33438 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6,000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5,000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, the EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

* * * * * 

Dated: June 6, 2014. 

Thomas L. Tidwell, 

Chief, Forest Service. 

[FR Doc. 2014–13627 Filed 6–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3411–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2010–1071; FRL–9911–83– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; State of 

Washington; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan; Federal 

Implementation Plan for Best Available 

Retrofit Technology for Alcoa Intalco 

Operations, Tesoro Refining and 

Marketing, and Alcoa Wenatchee 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is taking final 

action to partially approve and partially 

disapprove a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) submitted by the State of 

Washington (State) on December 22, 

2010, as meeting the requirements of 

Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) section 

169 and federal regional haze 

regulations and to promulgate a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for the 

disapproved elements of the SIP. As 

described in Part I of this preamble, this 

final rule approves numerous elements 

in the SIP including the State’s Best 

Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determinations for a number of sources. 

This action also: Disapproves the NOX

BART determination and promulgates a 

Federal BART alternative for five BART 

emission units at the Tesoro Refining 

and Marketing refinery (Tesoro refinery) 

located in Anacortes, Washington; 

finalizes a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the State’s SO2 BART 

determination and promulgates a 

Federal BART alternative for the Intalco 

Aluminum Corp. (Intalco facility) 

potline operation located in Ferndale, 

Washington; and disapproves the State’s 

BART exemption for the Alcoa 

Wenatchee Works located in Malaga, 

Washington (Wenatchee Works), 

determines that the Wenatchee Works is 

subject to BART, and promulgates 

Federal BART for all emission units 

subject to BART at the facility. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

11, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R10–OAR– 

2010–1071. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

Web site. Although listed in the index, 

some information may not be publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste, 

and Toxics, AWT–107, 1200 Sixth 

Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 

98101. The EPA requests that you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, 

excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steve Body at (206) 553–0782, 

Body.Steve@epa.gov, or at the above 

EPA Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

the EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of our Final Action 

II. Background 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. Conclusion 

V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Summary of our Final Action 

The EPA is taking final action to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove the Washington Regional 

Haze SIP submitted on December 22, 

2010. In this action, the EPA is 

approving the following provisions of 

the Washington SIP: The identification 

of affected Class I areas and 

determination of baseline conditions, 

the natural conditions and uniform rate 

of progress (URP) for each Class I area; 

the emission inventories; the sources of 

visibility impairment in Washington’s 

Class I areas; the State’s monitoring 

strategy; the State’s consultation with 

other states and Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs); the reasonable progress goals 

(RPGs); the long-term strategy (LTS); 

and the commitment to submit the 

periodic SIP revisions and 5-year 

Progress Reports. 

In today’s action, we are also 

approving the State’s BART 

determinations for the BP Cherry Point 

Refinery, the Port Townsend Paper 

Company, the LaFarge North America 

facility, and Weyerhaeuser’s Longview 

facility, as well as portions of the BART 

determinations for the Tesoro refinery 

and the Intalco facility. The EPA is 

disapproving Washington’s NOX BART 

determination and promulgating a 

BART Alternative for five emission 

units at the Tesoro refinery. The EPA is 

also finalizing a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of the State’s SO2

BART determination for the potlines at 

the Intalco facility and promulgating an 

SO2 BART Alternative for the potlines, 

consisting of an annual limit of 80% of 

base year SO2 emissions. Finally, the 

EPA is disapproving the State’s BART 

exemption for the Wenatchee Works 

and promulgating BART for SO2, NOX, 

and PM emissions at the facility. 

The resulting BART FIP for the Tesoro 

refinery, the Intalco facility, and the 

Wenatchee Works does not require the 

purchase or installation of new air 

pollution control equipment, but rather 

establishes BART based on existing 

control technology. Thus, the only 

additional costs incurred by these 

facilities will be minimal expenditures 

for monitoring, reporting, and 

recordkeeping. The benefit to the 

environment is the prevention of 

visibility degradation due to potential 

future increases in emissions from 

changes envisioned at the facilities. 

This final action is consistent with 

our proposed actions and meets the 

requirements of CAA sections 169A and 

169B and 40 CFR 51.308. 

II. Background 

In the CAA Amendments of 1977, 

Congress established a program to 

protect and improve visibility in 

national parks and wilderness areas. See 

CAA section 169A. Congress amended 

the visibility provisions in the CAA in 

1990 to focus attention on the problem 

of regional haze. See CAA section 169B. 

The EPA promulgated regulations in 

1999 to implement sections 169A and 

169B of the Act. These regulations 

require states to develop and implement 

plans to ensure reasonable progress 

toward improving visibility in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas 1 (Class 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33439 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a ‘‘Federal Land 

Manager.’’ Id. 7602(i). When we use the term ‘‘Class 

I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class 

I Federal area.’’ 

I areas). 64 FR 35714 (July 1, 1999); See 

also 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 

On behalf of the State of Washington, 

the Washington State Department of 

Ecology (Ecology) submitted its 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan (Regional Haze SIP or SIP) to the 

EPA on December 22, 2010. In an action 

published on December 6, 2012, the 

EPA approved BART provisions for the 

TransAlta Centralia Generation, LLC 

coal-fired power plant. 77 FR 72742. 

On December 26, 2012, the EPA 

proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the remaining 

portions of the Washington Regional 

Haze SIP covering the first 

implementation period (77 FR 76714). 

In that action, the EPA proposed to 

approve the following SIP elements: 

We proposed to approve 

Washington’s identification of affected 

Class I areas in the State. The State 

calculated the baseline visibility 

conditions in each Class I area using 

data from the Interagency Monitoring of 

Protected Visual Environments 

(IMPROVE) from monitoring sites 

representing each Class I area. 

We proposed to approve the State’s 

determination of natural conditions and 

the uniform rate of progress (URP) for 

each Class I area. Washington used the 

Western Regional Air Partnership 

(WRAP) derived natural visibility 

conditions. In general, the WRAP based 

their estimates on the EPA guidance 

document titled, ‘‘Guidance for 

Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

Under the Regional Haze Program’’ 

(EPA–45/B–03–0005 September 2003). 

However, the WRAP incorporated 

refinements into its estimates that the 

EPA believes provide results more 

appropriate for western states than the 

general EPA default approach. 

We proposed to approve the statewide 

emission inventory of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas. The WRAP, with data 

supplied by Washington, compiled 

emission inventories for all major 

source categories in Washington for the 

2002 baseline year and for estimated 

emissions in 2018. Emission estimates 

for 2018 were generated from 

anticipated population growth, growth 

in industrial activity, and emission 

reductions from implementation of 

expected control measures, e.g., 

implementation of BART emission 

limitations and reductions in motor 

vehicle tailpipe emissions. 

We proposed to approve the State’s 

identification of the sources of visibility 

impairment in each Washington Class I 

areas, which used the approach and 

modeling tools recommended by the 

WRAP. These modeling tools were stateof-the-science, and the EPA determined 

that these tools were appropriately used 

by WRAP for regional haze planning. 

We proposed to approve the State’s 

monitoring strategy. The primary 

monitoring network for regional haze in 

Washington is the IMPROVE network. 

There are currently IMPROVE 

monitoring sites that represent 

conditions for all Class I areas in 

Washington. The State commits to rely 

on the IMPROVE network for future 

regional haze implementation periods. 

Data from the IMPROVE network will be 

used for preparing the 5-year progress 

reports and the 10-year SIP revisions. 

We proposed to approve the State’s 

consultation with other states and 

FLMs. Through the WRAP, member 

states and the Tribes worked extensively 

with the FLMs from the U.S. 

Departments of the Interior and 

Agriculture to develop technical 

analyses that support the regional haze 

SIPs for the WRAP states. In addition, 

the State provided its proposed SIP to 

the FLMs for comment in March 2010. 

The State also consulted with the states 

of Idaho and Oregon, as well as the 

other WRAP member states and Tribes. 

We proposed to approve the Stateidentified visibility improvement 

anticipated by 2018 in each of the Class 

I areas as a result of the BART emission 

limits established in the SIP. The 

projected improvement was determined 

by using the results of the Community 

Multi-Scale Air Quality (CMAQ) 

modeling conducted by WRAP. The 

WRAP CMAQ modeling predicted 

visibility impairment in each Class I 

area based on 2018 projected source 

emission inventories, which included 

federal and state regulations already in 

place (‘‘on the books’’) and BART 

emission limitations. 

