductions for the alternative BART scenario since the
SO2 reductions, which are more than twice the NOX
reductions, will likely result in proportionately more sulfate than
nitrate removed from the atmosphere. Accordingly, visibility
improvement would be greater under the alternative than under BART. The
table below shows the seven non-BART eligible units for which Tesoro is
requesting SO2 emission limits under the proposed
alternative.

         SO2 Units Regulated Under the Proposed BART Alternative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Unit                             Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-101..................................  Crude Heater, 120 MMBtu/hr.
F-102..................................  Crude Heater, 120 MMBtu/hr.
F-201..................................  Vacuum Flasher Heater, 96 MMBtu/
                                          hr.
F-301..................................  Catalytic Cracker Feed Heater,
                                          128 MMBtu/hr.
F-652..................................  Heater, 67 MMBtu/hr.
F-751..................................  Main Boiler, 268 MMBtu/hr.
F-752..................................  Boiler, 268 MMBtu/hr.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2007, Tesoro made a major capital investment to improve the
sulfur removal capability of the Anacortes refinery fuel gas (RFG)
system and accepted a limit on H2S in the fuel gas of 0.10
percent by volume, or 1,000 parts per million (ppm). This resulted in a
significant reduction in SO2 emissions as the average
H2S concentration of the fuel gas in 2006 was 2,337 ppm. A
requirement to combust only pipeline quality natural gas or RFG meeting
the 1,000 ppm limit was established on a number of units at the
facility, including eleven BART-subject units as part of Washington's
BART determination for those units. Tesoro requested that the same
requirement be extended to the seven additional non-BART units shown in
the table above. In Washington Class I areas, sulfates contribute
significantly more than nitrates to visibility impairment (see SIP
Submittal chapter 5) and it is likely that for the Class I areas
impacted by Tesoro's SO2 and NOX emissions, more
SO2 converts to sulfate than NOX does to nitrate.
Limiting the SO2 emissions from these seven units would
thereby result in greater reasonable progress than would requiring BART
for NOX on the CO boiler 2 and four process
heaters.
    In Washington Class I areas, sulfates contribute significantly more
than nitrates to visibility impairment (see SIP Submittal chapter 5)
and it is likely that more SO2 converts to sulfate than
NOX does to nitrate. Applying the SO2 limit to
these 7 units would result in greater reasonable progress than would
requiring BART for NOX on the CO boiler 2 and four
process heaters.

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(i)(D), a summary of the emission
reductions expected from the BART alternative compared to emissions
reductions that would be achieved by the application of Washington's
estimated limits for NOX for five BART-subject units is
shown in the tables below.

                                    SO2 Emissions Under the BART Alternative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    2006\*\ SO2        BART
                                                                     Baseline      alternative:
                                                                     emissions     2007 post-RFG   Reduction in
                              Unit                                (tpy), pre-RFG   SO2 emissions   SO2 emissions
                                                                  as reported by  as reported by       (tpy)
                                                                      Tesoro          Tesoro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-101...........................................................             193              42             151
F-102...........................................................             178              48             130
F-201...........................................................             232              51             181
F-301...........................................................              58              11              47
F-652...........................................................              77              25              52
F-751...........................................................             291              54             237
F-752...........................................................             326              56             270
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           1,355             287           1,068
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ The baseline year of 2006 was used because it was the last year preceding installation of the RFG
  improvements and representative of operating conditions at the refinery at that time.

                              NOX Emissions With Washington's Determination of BART
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Washington's
                                                                    2006\*\ NOX      estimated       Projected
                                                                     Baseline        emissions     reduction in
                              Unit                                   emissions     based on BART   NOX emissions
                                                                     (tpy) as       analysis in      from BART
                                                                    reported by    SIP submittal  controls (tpy)
                                                                      Tesoro       (appendix L)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-304...........................................................             717             437             280
F-6650..........................................................             151              60              91
F-6651..........................................................             114              46              68
F-6652..........................................................              24               6              18
F-6653..........................................................              12               3               9
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
        Total...................................................           1,018             552             466
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ The baseline year of 2006 for NOX corresponds with the year the emissions were estimated for SO2.

    The projected NOX emissions are based on Washington's
estimates of appropriate control efficiencies applied to the 2006
emission rates. Washington's estimates are: SNCR plus LNB for F-304
with 39% reduction in NOX; LNB for F-6650 and F-6651 with
60% reduction in NOX; ULNB for F-6652 and F-6653 with 75%
reduction in NOX. EPA believes that for purposes of
estimating the NOX BART emission benchmark for 2006,
Washington's estimates are adequate.
    As the tables show, the 1,068 tpy reductions in SO2 from
the seven non-BART units are greater than the 466 tpy emissions
reductions expected from BART for NOX for the five BART-
subject units. The reductions are surplus because they occurred during
the first planning period, after the 2002 SIP baseline date and were
not necessary to meet any other CAA requirements. As a final check, we
note that SO2 emissions from the seven units, if calculated
assuming that the plant is operating at full capacity, would be 10,147
tpy prior to the refinery fuel gas improvements in 2007 and 1,127 tpy
after applying the 1000 ppm H2S limit. The net
SO2 emission reduction is estimated to be 9,020 tons,
compared to 683 tons of NOX reductions assuming BART level
controls for NOX were installed and the plant were operating
at full capacity. For these reasons, EPA is proposing a BART
alternative FIP that achieves greater reasonable progress than BART.
    The proposed emission limit for the seven units being considered
for the alternative to BART is the same limit as the other 11 BART-
subject units for which we are proposing to approve. Specifically, the
refinery fuel gas may not contain greater than 0.10 percent by volume
H2S on a 365-day rolling average basis. Setting the limit
based on the concentration of H2S in the fuel is consistent
with the Standards of Performance for Petroleum Refineries (See 40 CFR
part 60--Subpart J) and 51.308(e)(iii) for establishing BART. Since the
proposed alternative would utilize the same requirement for monitoring
refinery fuel gas combusted in the non-BART units that Washington has
imposed for the BART-subject units, the proposed alternative would not
impose any additional monitoring requirements. It would impose
additional recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the fuel
combusted in the non-BART units.
    Tesoro's November 5, 2012, letter actually included two options for
a Better than BART alternative. The other option involved
SO2 emission reductions from another non-BART unit, CO
boiler 1 (Unit F-302). However, we did not choose that option
for the proposed Better than BART FIP because CO boiler 1
shares a common exhaust stack with CO boiler 2 (Unit F-304)
which is a BART-eligible unit and the Washington BART order establishes
an SO2 limit for the combined emissions from both boilers.
Even though Washington has not relied

on the SO2 reductions since baseline from CO boiler
1 in its regional haze plan, EPA is obliged to approve that
limit as shown in the BART order and cannot use those same reductions
in a Better than BART alternative FIP. However, EPA does want to point
out that, when approved, the BART order will actually result in greater
visibility improvements than projected in the regional haze reasonable
progress demonstration.