We proposed to approve the State’s 

LTS because it includes the 

documentation and control measures 

necessary to achieve the RPGs at all 

Class I areas affected by the State’s 

sources. The State’s LTS included 

consideration of all anthropogenic 

sources of visibility impairment, 

including major and minor stationary 

sources, mobile sources, and area 

sources. The anticipated net effect on 

visibility over the first planning period 

due to changes in point, area, and 

mobile source emissions is an 

improvement in visibility in all Class I 

areas in Washington. 

We proposed to approve the State’s 

commitment to develop and submit a 

comprehensive Regional Haze SIP 

revision to the EPA by July 31, 2018, 

and every ten years thereafter. The State 

also committed to submit a report to the 

EPA every five years that evaluates the 

progress being made towards the RPGs 

and the need for any additional control 

measures. 

We proposed to approve the majority 

of the State’s BART determinations. The 

State appropriately identified all BARTeligible sources located in Washington 

and, with one exception, appropriately 

identified those BART-eligible sources 

that are subject to BART. In this action, 

we are finalizing our approval of these 

SIP elements as proposed. 

In our December 26, 2012 and 

December 30, 2013 actions, we also 

proposed to disapprove the following 

SIP elements and promulgate a FIP to 

fill any gaps left by our partial 

disapproval: 

We proposed a limited disapproval of 

the State’s SO2 BART determination for 

Alcoa’s Intalco facility potlines. The 

State determined that installing new 

control technology was not costeffective and that the level of existing 

control for the potlines was BART. We 

identified a number of errors with the 

State’s cost analysis that rendered the 

State’s control determination 

unreasonable. We conducted our own 

analysis and determined that limestone 

slurry forced oxidation (LSFO) was SO2

BART. However, Alcoa asserted that it 

could not afford LSFO at the Intalco 

facility and remain a viable business. In 

response, we conducted an affordability 

analysis, which included updated 

information as described in the 

December 30, 2013 proposal, and 

proposed to concur that LSFO was not 

affordable at the Intalco facility. Alcoa 

offered a BART Alternative of 

implementing pollution prevention 

measures, primarily the requirement of 

3% or less sulfur in the anode coke, and 

limiting potline SO2 emissions to 80% 

of base year emissions. We included this 

BART Alternative in our FIP. The BART 

Alternative makes Washington’s 

pollution prevention requirements 

federally enforceable and makes the 

20% SO2 reduction from baseline 

permanent and federally enforceable. 

We proposed to disapprove the State’s 

NOX BART determination for five 

emission units subject to BART at the 

Tesoro refinery. The State determined 

that NOX controls were not costeffective. We determined the State’s cost 

estimates were unreasonably high 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33440 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

because the State assumed that controls 

could not be installed when the facility 

is shut down for maintenance in the 

estimated 2017 turnaround cycle and 

still fall within the five year BART 

implementation period. Tesoro offered a 

BART Alternative consisting of 

exclusive use of low-sulfur refinery gas 

in several non-BART heaters and boilers 

in lieu of installing the NOX BART 

controls. We included this BART 

Alternative in our proposed FIP. 

We initially proposed to approve the 

State’s determination that the 

Wenatchee Works did not contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area 

and was therefore not subject to BART. 

During the comment period, however, 

we received adverse comments that the 

State’s determination was based on 

visibility modeling that relied upon an 

unapproved and unproven fine-grid 

modeling protocol. Consequently, we 

issued a supplemental notice of 

proposed rulemaking on December 30, 

2013, and proposed to disapprove the 

State’s determination that the 

Wenatchee Works was not subject to 

BART and also proposed a BART FIP 

(78 FR 79344). In that notice, we 

proposed to find that one of the four 

potlines at the Wenatchee Works, as 

well as some of the supporting emission 

units, are subject to BART. After 

evaluating various control technologies, 

we proposed to find that the costs of 

compliance and the anticipated 

visibility benefits did not warrant new 

controls at the facility. We therefore 

proposed that the existing controls at 

the facility were BART and proposed to 

adjust some emission limits in the 

facility’s operating permit to reflect the 

level of emission reductions achievable 

by those existing controls. 

This final action is the result of our 

initial proposed action, the re-proposal 

for the Wenatchee Works, and our 

consideration of all public comments 

received. This final action is consistent 

with our proposed actions. However, as 

explained below in the response to 

comments we revised 40 CFR 

52.2470(d) to correct the list of 

conditions which are applicable to BP 

Cherry Point. Additionally, we revised 

the NOX emission limit and made minor 

adjustments to the FIP provisions 

related to the Wenatchee Works. 

Finally, the compliance dates for the 

Wenatchee Works and the Tesoro 

refinery were slightly modified. 

III. Response to Comments 

We are responding to comments 

received on both the initial proposal 

and the re-proposal. However, the reproposal summarized and responded to 

some comments received on the initial 

proposal. 78 FR 79347–79355. Those 

comments and our responses will not be 

repeated here. The following are our 

responses to the remaining comments 

received on the initial proposal for 

which we have not yet responded and 

new comments received on the reproposal. We are also responding to 

comments received on the additional 

information that was provided for 

public review in the re-proposal. 

Comments: 

A. BP Cherry Point Refinery BART 

Determination 

Comment: One commenter noted that 

the BART Order 7836 for the BP Cherry 

Point Refinery included BART emission 

limits for boilers #6 and #7, despite the 

fact that these units were constructed in 

2007 and are not BART-eligible 

emission units. These units should not 

be regulated in the BART Order. Thus, 

conditions 1.1, 1.3.1, 2.1, 3.1, and 6.1 of 

the BART Order should not be approved 

into the Washington SIP. 

Response: The EPA agrees that the BP 

Cherry Point Refinery boilers #6 and #7 

are not BART-eligible and thus not 

subject to BART. Subsequent to the 

publication of the initial proposal, the 

State of Washington sent the EPA a 

letter dated July 31, 2013, requesting 

that conditions 1.1, 1.3.1, 2.1 3.1 and 6.1 

and Finding B.c. be withdrawn from 

their SIP submittal. These conditions 

and Finding B.c. will not be 

incorporated by reference into the SIP. 

B. Tesoro-BART Alternative 

Comment: Several comments were 

received on our initial proposal that the 

EPA should use dispersion modeling to 

demonstrate the visibility improvement 

from the proposed BART Alternative for 

the Tesoro Refinery and compare the 

results to the visibility improvement 

from BART. 

Response: Based on consideration of 

the comments, we concluded that 

additional modeling analysis was 

appropriate for the BART Alternative 

demonstration at the Tesoro Refinery. 

The EPA requested Tesoro provide such 

a modeling demonstration. The results 

of that modeling were presented in the 

December 30, 2013 re-proposal. The 

modeling protocol and results were 

posted in the docket for this action and 

the Federal Docket Management System 

(FDMS) site on December 30, 2013. The 

public was notified of its availability. 78 

FR 79354–79355. The comments 

received on the initial proposal and our 

response regarding the need for 

dispersion modeling for the Tesoro 

BART Alternative, as set forth in the reproposal, will not be reiterated here. 

The following is our response to the 

remaining comments received on the 

initial proposal, as well as new 

comments received on the re-proposal 

and the additional information that was 

provided for public review. 

Comment: One commenter inquired 

whether the EPA evaluated the model 

input and output files that Tesoro used 

in modeling for the BART Alternative. 

Such a review is needed to verify that 

the proper model settings have been 

used and that only the emission rates for 

the listed emission units have been 

changed from the original modeling. 

Response: The EPA reviewed the 

model input and output files and 

verified the proper settings were used. 

Comment: A commenter questioned 

why the EPA used the annual average 

concentration limit for total reduced 

sulfur (TRS) content of refinery fuel gas 

rather than the maximum 24-hour rate 

as required by the BART Guidelines. 

The justification to use the annual 

average vs. the 24-hour maximum rate 

needs to be clearly included in the 

administrative record. The commenter 

said that if the justification cannot be 

made, then the BART Alternative 

should be rejected and the NOX BART 

should be required. 

Response: As described in our 

December 30, 2013 proposal, the 

purpose of visibility modeling is to 

demonstrate whether the BART 

Alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress than BART considering the 

different atmospheric chemistry 

between SO2 and NOX. The modeling 

described in the BART Guidelines is for 

determining the maximum potential 

impact of a source at Class I areas and 

whether the source is subject to BART. 

The purpose of the more recent 

modeling here is to evaluate the relative 

visibility impacts from the atmospheric 

formation of visibility impairing 

aerosols of sulfate and nitrate. The 

absolute value of emission rates is not 

of concern, because we are evaluating 

the ratio of SO2 to NOX emission rates 

and the resulting relative visibility 

impairment. 

It should also be noted that the model 

used the maximum monthly average 

total reduced sulfur (TRS) emission rate 

during the time period 2004–2006, not 

annual emission rates as stated by the 

commenter. See May 14, 2013 letter 

from Tesoro to the EPA. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that trading SO2 emissions for NOX

emissions does not meet the EPA’s 

guidance on BART alternative programs. 

The commenter specifically references 

an EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards (OAQPS), Q&A 

document, August 3, 2006, that states, 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33441 

‘‘The regulations, however, do allow 

States to adopt alternative measures in 

lieu of BART, so long as the alternative 

measures provide for greater reasonable 

progress than would be BART. Interpollutant trading is not allowed in a 

trading program alternative to BART.’’ 

Response: We believe the commenter 

has misunderstood the Agency’s policy. 

The complete explanation of the policy 

is in the Federal Register action 

referenced in the Q&A document cited 

by the commenter. The Agency allows 

for inter-pollutant trading as long as it 

is based on a technically acceptable 

approach for demonstrating the BART 

Alternative provides for greater 

reasonable progress. The Federal 

Register action for the Regional Haze 

Rule (40 CFR 51.308) (RHR) explains: 

. . . interpollutant trading should not be 

allowed until the technical difficulties 

associated with ensuring equivalence in the 

overall environmental effect are resolved. 

Some other emissions trading programs (e.g., 

trading under the acid rain program) prohibit 

emission trades between pollutants. An 

emissions trading program for regional haze 

might also need to restrict trades to common 

pollutants. Each of the five pollutants which 

cause or contribute to visibility impairment 

has a different impact on light extinction for 

a given particle mass, making it therefore 

extremely difficult to judge the equivalence 

of interpollutant trades in a manner that 

would be technically credible, yet convenient 

to implement in the timeframe needed for 

transactions to be efficient. This analysis is 

further complicated by the fact that the 

visibility impact that each pollutant can have 

varies with humidity, so that control of 

different pollutants can have markedly 

different effects on visibility in different 

geographic areas and at different times of the 

year. Despite the technical difficulties 

associated with interpollutant trading today, 

EPA would be willing to consider such 

trading programs in the future that 

demonstrate an acceptable technical 

approach. 64 FR 35743. 

This guidance on BART alternatives is 

primarily envisioned for large statewide, 

or region-wide (multi-state) emissions 

trading programs where emissions could 

be traded across large, geographically 

separated areas. 64 FR 35741–35743. 

The technical difficulties discussed in 

the above policy statement also are 

focused on situations where a BART 

alternative trading program is based on 

emission reduction equivalency in 

determining Better-than-BART results. 

In such a trading program, when SO2

emissions are traded for NOX emissions, 

the demonstration that the BART 

alternative provides greater reasonable 

progress may be technically difficult, or 

impossible, due to spatial, temporal, 

climate and meteorological differences 

between the sources in the program. In 

particular, the OAQPS Q&A document 

refers to a regional trading program. 

However, in this specific situation for 

the Tesoro Refinery, the BART 

Alternative is not a state-wide or 

regional trading program, but rather 

trading within the same facility. 

Therefore, the technical difficulties that 

may be associated with interpollutant 

trading in a state-wide or regional 

trading program are of less concern. 

The Tesoro BART Alternative is 

confined to one facility with emissions 

of SO2 and NOX coming from essentially 

the same location. The CALPUFF model 

is used to estimate the impacts from all 

visibility impairing pollutants, 

including SO2 and NOX, and is the 

regulatory tool used to determine 

whether a BART-eligible source is 

subject to BART. We believe that the 

CALPUFF model used in Washington 

(and other states within EPA Region 10) 

to demonstrate visibility impacts on 

Class I areas to evaluate whether sources 

are subject to BART, is technically 

adequate to demonstrate whether or not 

a BART Alternative measure that relies 

on interpollutant trading results in 

greater reasonable progress. As 

described in the Federal Register 

preamble to the RHR (64 FR 35734), it 

may be difficult to assess the impacts of 

different pollutants due to the potential 

difference in light extinction for a given 

particle mass and due to seasonal and 

geographic variations. The CALPUFF 

model, using the approved modeling 

protocol, addresses the different light 

extinction properties of different 

pollutants. In the Tesoro Refinery case, 

the emissions from both the BART and 

the BART Alternative emission units are 

from the same facility. Thus, the 

potential concern regarding 

interpollutant trading of emissions from 

emission units separated by large 

distances is not present. Also, because 

the model includes the three year 

baseline period, seasonal variation is 

also not a concern in this instance. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that trading between BART and nonBART sources is not allowed. 

Response: The preamble to the RHR 

encourages both BART and non-BART 

sources to be included in a BART 

alternative. 64 FR 35743. Specifically, 

‘‘the regional trading program may 

include sources not subject to BART. 

Inclusion of such sources provides for a 

more economically efficient and robust 

trading program. The EPA believes the 

program can include diverse sources, 

including mobile and area sources, so 

long as the reductions from these 

sources can be accurately calculated and 

tracked.’’ 64 FR 35743. 

Comment: One commenter states that 

the NOX controls for the five Tesoro 

Refinery emission units should be 

imposed as reasonable progress controls 

if they are not required as BART. The 

EPA should still require unit-specific 

NOX controls on the five BART units as 

reasonable progress controls. 

Response: The RHR provides states 

with the opportunity to establish 

alternative measures as an alternative to 

BART. As discussed previously, the 

RHR provides that a BART alternative 

measure can include non-BART 

emission units. This approach can result 

in a more cost-effective control strategy. 

Because we are proposing to approve 

the State’s reasonable progress goals as 

providing sufficient progress for this 

planning period, we do not believe that 

any additional reasonable progress 

controls are necessary on the BARTeligible units at the Tesoro Refinery at 

this time. However, the State may 

consider these units for reasonable 

progress controls in the next regional 

haze SIP due for submittal to the EPA 

in 2018. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the CAA instructs states to issue SIPs 

requiring BART, and provides a process 

for exempting a source from BART. The 

statute does not authorize the EPA to 

allow a source to escape its BART 

obligations other than through the 

exemption process. 

Response: The commenter seems to be 

saying that by imposing a BART 

alternative, we are exempting Tesoro 

from BART. The Tesoro facility and the 

emission units associated with the 

BART Alternative are not exempt from 

BART. Rather, the facility is meeting its 

BART obligation through a BART 

Alternative measure as allowed under 

the RHR. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested the SO2 emission reductions 

in the BART Alternative are not surplus 

reductions. They say the emission 

reductions were needed to meet other 

CAA requirements including Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

requirements. They also cite the H2S 

concentration limit that is already part 

of a Federally enforceable permit. They 

also say the emission reductions were 

achieved prior to the SIP submittal. 

Response: The RHR requires that 

emission reductions resulting from the 

alternative measure must be ‘‘surplus to 

those reductions resulting from 

measures adopted to meet requirements 

of the CAA as of the baseline date of the 

SIP.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2)(iv). When 

promulgating this requirement in 1999, 

the EPA explained that emission 

reductions must be ‘‘surplus to other 

Federal requirements as of the baseline 

date of the SIP, that is, the date of the 

emissions inventories on which the SIP 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33442 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

relies. See 64 FR 35714, 35742; see also 

70 FR 39143. ‘‘[W]hatever the origin of 

the emission reduction requirement, the 

relevant question for BART purposes is 

whether the alternative program makes 

greater reasonable progress.’’ The 

Washington Regional Haze SIP relies on 

emission inventories in the baseline 

period 2002–2005. See Washington 

Regional Haze SIP, chapter 6, section 

6.3, included in the docket for this 

action. Thus, reductions resulting from 

any measure adopted after 2002 are 

considered ‘surplus’ under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2)(iv). 

The EPA examined the permitting 

history for the Tesoro Refinery and 

confirmed that the emission reductions 

achieved through the installation and 

operation in 2007 of the flue gas 

desulfurization (FGD) system to remove 

sulfur from the refinery fuel gas (RFG) 

used to fire several heaters and boilers 

occurred after the emission inventory 

baseline and are surplus for the 

purposes of the alternative measure. 

Comment: A commenter noted that 

the SO2 reductions resulting from the 

modifications to the refinery gas system 

occurred for plant-specific reasons, not 

to meet a regulatory requirement. These 

reductions occurred in the past and will 

not be the result of imposing BART 

controls on any aspect of plant 

operations. The commenter requests 

that the EPA reject the BART 

Alternative in favor of the EPA BART 

proposal, which would result in 

additional reduction of nearly 500 tons 

of NOX.