Summary of Tesoro BART

    The Table below is a summary of the proposed BART and Proposed
Better than BART Technology for Tesoro.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Emission unit                       BART technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-103..................................  PM: End routine use of fuel
                                          oil. Use of refinery fuel gas
                                          or natural gas as primary
                                          fuel.
                                         SO2: End routine use of fuel
                                          oil. Use of refinery fuel gas
                                          or natural gas as primary
                                          fuel.
                                         NOX: Ultra-low-NOX burners.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-304, F-6650, F-6651, F-6652, F6653...  SO2 & PM: End routine use of
                                          fuel oil. Use of refinery fuel
                                          gas or natural gas as primary
                                          fuel.
                                         Proposed Better than BART
                                          Alternative Federal
                                          Implementation Plan: SO2
                                          limitations on units F-101, F-
                                          102, F-201, F-301, F-652, F-
                                          751, F-752 fuel gas of 1000
                                          ppmv H2S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
F-104, F-654, F-6600, F-6601, F-6602, F- PM: End routine use of fuel
 6654, F-6655, Flare X-819, Cooling       oil. Use of refinery fuel gas
 Towers 2 and 2a.                         or natural gas as primary
                                          fuel.
                                         SO2: End routine use of fuel
                                          oil. Use of refinery fuel gas
                                          or natural gas as primary
                                          fuel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

d. Port Townsend Paper Company
    Port Townsend Paper Company (PTPC) operates a kraft pulp and paper
mill in Port Townsend, Washington that manufactures kraft pulp, kraft
papers, and lightweight liner board. The four BART eligible emission
units at the facility are: the recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank,
No. 10 power boiler, and lime kiln. PTPC visibility impacts are
greatest at Olympic National Park. The 98th percentile impact during
2003 to 2005 at Olympic National Park is 1.9 dv. Impacts at all other
Class I areas within 300 km of PTPC were less than 0.5 dv.
    An electrostatic precipitator (ESP) currently controls PM from the
recovery furnace, a wet scrubber currently controls PM and
SO2 from the smelt dissolving tank, a multiclone and wet
scrubber control PM emissions from the No. 10 power boiler, and a wet
venturi scrubber controls PM and SO2 from the lime kiln. On
October 20, 2010, Washington issued PTPC BART Order 7839 Revision 1
which establishes emission limits for these existing controls for the
emission units subject to BART.
    Recovery Furnace: The recovery furnace primarily burns black liquor
solids with some recycled fuel oil. It emits SO2,
NOX, and PM. The recovery furnace is intended to recover
sulfur for use in the pulping process and the loss of sulfur through
emissions of SO2 is a loss of process chemical and therefore
is undesirable for business reasons. The recovery furnace operations
are optimized to minimize sulfur loss. Particulate matter is currently
controlled with three dry electrostatic precipitators (ESPs). Current
SO2 and PM emissions are regulated by NESHAPS Subpart MM,
and a PSD permit. NOX emissions from recovery furnaces are
generally low. Currently, there is no emission limit for
NOX.
    NOX: The recovery furnace inherently uses staged combustion to
optimize combustion of black liquor (mostly lignins) to recover the
sulfur. Also due to the unique nature of the recovery process, special
safety precautions must be considered as explosion can occur.
Washington and PTPC evaluated alternative NOX control
technologies and found them technically infeasible. See SIP submittal
pages L-206 and L-207. Washington determined that the existing level of
control provided by the existing staged combustion system is BART for
NOX for the recovery furnace.
    SO2: Washington and PTPC considered the Wet FGD, Dry FGD and low
sulfur fuel as possible control technologies for the recovery furnace
SO2 emissions. Wet FGD is considered cost prohibitive by the
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI). See
Information on Retrofit Control Measures for Kraft Pulp Mill Sources
and Boilers for NOX, SO2, and PM Emissions, June
4, 2006. Additionally, due in part to the nature of the SO2
emissions from a kraft recovery furnace, and related technical
difficulties, this technology is considered technically infeasible for
control of SO2 emissions at this facility. Table 2-4, PTPC
BART determination, appendix L of the SIP submittal.
    Dry FGD is also not technically feasible as injection of a sorbent
material disrupts the chemical reactions in the furnace and the sulfur
content of the gas stream is too low for effective control of
SO2. The analysis also found that low sulfur fuel is not an
option as the main fuel source is the black liquor from which sulfur is
recovered. In essence, the recovery furnace is a control device to
recover sulfur from the black liquor. Supplemental fuel oil is
currently limited to a maximum of 0.75% sulfur content. Switching to a
lower sulfur content fuel oil would cost $15,702/ton of SO2
removed and is deemed not cost effective. Washington determined that
the current level of controls provided by the existing staged
combustion system and regulated by the PSD permit is BART for
SO2, with an emission limit of 200 ppm at 8% O2.
    PM: The PM emissions from the recovery furnace are currently
controlled by an ESP. The existing ESP at the furnaces reduces actual
PM emissions to an average of less than 50% of the MACT limit of 0.044
gr/dcsf, at 8% O2. The BART Guidelines, section IV, states
that ``Unless there are new technologies subsequent to the MACT
Standards which would lead to cost effective increases in the level of
control, [state agencies] may rely on MACT standards for purposes of
BART.'' No new control technologies have been identified for recovery
furnaces, thus Washington determined that the dry ESP meeting MACT
limits is BART. Thus, the BART limit is the NESHAP Subpart MM limit of
0.044 gr/dscf at 8% oxygen.

Smelt Dissolving Tank

    NOX control: There are no NOX emissions from the smelt
dissolving

tank thus a BART determination for NOX is not necessary.
    SO2 Control: Sulfur dioxide emissions are currently controlled by a
wet scrubber. The only other available control option is either semi-
dry or dry FGD. However, due to the very low exhaust flow rate, semi-
dry or dry FGD with a dry ESP is technically infeasible. Adding an
alkaline solution to the exhaust gas stream could provide additional
SO2 control. Washington's analysis found cost effectiveness
of adding the alkaline solution to both is $16,247/ton and is not cost
effective. Washington found BART for SO2 is the existing wet
scrubber for PM control.
    PM Control: PM emissions are currently controlled by a dry ESP.
Washington evaluated the cost of upgrading the current ESP to reduce
existing PM emission by 50%. The cost effectiveness of this upgrade is
$5,100/ton with a visibility improvement of 0.07 dv. In light of the
cost and minimal visibility improvement, Washington determined the
upgrades are not reasonable. The BART emission limit for PM is the
NESHAP Subpart MM limit of 0.20 lb PM10 per ton black liquor
solids (BLS).
    No. 10 Power Boiler: The No. 10 power boiler currently burns a
variety of fuels from wood waste to fuel oil and uses overfire air to
reduce NOX emissions. A multiclone followed by a wet
scrubber reduces PM emissions.
    NOX: The design of the No. 10 power boiler which primarily burns
wood waste results in a low flame temperature and minimal
NOX formation. Appendix C of the PTPC BART Determination
report (appendix L of the SIP submittal) contains a lengthy discussion
of why alternative control technologies are not technically feasible
including; flue gas recirculation, LNBs, fuel staging, SNCR, and SCR.
Washington determined that the existing NOX emission limit
of 0.80 lb/MMBtu (current NSPS Subpart D limit) is BART for this unit.
    PM control: PM emissions from the No. 10 power boiler are currently
controlled with a multiclone followed by a wet scrubber. The BART
analysis evaluated fabric filters and the substitution of a wet ESP for
the wet scrubber. The evaluation found that installation of a baghouse
is technically infeasible for wood fired boilers due to the potential
fire hazard. The addition of a wet ESP is technically feasible for this
facility but is not cost effective at $11,249/ton of PM10
removed. The substitution of a wet ESP was also evaluated and it was
found that due to the low emission rate and the small potential
visibility improvement from upgrading to a wet ESP did not justify
further study. Washington determined BART is the existing level of
control as provided by the wet scrubber with a PM emission limit of
0.10 lb/MMBtu (the current NSPS Subpart D limit).
    SO2 Control: PTPC analysis found that FGD technology with wet
injection using a wet scrubber would reduce SO2 emissions
but would also require the addition of alkaline chemicals which would
change the chemical characteristics of the effluent and render it
classified under Washington as `Dangerous Waste' and as a hazardous
waste under the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, thus
raising the cost and complexity of disposal. Fly ash from the boiler
already aids in scrubbing SO2 and adding an alkaline
solution would only provide a small increment of control, but with
increased problems with sludge disposal. The analysis concluded that
implementation of wet FGD on the No. 10 power boiler is considered
technically infeasible. Lowering the sulfur content of the fuel oil
burned to 0.5%, while technically feasible, would cost $15,702/ton of
SO2 reduced. This was determined to not be cost effective.
Washington determined that BART for SO2 control on the No.
10 power boiler is the continued operation of the existing wet
scrubber, continued use of the current low sulfur fuel and implementing
good combustion practices aimed at minimizing recycled fuel oil firing
as BART. The existing SO2 emission limit is 0.30 lb/MMBtu.

Lime Kiln

    PM: Currently the lime kiln uses wet venturi scrubber to capture PM
emissions to meet the PM emission limits as specified in 40 CFR 63,
Subpart MM. No new control technologies have been developed since the
rule was promulgated therefore as explained above, Washington
determined that wet venturi scrubber is BART. BART for PM is the same
as 40 CFR 63, Subpart MM, with an emission limit of 0.064 gr/dscf at
10% O2.
    NOX: The lime kiln is operated using a minimum of excess air.
Washington's review determined that no add-on control technology was
indicated for lime kilns in the EPA RBLC which lists ``good
combustion'' and ``proper kiln design'' as BACT for lime kilns.
However, as described in the SIP submittal, PTPC investigated ten other
possible control options. Each of these control options were determined
to be infeasible. See Washington Regional Haze SIP submittal L-190.
Therefore Washington determined that BART for NOX for the
lime kiln is proper kiln design and good operating practices.
    SO2: The existing wet venturi scrubber captures lime dust and
thereby also reduces SO2 emissions. Washington and PTPC
considered several additional SO2 control technologies
including increasing the alkalinity. See SIP submittal Table 2-3.
However, the visibility improvement from increasing the alkalinity of
the wet scrubber was estimated to be only 0.004 dv and did not warrant
further consideration. As for other units in the facility, lower sulfur
fuel oil was determined to not be cost effective due to the increased
fuel cost and resulting cost effectiveness value of $15,702/ton. As
documented in the SIP submittal each of the other technologies
considered was rejected due to technical difficulties. See Washington
Regional Haze SIP submittal L-213. Washington determined that BART for
SO2 for the lime kiln is the current level of control
provided by the wet venturi scrubber. The SO2 emission limit
is continued use of the existing wet scrubber with inherently alkaline
scrubber solution and 500 ppm at 10% O2 (current Washington
limit).
    For of the reasons summarized above, Washington determined that the
existing controls, techniques and emission limits constitute BART for
NOX, SO2, and PM at the facility. The SIP
submittal includes BART Compliance Order No. 7839, Revision 1, issued
to Port Townsend Paper Corporation on October 20, 2010.
    EPA finds after review of the SIP submittal that the BART
determination and BART compliance order for PTPC is reasonable and
proposes to approve it.

Summary of Port Townsend Paper Company BART

    The table below summarizes the proposed BART technology for PTPC:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Emission Unit                       BART Technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery Furnace.......................  PM: Existing ESP.
                                         NOX: Existing staged combustion
                                          system.
                                         SO2: Good Operating Practices
                                          and limit of 200 ppm at 8% O2.

Smelt Dissolving Tank..................  PM: Existing wet scrubber
                                          NESHAP Subpart MM limit of
                                          0.20 lb PM10 per ton BLS.
                                         SO2: Existing wet scrubber.
No. 10 Power Boiler....................  PM10: Existing multiclone and
                                          wet scrubber NSPS Subpart D
                                          limit of 0.10 lb/MMBtu.
                                         NOX: Existing staged combustion
                                          system NSPS Subpart D limit of
                                          0.30 lb/MMBtu.
                                         SO2 Good Operating Practices
                                          NSPS Subpart D limit of 0.80
                                          lb/MMBtu.
Lime Kiln..............................  PM10: Existing venturi wet
                                          scrubber NESHAP Subpart MM
                                          limit of 0.064 gr/dscf at 10%
                                          O2.
                                         NOX: Good Operating Practices.
                                         SO2: Existing wet scrubber 500
                                          ppm at 10% O2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Lafarge North America
    Lafarge North America is located in Seattle, Washington and
produces Portland cement by the wet kiln process. The facility consists
of 18 emission units of which 16, in combination, meet the requirements
as eligible for BART. Dispersion modeling of these16 emission units
show emissions from these units exceed the visibility threshold of 0.5
dv for being subject to BART and thus are subject to BART. The largest
sources of concern that are subject to BART are the rotary kiln and the
clinker cooler. The other BART units include raw material handling,
finished product storage bins, finish mill conveying system, bagging
system, and bulk loading/unloading system baghouses, with a total of
just 480 t/y emissions of PM.
    Lafarge North America is subject to the terms and conditions
specified in a consent decree resolving alleged Clean Air Act
violations. United States v. LaFarge North American Inc, Civ. 3:10-cv-
00044-JPG-CJP (S.D. Ill.). This consent decree established emission
limitations and compliance dates for a number of cement plants owned
and operated by Lafarge North America, including the Seattle plant.