Response: As described previously, 

even if the emission reductions at this 

facility occurred for plant-specific 

reasons, the reductions may be 

considered surplus for purposes of a 

BART alternative. Additionally, as 

previously explained, the EPA has 

determined and confirmed with 

modeling that the reductions resulting 

from the now federally enforceable 

requirement to operate the FGD system 

result in greater reasonable progress 

towards meeting natural visibility 

conditions than the NOX controls that 

the EPA determined to be BART. 

Comment: A commenter cited a letter 

dated September 16, 2011, from the EPA 

Region 5 to the State of Wisconsin that 

describes what emissions are considered 

surplus. The commenter further 

explained that the Economic Incentive 

Program (EIP) defines ‘‘surplus 

reductions to mean emission reductions 

that are not otherwise relied on in any 

of several programs, including 

reductions made to insure compliance 

with the NAAQS as well as reductions 

included in the relevant SIP.’’ Thus the 

commenter stated that to the extent the 

SO2 emissions requirements have been 

incorporated into the Washington SIP 

and relied on to meet other applicable 

requirements, they are not ‘‘surplus’’ 

under the EIP. 

Response: As explained previously, 

we have determined that the emission 

reductions are surplus for BART 

alternative purposes and as such, this 

action is consistent with the EIP 

position that consideration (or credits) 

may only be given for surplus 

reductions. The SO2 emission 

reductions resulting from the 

combustion of low-sulfur RFG in these 

heaters and boilers have not been 

incorporated into the Washington SIP, 

nor have they been relied on to meet 

any other applicable requirements of the 

Act. In our final action on the 

Wisconsin SIP, we noted that, ‘‘In cases 

like this where a subject is addressed by 

both the general guidance in the draft 

Economic Incentive Program Guidance 

and in program-specific guidance that 

more directly addresses specific 

statutory requirements, the EPA gives 

more weight to the regulatory provisions 

that are promulgated for the specific 

statutory requirements, in this case to 

the provisions of the regional haze rule. 

As noted above, the regional haze 

regulations promulgated in 40 CFR 

51.308 allow credit for reductions 

achieved after the baseline date of the 

SIP (2002), irrespective of any 

recommendations to the contrary in the 

draft Economic Incentives Program 

Guidance.’’ 77 FR 46592 (January 31, 

2008.) 

Comment: A commenter requested 

that the EPA evaluate BART for the 

Tesoro Refinery flare, Unit X–819, 

including consideration of flare 

minimization efforts to reduce 

emissions from this unit. 

Response: BART is an emission 

limitation based on the five-factor 

analysis and considers the degree of 

reduction available through the 

application of the best system of 

continuous emission reduction for each 

pollutant that is emitted by an existing 

stationary facility. As reflected in our 

December 26, 2012, proposal, Unit X– 

819 is subject to BART and we agree 

with the State’s BART determination. 

We considered the flare requirements of 

other regulatory air pollution agencies 

to determine whether there are any 

available control techniques for 

reducing emissions from flares. In 

particular we reviewed the California, 

Bay Area Air Quality Management 

District (BAAQMD), Reg. 12, Rule 12, 

which requires San Francisco Bay Area 

refineries to prepare a flare management 

plan (FMP), to reduce the frequency and 

magnitude of flaring events. The rule 

provides for no specific control 

technology. Rather, it requires refineries 

to minimize the need to flare gases 

through careful planning of 

maintenance, start-up, and shutdown of 

various refinery processes. However, 

should an upset condition occur, it does 

not prevent or otherwise restrict flaring. 

It does not appear that the requirement 

for a FMP would represent BART. 

Additionally, Tesoro and the State 

evaluated whether adding a second gas 

compressor to handle excess gas 

resulting from emergency vents and 

directed to the RFG system would be 

cost effective. See SIP, appendix L. 

Tesoro determined it would cost 

$21,960/ton of SO2 removed and reduce 

emissions by 10 tons/year. We find that 

it is not cost-effective to require the 

addition of a second gas compressor at 

this facility as BART. 

C. Intalco Facility 

As part of the December 26, 2012 

proposal, we proposed that Alcoa could 

not afford limestone slurry forced 

oxidation (LSFO) as the basis for BART. 

As explained in the re-proposal, we 

received comments on the affordability 

determination, requesting that we 

update the affordability assessment with 

current information and expressing 

concern with the use of information that 

was not publically available. We 

responded to these comments in the reproposal and explained that we 

obtained updated information and 

revised the 2012 Affordability 

Assessment. The Revised Affordability 

Assessment and supporting 

documentation was made available to 

the public for review as part of the reproposal. We received no further 

comment on the Revised Affordability 

Assessment. We believe the updated 

analysis continues to support our 

determination that installation and 

operation of LSFO at the Intalco facility 

is not affordable. 

A number of comments were received 

regarding our proposed BART 

determination for the Intalco facility. 

The comments focused on procedural 

issues, issues regarding the BART 

determination and the affordability 

analysis, and the BART Alternative. 

Comment: A commenter asserted that 

the EPA proposed BART for Intalco fails 

to comply with the public notice 

requirements of the CAA because it is 

impossible for the public to understand 

and comment on the affordability claim 

because critical information is not 

available. The CAA forbids the EPA 

from promulgating a rule that relies in 

whole or part on information not 

included in the docket. The commenter 

stated that critical information regarding 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33443 

Alcoa’s affordability claim had been 

excluded from the record, specifically 

Attachment 2 of Alcoa’s June 2012 

letter, and that the failure to disclose 

this information means that they are 

unable to provide meaningful comment 

on Alcoa’s claim that they cannot afford 

LSFO controls. Finally the commenter 

claimed that that the EPA has failed to 

identify any support in the CAA that 

permits the EPA to ignore the 

requirements of the CAA for public 

review and comment. 

Response: The EPA recognizes the 

importance of making information 

available to the public so that the public 

can meaningfully comment upon 

proposed rules and, if they choose, 

ultimately challenge its rules. This task 

is somewhat more complicated when, as 

here, the rulemaking necessarily 

requires consideration of material 

claimed as Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Nevertheless, the 

CAA, the EPA’s implementing 

regulations, and other statutes impose 

stringent procedures for the use and 

availability of information claimed to be 

CBI, See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 7414, 33 U.S.C. 

1318(b); 40 CFR 2.204, 2.205, and 2.301. 

As explained in the BART Guidelines, 

an economic analysis regarding how the 

installation of controls may impact the 

viability of continued plant operation 

must preserve the confidentiality of 

sensitive business information. 

Alcoa provided information to the 

EPA to support its claim that the 

company cannot afford the installation 

of LSFO. See June 22, 2012 Alcoa letter 

to the EPA. Alcoa requested that 

Attachment 2 of the letter be treated as 

confidential. 

Under the CAA and EPA’s 

regulations, a company may assert a 

business confidentiality claim covering 

information furnished to the EPA. 40 

CFR 2.203(b). Once a claim is asserted, 

the Agency must consider the 

information to be confidential and must 

treat it accordingly either until the EPA 

determines that the information is not 

subject to CBI protection or until the 

EPA determines that release of the 

information is relevant to a proceeding 

and in the public interest. 40 CFR 2.205, 

2.301(g). The EPA’s regulations set forth 

the specific procedures that the EPA 

must follow when making a CBI 

determination. 40 CFR 2.204, 2.205, and 

2.301(g). Under the regulations, the EPA 

must provide the affected businesses 

with notice and, usually, an opportunity 

to comment on the impending CBI 

determination or release, including an 

opportunity to justify their CBI claims. 

See, e.g., 40 CFR 2.204(e), 2.209(d), and 

2.301(g)(2). 

Following the procedures outlined in 

40 CFR part 2, the EPA requested that 

Alcoa substantiate its CBI claim. The 

company narrowed its CBI claim but 

informed us that portions of Attachment 

2 were still claimed as CBI and provided 

a version of Attachment 2 with the CBI 

information redacted. The redacted 

information consists of six years (2008– 

2013) of ‘‘after tax’’ cash flow values. 

After consideration of applicable 

information, requirements and case law, 

the EPA completed its CBI 

determination and found that the 

redacted information in Attachment 2 

constitutes CBI within the meaning of 

the CBI regulations. The final CBI 

determination is dated July 10, 2013. 

Accordingly, the information may not 

be disclosed to the public at this time. 

When the EPA assembled the record 

for this rulemaking, it physically 

separated the CBI portion of the record 

from the rest of the publicly available 

record. The EPA placed into the public 

record all information for which no 

claim of CBI was asserted. Any 

information or analyses based on CBI, 

was presented in such a way to avoid 

disclosing the underlying CBI. In 

addition, the EPA placed into the public 

record the Revised Affordability 

Analysis which included an extensive 

list of references to other publicly 

available information relevant to the 

economic analyses, such as companyspecific public financial reports, cost 

information reported in trade journals 

and industry conference presentations, 

and price quotations obtained from 

vendors. 

Subsequent to the proposal and in 

response to comments, the EPA 

conducted additional analysis regarding 

Alcoa’s affordability claim. More 

specifically, the EPA reviewed the 

recent long term power supply contract 

between Alcoa and the Bonneville 

Power Administration (BPA) which 

established the amount and rate at 

which electricity would be supplied to 

the Intalco facility. The EPA also 

conducted additional investigation to 

obtain publically available and updated 

financial information and economic 

forecasts regarding the aluminum 

industry. This new and additional 

information was placed in the docket 

and made available for public review on 

December 30, 2013. The docket also 

contains the June 22, 2011 Alcoa letter 

with the redacted version of Attachment 

2. As is evident by the list of documents 

in the docket, a considerable amount of 

information regarding Alcoa’s financial 

condition is included and has been 

made available for public review. 

The publicly available information 

taken together with the EPA’s 

Affordability Analyses, and the 

description of our analysis in the prior 

Federal Register proposals are sufficient 

to support and explain today’s final 

action. Therefore, for the reasons stated 

above, the EPA believes that the public 

record is adequate to allow meaningful 

review of the EPA’s decision regarding 

Alcoa’s claim that they cannot afford 

LSFO controls. 

Comment: Referring to CAA section 

110(k)(5), a commenter asserts that 

before the EPA may promulgate a FIP 

there must be a finding that the state 

implementation plan is substantially 

inadequate to comply with the CAA 

requirement. The commenter claims 

that because the Administrator has not 

made such a finding, has not notified 

Washington of the inadequacies of the 

SIP or that the SIP needs to be revised, 

and has not established a reasonable 

deadline to revise and submit a revised 

SIP, the proposed FIP is premature. This 

action is premature under CAA section 

110(k)(5). 

Response: The EPA disagrees with 

this comment. Section 110(k)(5) of the 

CAA states ‘‘[w]henever the 

Administrator finds that the applicable 

implementation plan for any area is 

substantially inadequate to . . . comply 

with any requirement of [the Act], the 

Administrator shall require the State to 

revise the plan as necessary to correct 

such inadequacies.’’ This provision 

requires the EPA to issue what is known 

as a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the EPA finds 

that a state’s existing SIP is substantially 

inadequate to meet CAA requirements. 

Importantly, this provision bears no 

relation to the EPA’s authority to review 

SIP submissions and revisions, which 

by definition are not incorporated into 

the state’s existing SIP until they have 

been approved by the EPA. Rather, 

when the EPA receives a SIP submission 

or revision from a state, CAA sections 

110(k)(3) and 110(l) provide that the 

EPA can only approve the SIP if it meets 

all CAA requirements and would not 

otherwise interfere with any applicable 

requirement of the Act. If the EPA 

determines that a SIP submission or 

revision does not comply with all 

applicable CAA requirements, then the 

EPA must disapprove the SIP in whole 

or in part. At that time, CAA section 

110(c)(1)(B) provides the EPA with the 

authority ‘‘to promulgate a Federal 

implementation plan at any time within 

2 years’’ of the disapproval. 

Additionally, the EPA has the authority 

to promulgate a FIP after finding that a 

state has failed to make a required SIP 

submission or revision entirely or that a 

state has submitted an incomplete SIP. 

CAA section 110(c)(1)(A). The EPA’s 

obligation to promulgate a FIP does not 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33444 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

2U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, 

January 2002. Section 1—Introduction, Chapter 2— 

Cost Estimation: Concepts and Methodology. p. 2– 

19 through 2–21. EPA–452/B–02–001. 

expire unless the state corrects the 

deficiency, and the EPA approves the 

SIP before promulgating a FIP. CAA 

section 110(c)(1). 

Here, Washington’s Regional Haze SIP 

was due on December 17, 2007. On 

January 15, 2009, the EPA published 

notice of its finding that Washington 

and 36 other States, the District of 

Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 

had failed to timely submit their 

regional haze SIPs. 74 FR 2392 (January 

15, 2009). The notice explained that the 

finding started the ‘‘two year clock’’ for 

the promulgation by the EPA of a FIP. 

The notice also explained that the EPA’s 

FIP obligation would expire only if a 

state submitted a SIP and the EPA 

approved that SIP before the EPA had 

promulgated a FIP. At approximately 

the same time as the notice was signed, 

the Region 10 Administrator sent a letter 

to the Department of Ecology informing 

the Director that Washington had failed 

to make the required regional haze SIP 

submission and explaining that within 

two years, the EPA would need to either 

fully approve the Washington Regional 

Haze SIP or promulgate a FIP. EPA sent 

similar letters to the other states, the 

District of Colombia, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands. 

Washington submitted its Regional 

Haze SIP on December 22, 2010. As we 

explained in the December 26, 2012 

proposal, the EPA could not approve the 

entire SIP. 78 FR 79344. Thus, the EPA 

proposed to disapprove in part the 

Washington Regional Haze SIP and 

proposed to promulgate a FIP to fill the 

gaps left by the EPA’s partial 

disapproval. See CAA section 302(y). 

Thus, based on both the EPA’s prior 

finding of failure to submit and the 

EPA’s partial disapproval of the 

Washington Regional Haze SIP, the EPA 

has the authority and obligation to 

promulgate a FIP. We also note that the 

EPA’s authority to issue a FIP in these 

circumstances has been upheld recently 

by both the Eighth and Tenth Circuit 

Courts of Appeal. North Dakota v. EPA, 

730 F.3d 750, 759 (8th Cir. 2013), 

Oklahoma v. EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1222– 

24 (10th Cir. 2013). 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the EPA’s proposed action of limited 

approval and limited disapproval does 

not comport with the CAA or the 

regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 51, 

subpart P. More specifically the 

commenter asserts that: (1) The CAA 

requires the Administrator to approve a 

state’s implementation plan ‘in whole’ if 

it meets applicable requirements; (2) 

Ecology dutifully executed its statutory 

and regulatory obligations by preparing 

and submitting a complete SIP, which 

included the requisite BART 

determinations, consistent with the 

CAA and promulgated regulations; (3) 

the EPA’s partial disapproval is 

unfounded either because the EPA has 

not shown that Ecology’s BART 

determination is not grounded in its 

thorough consideration of the five 

factors or because the EPA abused its 

statutory discretion with regard to 

rendering its analysis of the cost of 

compliance; and (4) it is the State’s 

obligation to determine BART. The EPA 

does not have the authority to override 

Ecology’s cost estimates and BART 

determinations. 

Response: As explained in our initial 

proposal, the Washington Regional Haze 

SIP does not meet all of the applicable 

CAA requirements. Therefore the EPA 

proposed a partial approval and partial 

disapproval. Specifically, the EPA does 

not agree that the State’s BART 

determinations for the Intalco facility 

and the Tesoro Refinery are consistent 

with the EPA’s regulations. The EPA 

agrees that in the first instance, it is 

State’s obligation to determine BART, 

but contrary to the comment, the EPA 

does have the authority to disapprove 

Ecology’s cost of compliance estimates 

and BART determinations when it finds 

that they are not in compliance with the 

applicable CAA requirements. 

The commenter’s claim that the EPA 

has failed to show that Ecology’s BART 

determination is not grounded in its 

thorough consideration of the five 

factors or that it abused its statutory 

discretion is not supported by the 

record. As explained in our initial 

proposal, and further described here, 

there are deficiencies in the State’s cost 

of compliance calculations for the 

Intalco facility. As also explained, the 

State’s BART determination for Tesoro 

is no longer accurate because it was 

based on the assumption that the retrofit 

would need to occur before the next 

scheduled maintenance shutdown 

period (turnaround) which would 

significantly increase the cost. This 

assumption is no longer valid because 

the retrofit may occur during a 

scheduled Tesoro turnaround and is 

now considered cost-effective. Also 

importantly, Intalco and Tesoro both 

requested that the EPA consider a BART 

Alternative. The EPA then found that 

each BART Alternative would result in 

greater overall reasonable progress 

towards attaining the national visibility 

goal than would requiring BART. We 

therefore proposed these BART 

Alternative measures instead of BART. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the EPA Region 10 referenced sections 

of the EPA Air Pollution Control Cost 

Manual that are irrelevant to SO2

control technologies but then the EPA 

Region 10 disregarded an SO2-specific 

example in section 5 of the Control Cost 

Manual which uses a 15-year equipment 

lifetime. The commenter further 

claimed that by using a 30-year 

equipment lifetime in the cost 

effectiveness calculations for the LSFO 

scrubber, the EPA Region 10 ignored 

agency precedent from the EPA Regions 

4 and 8 and that on more than one 

occasion Region 8 has had sources 

reanalyze annualized costs for scrubbers 

using 15-years. 