Rotary Wet Process Kiln

    SO2: There is currently no control for SO2 from the kiln
at the Lafarge facility. The alkaline nature of the clinker formed in
the kiln reduces SO2 emissions to some extent. Additional
control options evaluated were: dry sorbent injection (lime or sodium),
semi-dry FGD, wet limestone forced oxidation, wet lime, ammonia forced
oxidation, and alternative fuels and raw materials. See SIP Submittal
appendix L, L-231,Table 2-2, Lafarge BART determination. The analysis
found that dry sorbent injection (DSI) is technically feasible with a
25% removal efficiency for SO2 at an estimated the cost
effectiveness of $4034/ton. See Table 2-3 of appendix L, Lafarge BART
determination. Washington determined that while the cost effectiveness
value for DSI at this facility is relatively high compared to other
cost effectiveness values that are considered BART, the visibility
improvement at Olympic National Park is significant (0.8 dv) and
warrants this control as BART. Washington determined dry sorbent
injection with emission limit of not to exceed 8620 lb/day as BART.
    Limestone slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) is a technically feasible
control option with a control efficiency of 95% for SO2.
Cost effectiveness is $32,920/ton and is considered not reasonable for
this facility. Lafarge considered, but rejected, wet lime scrubbing,
which is similar to LSFO, but uses lime instead of limestone. The
resulting waste product cannot be recycled into the process and would
incur the additional cost to landfill. Also the cost of lime is
considerably more than limestone. Both these factors would increase the
cost effectiveness values even higher than LSFO.
    NOX: Currently NOX emissions from the kiln are
controlled by combustion control. As explained in greater detail in the
Washington Regional Haze Submittal appendix L, Washington evaluated
additional control options. In summary its analysis found that LNB with
indirect firing is a technically feasible control option with a 15%
control efficiency and cost effectiveness of $19,246/ton of
NOX reduced. The analysis determined that SCR has not proven
effective in other wet process kiln cement plants that have used SCR.
Thus SCR is not considered an available technology for this unit.
    Washington found that SNCR is technically feasible at the facility
with a 40% control efficiency and cost effectiveness value of $1409/
ton. Washington has determined SNCR to be one option available to
comply with BART at this facility. As part of their BART analysis,
Washington also considered mid-kiln firing with whole used tires. Mid-
kiln firing changes the combustion characteristics and provides a 40%
control of NOX. As Lafarge has already installed, but
currently does not use the equipment for mid-kiln firing with whole
tires, the cost effectiveness is low. Washington has determined that
mid-kiln firing with whole tires is an available option to comply with
BART. Finally, low NOX burners with indirect firing and SNCR
were evaluated. LNB with SNCR is technically feasible with a control
efficiency of 55%. Cost effectiveness is determined by Washington to be
$6247/ton. The incremental cost of adding LNB to SNCR is $14,900/ton.
Washington determined that the incremental cost of adding LNB to SNCR
is not cost effective. Thus, Washington determined that BART for
NOX to be either SNCR or mid-kiln firing of whole tires with
an emission limit of 22,960 lb/day.
    PM: The initial design of the Lafarge facility was for two kilns,
but only one was built. Two ESPs were constructed, assuming a second
kiln would be built. Currently, the exhaust gasses are ducted to both
ESPs which decreases the flow rate by half and increases the control
efficiency to 99.95%. This control efficiency is equal to that of a
baghouse. Washington determined the existing ESPs are BART for PM with
an emission limit of 0.05 g/dscf.
    Clinker Cooler: There are no SO2 or NOX
emissions from the Clinker Cooler and a BART determination for these
pollutants was not conducted. Currently PM emissions from the clinker
cooler are controlled by baghouses. The current baghouses control 99.8%
of PM emissions, which is equal to an ESP. While other controls such as
wet scrubbers or wet venture scrubbers are available, the analysis
completed by Lafarge found that these other technologies did not
control PM emissions as well as the baghouses currently in use at the
facility. Therefore, Washington determined the existing primary and
backup baghouses

and the emissions limitations for these units contained in Regulation
1, section 9.09 (as in effect on June 30, 2008) and Order of Approval
No. 5627 as BART.
    All other sources: Existing baghouses were determined to be BART
for PM with an emission limit of 0.005 g/dscf. Washington on July 28,
2010 issued Lafarge a revised BART Order No. 7841 requiring compliance
with BART, including monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. See appendix L of the SIP submittal, Lafarge BART
determination. Washington's BART determination and required controls
for Lafarge is expected to result in approximately 1.1 dv visibility
improvement in Olympic National Park and 0.2 to 0.8 dv improvement at
the other affected Class I areas.

Summary of Proposed Lafarge BART Technology

    The table below summarizes the proposed BART technology for
Lafarge.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Emission unit                       BART technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinker Cooler...............  PM/PM10/PM2.5: Existing baghouses 0.025 g/
                                dscf for the primary baghouse 0.005 g/
                                dscf for backup baghouse.
Rotary Kiln..................  PM/PM10/PM2.5: Existing electrostatic
                                precipitators 0.05 g/dscf.
                               NOX: SNCR or Mid-kiln firing of whole
                                tires not to exceed 22960 lb/day.
                               SO2: Dry sorbent injection with lime plus
                                currently permitted fuels and the cement
                                kiln process not to exceed 8620 lb/day.
All Other PM10 Sources at      PM10: Existing baghouses 0.005 g/dscf.
 Plant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC
    TransAlta Centralia Generation LLC, located in Centralia,
Washington operates a two unit coal-fired power plant rated at 702.5
megawatt each, when burning coal from the Centralia coalfield as
originally designed. These units are BART eligible and subject to BART
as described in the SIP submittal, Supplement to appendix L. The units
now burn Powder River Basin coal and are each rated at 670 MW. On June
11, 2003, EPA approved a revision to the Washington Visibility SIP
which included controls for NOX, SO2, and PM. In
the action approving these provisions of the Visibility SIP, EPA
determined the controls to be BART for SO2 and PM but not
for NOX. The NOX controls included in the
November 1999 Visibility SIP revision, which EPA approved into the SIP,
were Alstrom concentric low NOX burners with overfire air.
TransAlta continues to be a BART eligible source for NOX.
    Washington's December 22, 2010 Regional Haze SIP submittal included
a BART determination for TransAlta which was updated on December 29,
2011. EPA approved the updated TransAlta NOX BART
determination on August 20, 2012. The SIP approved BART determination
imposes a NOX emission limitation of 0.21 lb/MMBtu for each
unit based on the installation of SNCR on both coal-fired units plus
Flex Fuel. It also requires a one year performance optimization study
and lowering the emission limits based on the study results.
Additionally, the BART determination requires one unit to cease burning
coal by December 31, 2020 and the second unit by December 31, 2025
unless Washington determines that state or federal law requires SCR to
be installed on either unit.
g. Weyerhaeuser Company-Longview
    Weyerhaeuser operates a Kraft pulp and paper mill in Longview,
Washington. The facility has three emission units subject to BART: the
No. 10 recovery furnace, No. 10 smelt dissolver tank and No. 11 power
boiler. The recovery furnace currently controls PM emissions with an
ESP. It also employs tertiary over fire air to control combustion and
maximize chemical recovery. The recovery furnace currently is regulated
by a PSD permit requiring BACT and 40 CFR part 63 Subpart MM. The smelt
dissolver tank emits PM controlled with a high efficiency wet scrubber
which was permitted as BACT in 1993 and is subject to 40 CFR part 63
Subpart MM.
    The No. 11 power boiler provides steam for electricity generation
and plant operations. It burns a combination of wood waste, dewatered
waste water treatment sludge, and supplemental low sulfur coal (<2%
sulfur by weight). Emissions from the No.11 power boiler are subject to
BACT in the facility's New Source Review (NSR) permit and 40 CFR part
60 Subpart D NSPS and are controlled by: 1) a multiclone to remove
large particulate, 2) dry trona injection to remove SO2, and
3) a dry ESP for additional particulate control. NOX
emissions are controlled with good combustion practices.

Recovery Furnace BART Options

PM: Washington evaluated two technically feasible control options for
increased PM control: wet ESP and venturi scrubber. A wet ESP would not
provide any additional reduction in PM over the current dry ESP. A
venturi scrubber added after the dry ESP would cost $28,000/ton of PM
removed and is not cost effective. Additionally this cost effectiveness
calculation did not include impacts of increased waste water to the
treatment system which if included would only increase the cost. Adding
an additional field to the existing dry ESP is not cost effective at
$122,000/ton. Washington determined that PM BART is the existing BACT
dry ESP with an emission limit of 0.027 gr/dscf at 8% O2,
and 0.020 gr/dscf at 8% O2 annual average.
    NOX: The analysis of NOX controls for this unit found
that SCR and SNCR do not appear to be technically feasible due to the
nature and purpose of the recovery boiler. As particulate matter
captured from the exhaust gas stream is used in creating green liquor,
the addition of ammonia upsets the delicate chemical make-up of the
recovered salts. The catalyst used in SCR would be ``poisoned'' by the
alkaline salts in the exhaust gas stream. Washington determined that
NOX BART for this furnace is the current staged combustion
system with an emission limit of 140 ppm at 8% O2.
    SO2: Wet and dry sorbent injection systems were considered as
control options for SO2. However, since the recovery furnace
is intended to recover sodium and sulfur for reuse in the pulping
process, the recovery furnace is designed to capture these chemical
compounds and thus emits little SO2 emissions. Weyerhaeuser
and Washington's analysis found that

neither a wet lime scrubber, a limestone scrubber nor semi-dry or dry
sorbent injection system are likely to reduce much SO2 from
this unit. Washington determined that BART is the current operation of
the furnace using a tertiary air system, use of good operating
practices and meeting the emission limitation in PSD permit 92-03
Amendment 4, of 75 ppm at 8% O2.