Response: The EPA Air Pollution 

Control Cost Manual 2 (Cost Manual) 

states that the actual expected 

equipment lifetime of an air pollution 

control device should be used for 

purposes of cost calculations. Section 1, 

chapter 2 of the Cost Manual addresses 

the capital recovery factor (CRF), which 

is determined using the control 

equipment lifetime and interest rate. 

The Cost Manual clearly defines the 

control equipment lifetime as the entire 

life of the control. For example, on page 

2–19, the Cost Manual states: ‘‘For each 

alternative: calculate a discounting 

factor each year over the life of the 

equipment . . .’’ and on page 2–21: ‘‘In 

essence, annualization involves 

establishing an annual ‘payment’ 

sufficient to finance the investment for 

its entire life, using the formula . . . 

[CRF] . . . where PMT is the equivalent 

uniform payment amount over the life 

of the control, ‘n’, at an interest rate, 

‘i.’ ’’ The variable ‘n’ in the CFR 

equation used to annualize total capital 

investment is thus the actual life of the 

control. 

The commenter provided no basis for 

the 15-year equipment lifetime. Rather 

the comment simply pointed to 

examples of different situations or types 

of control technologies where 15 years 

was used. The commenter’s citation of 

specific equipment lifetimes within 

calculations in the Cost Manual 

implying that these specific lifetimes 

must always be used for a particular 

control technology is incorrect. The 15- 

year equipment lifetime contained 

within section 5 of the Cost Manual 

does not preclude the use of a different, 

better supported time period for the 

equipment lifetime of packed tower 

absorbers, the technology addressed in 

section 5. 

In this case, as explained in the 

proposal, we determined that 30 years is 

a reasonable and well founded estimate 

of the expected life of wet FGD systems, 

such as LSFO. This determination 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33445 

3 Vatavuk, W.M., Estimating Costs for Air 

Pollution Control. 1990: Lewis Publishers. p. 198. 

4Warych, J., Szymanowski, M., Optimum Values 

of Process Parameters of the ‘‘Wet Limestone Flue 

Gas Desulfurization System’’. Chemical Engineering 

Technology, 2002. 25: p. 427–432. 

5 Kaplan, N., Retrofit Costs of SO2 and NOX

Control at 200 U.S. Coal-Fired Power Plants, 

September 11, 1990. 

6Electric Power Research Institute, Flue Gas 

Desulfurization Systems: Component Material 

Performance and Welding. December 2005. 

7U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Response to Technical Comments for Sections E. 

through H. of the Federal Register Notice for the 

Oklahoma Regional Haze and Visibility Transport 

Federal Implementation Plan, December 13, 2011. 

Docket No. EPA–R06–OAR–2010–0190. 

8U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, 

January 2002. Section 6—Particulate Matter 

Controls, Chapter 3—Electrostatic Precipitators. p. 

3–38. EPA–452/B–02–001. 

9U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, 

January 2002. Section 4.2—NOX Post Combustion, 

Chapter 1—Selective Non-catalytic Reduction. p. 1– 

29. EPA–452/B–02–001. 

10U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, 

January 2002. Section 4.2—NOX Post Combustion, 

Chapter 1—Selective Non-catalytic Reduction. p. 1– 

30. Chapter 2—Selective Catalytic Reduction. p. 2– 

40. EPA–452/B–02–001. 

11U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Source 

Specific Federal Implementation Plan Best 

Available Retrofit Technology for Four Corners 

Power Plant: Navajo Nation. Final Rule. Docket 

Number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0683. 77 FR 51620. 

12U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Proposed Rule: Source Specific Federal 

Implementation Plan Best Available Retrofit 

Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo 

Nation, Technical Support Document. Docket 

Number EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0683, p. 30. 

considered among other things standard 

cost estimating handbooks,3 published 

papers,4 and published EPA reports 5

that report 30 years as a typical life for 

a scrubber as well as industry reports 

that identify specific scrubbers in 

operation since the 1970s and 1980s.6

Additional support for a 30 year 

scrubber life can also be found in the 

EPA Response to Comments for the final 

Oklahoma Regional Haze FIP.7

Region 10’s use of a 30-year life is not 

inconsistent with other Agency 

decisions; the EPA Region 6 used 30 

years for SO2 spray dry scrubbing on 

energy generation units in the final 

Oklahoma FIP. The EPA Region 6 

research included wet FGD technologies 

such as LSFO, and indicated that the 30- 

year lifetime was equally applicable to 

both wet and spray dry FGD scrubbing. 

The EPA action on the Oklahoma 

Regional Haze FIP occurred subsequent 

to the EPA Region 8 letters cited by the 

commenter. The Region 4 action cited 

by the commenter reflects the EPA 

approval of a case-specific BART 

determination made by the State of 

Tennessee, and does not necessarily 

reflect EPA endorsement of all aspects 

of the underlying BART analysis 

conducted by the facility in question. 

Combined, the EPA Region 6 research 

and analysis and the subsequent related 

work by the EPA Region 10 reflect a 

current and robust technical basis for 

both spray dry and wet scrubbing FGD 

equipment life. We therefore find that 

use of 30 years as the equipment life for 

LSFO in the Intalco BART analysis 

remains appropriate. 

Comment: A commenter stated that 

the EPA Region 10 decision to use the 

lower of two vendor air pollution 

control cost quotes is arbitrary and 

instead we should have used the 

average of the two quotes. The 

commenter states that it is inconsistent 

that the EPA Region 10 would assert 

that it was improper for Washington to 

rely on the average of the two quotes 

when the EPA Region 4 concluded that 

Tennessee’s BART analysis relying on 

the same average costs was reasonable. 

The comment also states that the EPA 

Region 10’s use of the lower of the two 

quotes is inconsistent with an EPA 

Region 9 action that ‘‘relied primarily 

on the highest of several cost 

estimates. . . .’’ 

Response: As described in the initial 

proposal and supporting documents, it 

is appropriate to base the cost of 

compliance calculation on the lower of 

the two vendor quotes. While not 

explicitly stated as a directive in section 

1, chapter 2 of the Cost Manual (which 

discusses general methodology), the 

Cost Manual includes a discussion 

indicating support for the use of the 

most competitive, lowest responsive bid 

within cost effectiveness calculations. In 

Section 6, chapter 3, the Cost Manual 

states that ‘‘[s]ignificant savings can be 

had by soliciting multiple quotes,’’ 8 and 

in section 4.2, chapter 1, the Cost 

Manual suggests that vendor quotes be 

‘‘compare[d] to other bids.’’ 9 These 

sections inherently recognize the 

practice of competitive bidding in the 

contracting process with the goal of 

procuring air pollution control 

equipment using the most cost effective 

option.10 That these statements are 

made within chapters of the Cost 

Manual that address specific control 

technologies does not reduce their 

applicability to cost effectiveness 

calculations in general. 

The two vendor quotes were from 

experienced, reliable equipment 

vendors, and the lower of the two 

quotes was in fact more robust and 

detailed. 

Using the lowest responsive bid also 

makes common sense from a contracting 

perspective. Given multiple responsive 

bids from well qualified equipment 

suppliers, it is reasonable to expect that 

the lower cost supplier is most likely to 

be chosen to provide the control 

equipment. The use of the average of 

multiple bids, as advocated by the 

commenter, is illogical since the 

resulting cost does not reflect the actual 

cost of control equipment from any 

supplier. 

We acknowledge that the EPA Region 

4 approved the State’s decision 

regarding the BART analysis for the 

Alcoa facility in Tennessee. However, 

Region 4 did not initiate this approach, 

but rather approved the State’s 

approach. In instances where the EPA is 

conducting the BART analysis (rather 

than the EPA reviewing a state’s 

analysis), we are consistent. 

Contrary to the comment, the Region 

9 and Region 10 approaches regarding 

cost are consistent. The EPA Region 9 

BART cost analysis for the Four Corners 

Power Plant (FCPP) was based on a 

combination of cost information 

submitted from equipment suppliers as 

well as information based on the Cost 

Manual. In the course of developing the 

FCPP FIP, the EPA Region 9 received 

three bids from the same vendor 

containing pricing information that was 

updated as the project proceeded. The 

second bid submitted was the highest 

cost bid. The EPA Region 9 used the 

second bid in their cost analysis because 

the third bid, which reflected lower 

costs, was submitted later in the BART 

analysis process and the overall 

difference between the three bids was 

not significant enough to affect the cost 

effectiveness determination. 