No. 10 Smelt Dissolver Tank

    The smelt tank only emits PM and is currently regulated by the most
stringent BACT emission limit in the EPA RBLC, which is more stringent
than the MACT standard. Because this unit is not a source of
NOX emission and only a negligible source of SO2
emissions no additional controls are necessary for these pollutants.
Washington determined that PM BART for this unit is current level of
control provided by the existing wet scrubber and an emission limit of
0.12 lb/ton black liquor.

No. 11 Power Boiler

    This power boiler currently uses overfire air to provide efficient
combustion, a multiclone followed by an ESP for control of PM, and
trona injection after the multiclone and before the ESP to control
SO2.
    PM: Alternative control options were considered for PM control on
the power boiler. Fabric filters are not feasible due to the fire
hazard from burning wood chips. Wet ESPs are no more efficient than the
existing dry ESP. Washington also found that space constraints on the
No. 11 power boiler would prevent or require expensive infrastructure
modifications to provide the space necessary for modifications to
either the PM or SO2 controls currently in place. Washington
determined that BART for PM at the No. 11 power boiler is the existing
multiclone followed by dry ESP with an emission limit of 0.10 lb/MMBtu.
    NOX: SCR and SNCR were evaluated for NOX control. SCR
with a control efficiency of 75% is not cost effective at $13,000/ton.
SNCR with a control efficiency of 25% is not cost effective at $6686/
ton. As described in the SIP submittal, Washington agreed with
Weyerhaeuser's analysis finding that there is no other NOX
reduction technology that is technically and economically feasible for
this unit. Washington determined that BART is the existing combustion
system with an emission limit of (0.30x + 0.70y)/(x + y) lb per MMBtu
(derived from solid fossil fuel, liquid fossil fuel and wood residue)
where 40 CFR 60.44(b) defines the variables.
    SO2: The current dry sorbent (trona) injection system has a control
efficiency of 25%. Additional control options including low sulfur fuel
oil or coal and wet calcium scrubbing were evaluated. Due to the
limited use of either oil or coal, emission reductions from changing to
low sulfur coal would provide negligible SO2 reductions and
limited improvement in visibility. Hydrated lime injection is
technically infeasible due to lime build-up on the ID fan blades
causing potential fan failure and unsafe explosion conditions. LSFO and
lime spray dryer control technologies are not cost effective at over
$17,000/ton. Washington determined SO2 BART for the No. 11
power boiler is the continued use of low sulfur fuels and dry trona
sorbent injection with an emission limit of 1000 ppm at 7%
O2, 1-hour average, (0.8y +1.2z)/(y +z) lb per MMBtu.
(derived from burning a mixture of liquid and solid fossil fuel) where
40 CFR 60.43(b) defines the variables).

Summary and Conclusion for Weyerhaeuser BART:

    In conclusion for the Weyerhaeuser Company, Longview, for all of
the reasons summarized above, Washington determined that the existing
controls, techniques and emission limits constitute BART for
NOX, SO2, and PM at the facility. On July 7,
2010, Washington issued Weyerhaeuser Company Order No. 7840 containing
the BART requirements. After review of the SIP submittal, EPA proposes
to find that the BART determination and BART compliance order for
Weyerhaeuser is reasonable and proposes to approve it.

Summary of Weyerhaeuser Proposed BART Technology

    The table below summarizes the proposed BART technology for
Weyerhaeuser.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Emission unit                       BART technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 11 Power Boiler..........  PM: Existing ESP 0.050 grain/dscf at 7%
                                O2 (current limit).
                               NOX: Existing Combustion System (0.30x +
                                0.70y)/(x + y) lb per MMBtu (derived
                                from solid fossil fuel, liquid fossil
                                fuel and wood residue) (40 CFR 60.44(b)
                                which also defines the variables)
                               SO2: Fuel mix and trona injection system
                                1000 ppm at 7% O2, 1-hour average, (0.8y
                                + 1.2z)/(y + z) lb per MMBtu (derived
                                from burning a mixture of liquid and
                                solid fossil fuel) (40 CFR 60.43(b)
                                which also defines the variables).
No. 10 Recovery Furnace......  PM: Existing ESP 0.027 gr/dscf, per test,
                                and 0.020 grain/dscf, annual average
                                (current BACT limits in PSD 92-03,
                                Amendment 4).
                               NOX: Existing Staged Combustion System
                                140 ppm at 8% O2 (current BACT limit in
                                PSD 92-03, Amendment 4).
                               SO2: Good Operating Practices 75 PPM at
                                8% O2 (current BACT limit in PSD 92-03,
                                Amendment 4).
Smelt Dissolver Tank.........  PM: Existing High Efficiency Wet Scrubber
                                0.120 lb/BLS (current BACT limit in PSD
                                92-03, Amendment 4).
                               NOX: No limit required.
                               SO2: No limit required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The RHR requires states to show ``reasonable progress'' toward
natural visibility conditions over the time period of the SIP, with
2018 as the first milestone year. The RHR also requires that the state
establish an RPG, expressed in deciviews (dv), for each Class I area
within the state that provides for reasonable progress towards
achieving natural visibility conditions by 2064. As such, the state
must establish a Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for each Class I area
that provides for visibility improvement for the most-impaired (20%
worst) days and ensures no degradation in visibility for the least-
impaired (20% best) days in 2018.
    RPGs are estimates of the progress to be achieved by 2018 through
implementation of the LTS which includes anticipated emission

reductions from all state and federal regulatory requirements
implemented between the baseline and 2018, including but not limited to
BART and any additional controls for non-BART sources or emission
activities including any federal requirements that reduce visibility
impairing pollutants. As explained above, the rate needed to achieve
natural conditions by 2064 is referred to as the uniform rate of
progress or URP.
    If the state establishes a reasonable progress goal that provides
for a slower rate of improvement than the rate that would be needed to
attain natural conditions by 2064, the state must demonstrate, based on
the factors in 40 CFR 51.308(d)(l)(i)(A), that the rate of progress for
the implementation plan to attain natural conditions by 2064 is not
reasonable; and the progress goal adopted by the state is reasonable.
The state must provide to the public for review as part of its
implementation plan an assessment of the number of years it would take
to attain natural conditions if visibility continues at the rate of
progress selected by the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(B)(ii).
    Washington identified the visibility improvement by 2018 in each of
the mandatory Class I areas as a result of implementation of the SIP
submittal BART emission limits, using the results of the Community
Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) modeling conducted by WRAP. CMAQ
modeling identified the extent of visibility improvement for each Class
I area by pollutant specie. The WRAP CMAQ modeling predicted visibility
impairment by Class I area based on 2018 projected source emission
inventories, which included federal and state regulations already in
place (``on the books'') and BART limitations. A more detailed
description of the CMAQ modeling performed by the WRAP can be found in
the WRAP TSD. The modeling projected that statewide emissions of
SO2 will decline by almost 40% between the baseline period
and 2018 attributable to a 29% reduction in point source emissions and
a 95% reduction in on and off-road mobile sources. See e.g. SIP
submittal at 9-3. Additionally, the WRAP's Particulate Matter Source
Apportionment Technology (PSAT) analysis for 2018 indicates that
sources beyond the control of the state that are outside the modeling
domain, Canada or Pacific offshore that will contribute about two-
thirds or more of the sulfate concentrations in many of the Class I
areas. The modeling projected that nitrate concentrations will decrease
by 46% between the baseline and 2018 primarily due to reductions in
NOX emissions from on-road and off-road mobile sources.
Again, the PSAT analysis indicates the majority of the remaining
nitrate in 2018 will come from sources in Canada, Pacific offshore or
outside the modeling domain. See e.g. SIP submittal 9-4.
    Chapter 9 of the SIP submittal discusses the establishment of the
RPGs for 2018 for each Class I area in Washington. Table 9-4 of the SIP
submittal presents the RPG's for each Class I area in Washington. These
goals provide for modest improvement in visibility on the 20% most
impaired days, but not to the level of 2018 URP in any of the Class I
areas. The goals also provide for no degradation on the 20% least
impaired days.
    Washington relied on the regional modeling conducted by the WRAP in
establishing the RPGs. The WRAP ran several emission scenarios
representing base case and 2018 emissions. Washington elected to use
the model run with emissions in the ``Preliminary Reasonable Progress''
emission estimates for 2018 (PRP18a). The WRAP modeling for the 2018
RPGs does not account for a number of changes in projected emissions
that occurred subsequent to completion of the model runs including
reductions that are expected to occur as a result of the proposed FIP.
These include:
     Emission reductions resulting from final SIP and FIP BART
determinations
     Emission reductions from International Maritime
Organization Emission Control Area for the west coast of the U.S. and
Canada
     Reductions in SO2 emissions from SO2
control measures on three oil refineries: TSEORO, Shell (Puget Sound
Refining) and Conoco-Phillips
     Proposed Better than BART alternative federal emission
limitations on Intalco
     Proposed Better than BART alternative federal program for
Tesoro
     Additional NOX emission reductions of 8022 t/y
from the TransAlta BART determination

Therefore, the RPGs established by Washington are conservative and do
not account for the above additional emission reductions that have
already been, or are expected to be achieved by 2018.
    As part of its reasonable progress analysis, Washington conducted a
generalized four-factor analysis on those source categories that have
the greatest visibility impact and determined that it should focus on
the SO2 and NOX emissions and the source
categories that emit more than 1000 t/y. Specific analysis was
completed on the following three source categories: (1) Industrial
processes, (2) external combustion boilers, and (3) stationary internal
combustion engines.
    Industrial processes account for 22,112 t/y of SO2
emissions, primarily from aluminum smelting, petroleum processing
(process heaters, catalytic cracking units, and flares), sulfate
(Kraft) pulping, and wet process cement manufacturing. Of these
industrial processes, external combustion boilers account for 13,783 t/
y of SO2 emissions primarily from burning process gas, wood
waste, residual oil, and bituminous and sub-bituminous coal for
electricity generation. Stationary internal combustion engines fueled
by natural gas account for 911 t/y of SO2 emissions.
    Other industrial processes account for 19,070 t/y NOX
emissions primarily from wet and dry process cement manufacturing,
glass manufacturing, sulfate (Kraft) pulping, sulfite pulping, and
petroleum process heaters. External combustion boilers account for
26,895 t/y NOX emissions primarily from burning bituminous
and sub-bituminous coal for electricity generation, wood waste, process
gas, and natural gas. Internal combustion engines account for 2,544 t/y
NOX emissions fueled by natural gas.
    There are five crude oil refineries located in Washington. Process
heaters are fueled with waste refinery gas, using natural gas as back-
up. Two of the five refineries are subject to BART (BP Cherry Point and
Tesoro) and BART determinations were made for them. See the previous
BART discussion. The three other meet the NSPS limit for sulfur in
refinery fuel gas.
    Washington also considered the significant visibility impact caused
by natural fire in three of the Class I Areas: North Cascades National
Park, Glacier Peak Wilderness Area, and Pasayten Wilderness Area. The
WRAP's analysis found that emissions attributable to natural fire are
not expected to significantly change between the baseline and 2018.
Washington found that if these projections are correct, the impact of
natural fire is so great in these three areas that they will not be
able to achieve the estimated natural conditions.
    Washington's reasonable progress analysis found that emissions,
particularly SO2 and NOX, from Canada result in
significant impact on visibility in the Class I areas. Additionally,
Pacific offshore emissions are significant in all areas except the
Pasayten Wilderness Area. Of the sulfate impairment in Olympic National
Park on the most impaired days, 73% originates from a

combination of sources located outside the modeling domain, Canada, and
Pacific offshore. Of the nitrate impairment in Olympic National Park on
the most impaired days, 43% originates from sources in these areas.
Similar impairment profiles exist in the other Class I areas in
Washington. In Washington's view, Washington's mandatory Class I areas
will not be able to attain natural conditions without further controls
on Canadian and Pacific offshore emissions and the lack of controls
inhibits these Class I areas' ability to achieve the URP and lengthens
the time it will take to achieve natural conditions.
    In establishing the 2018 RPGs, Washington did not account (or take
credit) for almost 10,000 tons of SO2 reductions that
occurred in the 2003 to 2005 timeframe from implementation of various
control technologies from the Tesoro, ConocoPhillips, and Shell
refineries. Tesoro installed wet FGD on the CO Boiler (Fluidized
Catalyst Cracker) in 2005 for a reduction of 4740 t/y SO2
and is considered BART in Washington's BART determination. Conoco-
Phillips installed wet-FGD on its CO boiler for a reduction of 2041 t/y
SO2 which was not included in the WRAP modeling for RPGs.
Shell Puget Sound Refining installed wet-FGD on their CO boiler for a
reduction of 3045 t/y SO2 which was not included in the WRAP
modeling. Washington relied on the WRAP modeling in establishing the
RPG's, thus the goals of the SIP submittal underestimate actual
improvement that is anticipated.
    EPA proposes to find that the Washington Regional Haze SIP
submittal meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1). As discussed
above, the RPGs established by Washington are conservative and do not
account for a significant amount of additional emission reductions that
have already been, or are anticipated to be achieved by 2018. These
include the emission reductions expected from the BART determinations
and Better than BART determinations proposed today and the almost
10,000 t/y SO2 emission reductions from three refineries in
northwest Washington.
    As explained in EPA's RPG Guidance, the 2018 URP estimate is not a
presumptive target and the Washington's RPGs may be lesser, greater or
equivalent to the glide path. The glide path to 2064 represents a
linear rate of progress to be used for analytical comparison to the
amount of progress expected to be achieved. EPA believes that the RPGs
established by Washington for the Class I areas in Washington, although
not achieving the URP, are reasonable when considering the additional
emission reductions expected to result from the BART controls,
additional reductions on refineries not included in the reasonable
progress demonstration and the significant contributions to visibility
impairment from natural fire and from sources beyond Washington's
regulatory jurisdiction. Additional controls on point sources or other
source categories at this time is not likely to result in substantial
visibility improvement in the first planning period due to the
significant contribution from emissions from natural fire, the Pacific
offshore, Canada, and outside the modeling domain.
    EPA believes that actual visibility improvement in all Class I
areas by 2018 will be significantly better than the RPGs established in
the SIP submittal would suggest. The RPG's established in the SIP for
the Class I areas in Washington meet the federal requirements by
showing visibility improvement on the 20% worst days and no degradation
on the 20% best days. EPA is proposing to find that Washington has
demonstrated that its 2018 RPGs are reasonable for the first planning
period and meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1).