The EPA Region 9 statement in the 

action cited by the commenter 11 was 

intended to communicate that the EPA 

Region 9 considered the costs to be 

conservatively high, which still resulted 

in the control equipment being 

determined to be cost effective. This 

position is stated more explicitly in the 

technical support document for the 

FCPP BART FIP developed by the EPA 

Region 9: ‘‘. . . the EPA’s revised cost 

information and our additional analysis 

that rely on the capital and annual costs 

are conservatively overestimated.’’ 12

Additionally, we note that the EPA 

Region 9 did not accept the bid as 

submitted, but revised numerous cost 

elements based on independent 

research, competing equipment supplier 

bids for certain control equipment 

elements, and information contained in 

the Cost Manual. Therefore, the final 

cost numbers used in the EPA Region 

9’s analysis, while based on the highest 

of the three base vendor bids, were 

lower than the third vendor bid due to 

the changes made by the EPA Region 9. 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33446 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

13Sargent & Lundy LLC, Wet Flue Gas 

Desulfurization Technology Evaluation, January 

2003. http://www.lime.org/documents/uses_of_

lime/wet_fgdte2003.pdf 

14Sargent & Lundy LLC, Cost Study for a 1,400 

MW Flue Gas Desulfurization Unit, Centralia Units 

1 & 2, October 1996. 

15 ‘‘TransAlta and George Pacific Share Win-Win 

Situation’’. Daniel Brunell. Association of 

Washington Business online article. July-August 

2004. http://www.awb.org/articles/environment/

transalta_and_georgia_pacific_share_win_win_

situation.htm. 

16 ‘‘Why Centralia Matters to Washington State’’. 

TransAlta. April 2010. http://www.transalta.com/

sites/default/files/Why-Centralia-Matters.pdf. 

17Sargent & Lundy LLC, Economics of Lime and 

Limestone for Control of Sulfur Dioxide, 2003. 

http://www.graymont-mx.com/technical/

Economics_of_Lime_and_Limestone_Control_

Sulfur_Dioxide.pdf. 

Thus, the EPA Region 9 action in fact 

relied on the principles of competitive 

bidding where appropriate, consistent 

with the EPA Region 10 action. 

Comment: A commenter states that 

the EPA Region 10 cost analysis 

disregarded the fact that the EPA Region 

10’s internal economic analysis 

concluded that the gypsum by-product 

market is speculative and did not prove 

there would be a guaranteed market for 

the gypsum in the future. The 

commenter also states that the EPA 

Region 10 ignored relevant market 

information provided by Alcoa and that 

this biased the EPA Region 10’s control 

cost estimate in favor of controls being 

deemed cost effective. 

Response: The EPA Region 10 

continues to believe it is unreasonable 

to assume that the gypsum produced by 

LSFO would require disposal in a 

landfill given its suitability as a 

feedstock in many re-use applications 

and that it is appropriate to eliminate 

the disposal cost for purposes of the cost 

effectiveness analysis. The assumption 

that the by-product gypsum would be 

reused is consistent with the approach 

taken in a 2003 technology evaluation 

conducted by Sargent and Lundy, where 

a disposal cost of zero was used.13

Contrary to the comment, the EPA 

Region 10 did consider all information 

submitted by Alcoa, including the letter 

dated June 22, 2012. In this letter, Alcoa 

outlines technical challenges associated 

with re-use of the gypsum in various 

potential applications, but includes no 

discussion regarding potential 

resolutions of these technical 

challenges. The EPA Region 10 found 

that the financial incentive to avoid 

disposal costs for a re-usable product 

would encourage reuse. For example, 

although moist synthetic gypsum may 

be inappropriate for use in cement 

manufacturing, dry synthetic gypsum 

may be appropriate. In a cost analysis 

conducted by Sargent and Lundy for the 

LSFO scrubber built for the coal-fired 

power plant in Centralia Washington,14

it was assumed that the gypsum byproduct would be re-used, and a 

gypsum credit of $5/ton was assumed. 

In fact the gypsum produced by 

Centralia plant was re-used by local 

wallboard manufacturers.15 16

The EPA Region 10 further believes 

that, were landfill disposal required, the 

disposal cost assumed in the original 

Alcoa BART analysis of $145/ton is 

excessively high. The 1996 Sargent & 

Lundy report cites landfill disposal 

costs of only $6/ton, and a more recent 

Sargent & Lundy paper cites landfill 

disposal costs of only $12/ton for a 

similar waste product from dry FGD.17

A disposal cost several times higher 

than that cited by Sargent & Lundy 

would not significantly impact the cost 

effectiveness determination for LSFO at 

Intalco. 

Thus, while recognizing some gypsum 

market uncertainty, we conclude that 

the gypsum disposal costs are properly 

excluded in the cost effectiveness 

calculation for LSFO. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

the EPA reject the affordability 

argument as the affordability claim is 

unprecedented and the EPA’s reliance 

on affordability in this instance is 

inconsistent with the EPA’s approach to 

BART determinations across the 

country. The commenter asserted that 

because the EPA has proposed and/or 

finalized BART determinations in other 

areas that have contributed to power 

plants shutting down because the 

electrical generating units (EGUs) were 

not profitable enough after accounting 

for the cost of pollution controls (e.g. 

New York, Oklahoma, Four Corners, 

Boardman, and TransAlta) that the EPA 

must explain the different outcome for 

this BART determination. Intalco is the 

only BART determination where a 

company is excused from complying 

with the law on the grounds that it 

cannot ‘afford’ the law. 

Response: The BART Guidelines 

explain that, even where a control 

technology is cost-effective, ‘‘there may 

be cases where the installation of 

controls would affect the viability of 

continued plant operations.’’ 40 CFR 

part 51, appendix Y, section IV.E.3.1. In 

these unusual circumstances, the BART 

Guidelines allow states and the EPA to 

take into consideration how requiring 

controls could affect ‘‘product prices, 

the market share, and profitability of the 

source.’’ Id. section IV.E.3.2. 

Nevertheless, only when these effects 

are ‘‘judged to have a severe impact on 

plant operations’’ can they play a role in 

the ultimate control determination. The 

affordability analysis we conducted for 

Intalco was therefore proper. As 

explained in our re-proposal, the results 

of the analysis demonstrated that 

requiring controls at the Intalco facility 

would have a ‘‘severe impact’’ on the 

facility’s ability to continue business 

operations. The examples cited by the 

commenter, on the other hand, are 

inapposite. In those instances, none of 

the sources submitted affordability 

analyses to the EPA as part of the BART 

evaluation process. While the sources 

may have determined that it was in their 

financial interest to cease operating 

certain EGUs rather than install 

pollution control technology, the EPA 

has no reason to believe that the sources 

could not afford the controls in 

question. Rather, the sources made 

voluntary business decisions that the 

benefits of continuing to generate 

electricity at the affected units were 

outweighed by a number of factors, 

which likely included the costs of 

controls, potential future regulatory 

requirements, market trends, the 

availability of alternative generating 

strategies, etc. The EPA has no evidence 

to suggest, however, that the costs of 

controls in those instances were so 

onerous that the sources simply could 

not afford them or that the sources’ 

decisions to cease operations were in 

essence involuntary. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

the EPA’s or Ecology’s commitment to 

revisit the BART determination for the 

Intalco facility every 10 years based on 

then current information. Two 

commenters recommended that the EPA 

explain how the Intalco facility will be 

reevaluated in the 5-year report or next 

SIP planning cycle to determine if LSFO 

does become affordable in the future. 

One commenter would like the EPA 

or Ecology to commit to revisiting the 

BART determination for Intalco in each 

round of revised regional haze SIPs (i.e., 

every 10 years) utilizing the 

technological and financial information 

that is current for this source at that 

time. 

Response: BART is a ‘one time’ 

decision that is not required to be 

revisited in future planning cycles. 

However, the source could in the future 

be subject to an analysis of control to 

achieve reasonable progress, should a 

new breakthrough in technology occur 

and cost effective controls be identified. 