G. Long Term Strategy

    The Long Term Strategy required by 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3) is a
compilation of all existing and anticipated new air pollution control
measures (both those identified in this SIP submittal as well as
measures resulting from other air pollution requirements.) The LTS must
include ``enforceable emission limitations, compliance schedules, and
other measures as necessary to achieve the reasonable progress goals''
for all Class I areas within or affected by emissions from the state.
40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). In developing a LTS, Washington identified
existing programs and rules, and additional new controls that may be
needed for other CAA requirements.
    The Regional Haze Rule requires that states consider seven topics:
(1) Ongoing air pollution control programs including measures to
address RAVI, (2) measures to mitigate impacts of construction
activities, (3) emission limitations and schedules for compliance, (4)
source retirement and replacement schedules, (5) smoke management
techniques for agricultural and forestry burning, (6) enforceability of
emission limitations and control measures, and (7) the anticipated net
effects on visibility due to projected changes in point, area and
mobile source emissions over the first planning period which ends in
2018. 40 CFR 50.308(d)(3). In their reasonable progress analysis,
Washington addressed each of these topics and added two additional
factors; commercial marine shipping and residential wood combustion.
    1. Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control
programs. Washington discussed a number of current federal, state, and
local permit programs and regulations that limit visibility impairing
emissions from point, area, on-road and non-road mobile sources. The
programs and requirements include for example the New Source Review and
Washington's Reasonable Available Control technology (RACT) permitting
requirements, the BART requirements and Washington's Smoke Management
Plan.
    2. Measures to mitigate impacts of construction activities.
Washington explained that due to the location of the Class I areas
relative to the urban areas in Washington, construction activities have
not been identified as contributing to visibility impairment in the
Class I areas. Washington also explained however, that construction
activities are regulated under Washington or under local air quality
authority rules and policies governing mitigation of air pollution from
construction activities.
    3. Emission limitations and schedules for compliance. The
submission states that in addition to current state and federal rules,
the BART requirements are important to achieving the estimated emission
reductions necessary to meet the 2018 RPG. To this end, Washington
issued enforceable BART Orders containing compliance schedules to each
source subject to BART. The BART Orders are included as part of the SIP
submittal.
    4. Source retirement and replacement schedules. Washington is not
aware of any scheduled and documented retirement or replacement of
point sources emitting visibility impairing pollutants so source
retirement and replacement schedules are not included as part of
Washington's long term strategy. However, if Washington receives notice
of source retirement or replacement in the future it commits to
including the emission reductions into the long term strategy in its
periodic updates.
    5. Smoke management techniques for agricultural and forestry
burning. In Washington agricultural burning is regulated by Washington
and local agencies which establish controls for agricultural burning to
minimize adverse health effects and environmental effects, including
visibility. Washington's silvicultural

Smoke Management Plan was incorporated into the Washington RAVI SIP on
June 11, 2003. See 68 FR 3482.
    6. Enforceability of emission limitations and control measures.
Emission limits on stationary sources are enforceable as a matter of
state law under chapter 173-400 Washington Administrative Code, General
Regulations for Air pollution Sources. Additionally, as mentioned
above, Washington issued enforceable BART Orders to each BART source
which will later be incorporated into the source's Title 5 permit.
    7. Anticipated net effects on visibility due to projected changes
in point, area and mobile source emissions over the first planning
period. Washington relied on modeling results from the WRAP projecting
the anticipated visibility improvement in 2018 for the LTS. See SIP
submittal, Table 10-3. As explained above, in the discussion regarding
the reasonable progress demonstration, due to the fact that the WRAP
modeling was conducted prior to many emission reduction activities that
have, or will occur, the projections in Table 10-3 of the SIP submittal
are conservative. Thus, the actual visibility improvement is likely to
be better than projected.
    In addition to the seven factors discussed above, Washington also
included two additional elements in their long term strategy;
residential wood combustion program and woodstove change-outs and
controls on emissions from commercial marine shipping. EPA acknowledges
these additional measures, but it is not necessary to take these
specific activities into account at this time in evaluating whether the
enforceable measures contained in Washington's LTS satisfy the RHR
requirements.
    Washington consulted with surrounding states through participation
in the WRAP to ensure that Washington would achieve its fair share of
reductions so that Class I areas in other states can meet their RPGs.
No state specifically requested Washington for emission reductions
beyond those assumed by the WRAP when it completed its modeling of 2018
visibility conditions. Additionally, Washington commits to updating its
comprehensive LTS on the schedule set by the RHR for the Regional Haze
SIP updates.
    EPA is proposing to find that Washington adequately addressed the
RHR requirements in developing its LTS because it includes all the
control measures that were anticipated at the time of the SIP
development. The SIP submittal contains sufficient documentation to
ensure that Washington's LTS will enable it to achieve the RPGs
established for the mandatory Class I areas in Washington as well as
the RPGs established by other states for the Class I areas where
Washington sources are reasonably anticipated to contribute to
visibility impairment.
    Washington's analysis 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 on the worst 20% days and no degradation of
visibility on the 20% best days. EPA proposes to approve the Long Term
Strategy (LTS) contained in the SIP submittal because it includes all
the control measures that were anticipated at the time of the SIP
development and the LTS as a whole provides sufficient measures to
ensure that Washington will meet its emission reduction obligations.

H. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Requirements

    The primary monitoring network for regional haze in Washington is
the IMPROVE network. As discussed previously, there are currently
IMPROVE sites that represent conditions for all mandatory Class I areas
in Washington.
    IMPROVE monitoring data from 2000-2004 serves as the baseline for
the regional haze program, and is relied upon in the Washington SIP
submittal. In the SIP submittal, Washington commits to rely on the
IMPROVE network for complying with the regional haze monitoring
requirement in EPA's RHR for the current and future regional haze
implementation periods. See chapter 12 of the SIP submittal. Washington
will also rely on the continued existence of the WRAP and on the WRAP's
work to provide adequate technical support to meet its commitment to
conduct the analyses required under the 40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) and will
collaborate with the WRAP members to ensure the continued operation of
the technical support tools. Data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring
network will be used for preparing the 5-year progress reports and the
10-year SIP revisions, each of which relies on analysis of the
preceding 5 years of data. Washington also commits to updating its
statewide emissions inventory periodically.

I. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    Through the WRAP, member states and 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. Washington provided the proposed Regional Haze plan for
Washington to the FLMs for comment in March 2010. See appendix B of the
SIP submittal. Washington also consulted with the states of Idaho and
Oregon, and all WRAP member states and Tribes.

J. Periodic SIP Revisions and 5-Year Progress Reports

    Section 51.308(f) of the RHR requires that the regional haze plans
be revised and submitted to EPA by July 31, 2018 and every 10 years
thereafter. 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires the state to submit a progress
report to EPA every 5 years evaluating the progress made towards the
reasonable progress goals for each Class I area in the state and each
Class I area located outside the state which may be affected by
emissions from within the state. Washington commits to evaluate and
assess each of the elements required under 40 CFR 51.308(f) and to
submit a comprehensive Regional Haze SIP revision to EPA by July 31,
2018, and every 10 years thereafter. Washington also commits to
submitting a report on its reasonable progress to EPA every 5 years to
evaluate the progress made towards the RPGs and to address each of the
elements specified in 40 CFR 51.308(g). See chapter 12 of the SIP
submission.

V. What action is EPA proposing?

    EPA is proposing a partial approval for most elements of the
Washington Regional Haze SIP submittal. EPA is proposing a limited
approval and limited disapproval of the State's SO2 BART
determinations for the Intalco potlines, and proposes a Better than
BART alternative. The limited approval of the State's BART Order for
Intalco is strengthening the SIP and the Better than BART FIP limiting
annual SO2 emissions to 5240 t/y is a BART alternative. This
Better than BART alternative, as offered by Alcoa, will incur no cost
to Alcoa as it currently operates within this emission limit. EPA is
also proposing to disapprove the Tesoro NOX BART
determinations for emission units F-304, F-6650, F-6651, F-6652, and F-
6653 and proposes a FIP for an alternative Better than BART. This
Better than BART alternative, as offered by Tesoro, will incur no cost
to

Tesoro as they currently operate within these emission limits.

VI. Washington Notice

    Washington's Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, codified at chapter
43.05 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), precludes ''regulatory
agencies'', as defined in RCW 43.05.010, from assessing civil penalties
under certain circumstances. EPA has determined that chapter 43.05 of
the RCW, often referred to as ``House Bill 1010,'' conflicts with the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 40 CFR 51.230(b)
and (e). Based on this determination, Ecology has determined that
chapter 43.05 RCW does not apply to the requirements of chapter 173-422
WAC. See 66 FR 35115, 35120 (July 3, 2001). The restriction on the
issuance of civil penalties in chapter 43.05 RCW does not apply to
local air pollution control authorities in Washington because local air
pollution control authorities are not ``regulatory agencies'' within
the meaning of that statute. See 66 FR 35115, 35120 (July 3, 2001).
    In addition, EPA is relying on the State's interpretation of
another technical assistance law, RCW 43.21A.085 and .087, to conclude
that the law does not impinge on the State's authority to administer
Federal Clean Air Act programs. The Washington Attorney Generals'
Office has concluded that RCW 43.21A.085 and .087 do not conflict with
Federal authorization requirements because these provisions implement a
discretionary program. EPA understands from the State's interpretation
that technical assistance visits conducted by the State will not be
conducted under the authority of RCW 43.21A.085 and .087. See 66 FR 16,
20 (January 2, 2001); 59 FR 42552, 42555 (August 18, 1994).

VII. Scope of Action

    This proposed SIP approval does not extend to sources or activities
located in ''Indian Country'' as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151.\11\
Consistent with previous Federal program approvals or delegations, EPA
will continue to implement the Act in Indian Country because Washington
did not adequately demonstrate authority over sources and activities
located within the exterior boundaries of Indian reservations and other
areas of Indian Country. The one exception is within the exterior
boundaries of the Puyallup Indian Reservation, also known as the 1873
Survey Area. Under the Puyallup Tribe of Indians Settlement Act of
1989, 25 U.S.C. 1773, Congress explicitly provided state and local
agencies in Washington authority over activities on non-trust lands
within the 1873 Survey Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ''Indian country'' is defined under 18 U.S.C. 1151 as: (1)
All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and including rights-of-way running through
the reservation, (2) all dependent Indian communities within the
borders of the United States, whether within the original or
subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or
without the limits of a State, and (3) all Indian allotments, the
Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rights-
of-way running through the same. Under this definition, EPA treats
as reservations trust lands validly set aside for the use of a Tribe
even if the trust lands have not been formally designated as a
reservation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes
of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities,
small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the
Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field. After considering the economic impacts of this
proposed action on small entities, I certify that this proposed action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. The FIP for the two Washington facilities being
proposed today does not impose any new requirements on small entities.
The proposed partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves
state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. See Mid-Tex Electric
Cooperative, Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327 (DC Cir. 1985).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more
(adjusted for

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

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct-effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national government and the states, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. This rule will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132, because it merely addresses the state not
fully meeting its regional haze SIP obligations established in the CAA.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action. In the
spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to
promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA
specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and
local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, Entitled Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 because the
SIP and FIP do not have substantial direct effects on tribal
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from
tribal officials. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless provided
a consultation opportunity to Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and Washington in
letters dated January 14, 2011. EPA received one request for
consultation, and we have followed-up with that Tribe. On September 20,
2012, EPA provided an additional consultation opportunity to 7 Tribes
in Washington specific to the Washington regional haze plan. We
received no requests for consultation.

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to the proposed partial
approval of the SIP that if finalized, merely approves state law as
meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. The FIP portion

of this proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. EPA proposes
to use American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Methods and
generally accepted test methods previously promulgated by EPA. Because
all of these methods are generally accepted and are widely used by
State and local agencies for determining compliance with similar rules,
EPA believes it would be impracticable and potentially confusing to put
in place methods that vary from what is already accepted. As a result,
EPA believes it is unnecessary and inappropriate to consider
alternative technical standards. EPA welcomes comments on this aspect
of the proposed rulemaking and, specifically, invites the public to
identify potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards and to
explain why such standards should be used in this regulation.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. We have determined that this proposed
rule, if finalized, will not have disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations because it increases the level of environmental protection
for all affected populations without having any disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects on any population,
including any minority or low income populations. This proposed FIP
limits emissions of SO2 from two facilities in Washington.
The partial approval of the SIP, if finalized, merely approves state
law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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,
Visibility, and Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    40 CFR part 52 is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart WW--Washington

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

Sec.  52.2498  Visibility protection.

* * * * *
    (c) The requirements of sections 169A and 169B of the Clean Air Act
are not met because the plan does not include approvable provisions for
protection of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas,
specifically the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirement
for regional haze visibility impairment (Sec.  51.308(e)). The EPA BART
regulations are found in Sec. Sec.  52.2500 and 52.2501.
* * * * *
    3. Add Sec. Sec.  52.2500 and 52.2501 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2500  Best available retrofit technology requirements for the
Intalco Aluminum Corporation (Intalco Works) primary aluminum plant--
Better than BART Alternative.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to the Intalco Aluminum
Corporation (Intalco Works) primary aluminum plant located in Ferndale,
Washington and to its successors and/or assignees.
    (b) Better than BART Alternative--Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission
limit for potlines. Starting January 1, 2014, SO2 emissions
from all pot lines in aggregate must not exceed a total of 5,240 tons
for any calendar year.
    (c) Compliance demonstration. (1) Intalco shall determine on a
calendar month basis, SO2 emissions using the following
formula:

SO2 emissions in tons per calendar month = (carbon
consumption ratio) x (% sulfur in baked anodes/100) x (% sulfur
converted to SO2/100) x (2 pounds of SO2 per
pound of sulfur) x (tons of aluminum production per calendar month).