The RHR explains that ‘‘After a state has 

met the requirements for BART, or 

implemented an emission trading 

program, or other alternative measure 

that achieves more reasonable progress 

than the installation and operation of 

BART, BART eligible sources will be 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33447 

18 Grid resolution is the distance between points 

for which model data is established. In this case the 

data is the elevation above mean sea level. A course 

grid may miss changes in elevation in mountainous 

terrain (i.e. river valley features) and the model may 

not account for channeling of wind flow. The grid 

points are also the points where estimated pollutant 

concentrations and visibility impairment are 

calculated. 

subject to the requirements of paragraph 

(d) of this section in the same manner 

as other sources.’’ 40 CFR 51.308(e)(5). 

A commitment to revisit whether cost 

effective controls are available for a 

particular source in the future is not a 

required SIP element of this planning 

cycle and is not required for the EPA to 

approve the regional haze plan. A stated 

intention in the State’s SIP submittal to 

revisit controls in the future is not an 

enforceable requirement. Accordingly 

the EPA’s approval today is not 

conditioned upon the State’s 

commitment to conduct future control 

technology reviews on a specific 

schedule. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the EPA consider the 

number of Class I areas impacted. 

Response: The EPA considered the 

fact that Intalco had impacts greater 

than 0.5 deciview (dv) at six Class I 

areas. Additionally, we took into 

account Intalco’s significant impact of 

over 1 dv at Olympic National Park. 

Thus, as explained in the proposal, the 

EPA considered cumulative visibility 

impacts, as well as the other BART 

factors in reaching its BART 

determination for this facility. See 77 FR 

76191. 

Comment: A commenter suggested 

that it was improper to use baseline 

emissions rather than future (or even 

current) conditions to assess visibility 

improvement. 

Response: As previously described in 

our response regarding Tesoro’s baseline 

emissions, the BART Guidelines (40 

CFR part 51, appendix Y) provide, ‘‘In 

general, for existing sources subject to 

BART, you will estimate the anticipated 

annual emissions based upon actual 

emissions from a baseline period.’’ 40 

CFR part 51, appendix Y, section 

IV.D.4.d.1. The baseline period in the 

Washington SIP submittal for emissions 

used in the BART analysis is 2002– 

2005. The BART Alternative analysis 

correctly used the highest 24-hour 

emission rate in the baseline period to 

assess visibility improvement. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the EPA clarify that the modeled 

BART Alternative improvements are not 

improvements from current conditions. 

Response: Intalco has seen dramatic 

fluctuation in production over the last 

decade ranging from no production to 

production at approximately 80% of full 

operation. Thus, visibility improvement 

in Class I areas impacted by the Intalco 

facility will vary based on operating 

rates. The Intalco facility is currently 

operating at slightly less than 80% of 

full operation. As stated in the Federal 

Register proposal of December 26, 2012, 

the proposal to limit SO2 emissions to 

80% of baseline, combined with making 

the other components in the BART 

Alternative permanent and federally 

enforceable, will prevent degradation if 

the Intalco facility increases production 

above 80%. 77 FR 76193. 

D. Alcoa Wenatchee Works 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Alcoa Wenatchee 

Works was improperly exempted from 

BART review. This comment is based 

on Ecology’s use of refined air quality 

dispersion modeling (0.5 km grid) 

which the commenters believe 

underestimates visibility impact. The 

commenters asserted that the use of fine 

grid modeling inappropriately 

underestimates the Wenatchee Works 

impacts at the Alpine Lakes Wilderness 

Area to a level below the BART 

threshold thus allowing it to be 

improperly exempt from BART. 

Allowing the use of fine grid modeling 

is contrary to numerous prior statements 

by the EPA. The commenters requested 

that the EPA disapprove Washington’s 

BART exemption determination and 

conduct a BART analysis for the 

Wenatchee Works. 

Response: In response to the 

comments, the EPA re-evaluated the 

dispersion modeling that the State used 

to exempt the Wenatchee Works from 

BART. On December 30, 2013, we 

published a proposed rulemaking action 

where we explained our rationale for 

proposing to disapprove the State’s 

BART exemption determination, 

proposing that the facility was subject to 

BART, and proposing a BART FIP for 

the Wenatchee Works. 78 FR 79344. The 

adverse comments on that re-proposal 

are addressed below. 

Comment: A commenter asserts that 

the EPA failed to address and resolve 

deficiencies in the Draft ‘‘Modeling 

Protocol for the Application of the 

CALPUFF Modeling System Pursuant to 

the Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Regulation’’ (the draft Three 

State Protocol) as identified by Alcoa to 

the EPA in a June 30, 2006 letter to EPA 

Region 10. The commenter claimed that 

this failure adversely affected the 

subject-to-BART modeling activities and 

improperly determined visibility 

impairment within the State of 

Washington. 

Response: The major concern raised 

in the June 30, 2006 letter was that the 

draft Three State Protocol did not 

include a provision to allow for site 

specific protocols that include technical 

enhancements, such as better resolution 

and other site specific improvements. 

The June 30, 2006 letter requested that 

such enhancements be allowed in the 

BART exemption modeling and the 

BART determination modeling. It also 

stated that the 4 kilometer (km) grid 

resolution 18 did not replicate on-theground terrain features such as valley 

flow and land/water boundaries. For 

purposes of this action, a 4 km grid is 

considered a course grid and a 0.5 km 

grid is considered to be a fine grid. 

The final Three State Protocol 

provided for site specific protocols. 

Deviations from and site specific 

improvements to the Three State 

Protocol are allowed. The Modeling 

Protocol for Washington, Oregon, and 

Idaho: Protocol for the Application of 

the CALPUFF Modeling System 

Pursuant to the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) Regulation (the 

final Three State Protocol) states in 

section 1.1 that: 

This modeling protocol is a cooperative 

effort among Idaho Department of 

Environmental Quality (IDEQ), Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(ODEQ), and Washington Department of 

Ecology (WDOE) to develop an analysis that 

will be applied consistently to the Idaho, 

Washington, and Oregon BART-eligible 

sources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, 

and U.S. EPA Region 10 were consulted 

during the development of this protocol (EPA 

2006a, b, c). This protocol adopts the BART 

Guideline and addresses both the BART 

exemption as well as the BART 

determination modeling. The three agencies 

are also collaborating on the development of 

a consistent three-year meteorological data 

set. Collaboration on the protocol and 

meteorological data set helps ensure 

modeling consistency and the sharing of 

resources and workload. 

As stated above, the development of 

the Three State Protocol was a 

collaborative effort that included seven 

government agencies. The Three State 

Protocol was viewed as guidance and 

not a prescription of how the modeling 

must be done in all cases. Consequently, 

if a BART-eligible source preferred to 

deviate from the Three State Protocol, 

such as generate its own predicted 

mesoscale meteorology simulations or 

employ a different grid resolution, as in 

the Wenatchee Works case, the state 

with jurisdiction would consult with 

the other six government agencies, 

including the EPA, before accepting the 

deviation. The purpose of the 

consultation is to resolve differing 

opinions on the deviation, ensure 

consistency and the integrity of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33448 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Three State Protocol, and maintain 

fairness to the BART-eligible sources. 

The EPA’s endorsement of significant 

deviations from the Three State Protocol 

is necessary to effectively evaluate the 

SIP for technical adequacy in this 

important case of exempting a source 

from BART. As described below, the 

EPA had concerns with the deviation. 

In July 2008, the EPA Region 10 

communicated to Washington our 

concerns regarding use of fine grid 

modeling for the Wenatchee Works. In 

a July 8, 2008 email message to Ecology 

we stated, ‘‘Nevertheless, R10 is willing 

to allow the use of new procedures, 

techniques or options as long as an 

acceptability demonstration is made in 

accordance with applicable guidance 

and is fully vetted by peers.’’ The email 

also explained that, ‘‘[t]he CALPUFF 

modeling system has never been 

evaluated or tested against tracer gas 

studies/experiments using a fine grid. 

As a minimum, Ecology and TRC 

should have submitted a protocol to R10 

for acceptance to evaluate and test the 

sensitivity using a fine grid resolution in 

CALPUFF Version 5.8.’’ The State failed 

to address these concerns. 

Comment: A commenter claims that 

the EPA ‘‘cherry picked’’ statements and 

portrayed out of context, portions of the 

EPA’s 2009 Modeling Clearinghouse 

Memorandum and misrepresented its 

relevance to the Wenatchee Works 

BART exemption modeling. 

Response: The EPA disagrees with the 

commenter that the Modeling 

Clearinghouse Memorandum, dated 

May 15, 2009, was taken out of context 

to justify the rejection of the Wenatchee 

Works BART exemption modeling. The 

memorandum states in part that, ‘‘. . . 

the Otter Tail Protocol presents no 

scientific evidence to support the claim 

that 1 km CALMET resolution increases 

the objective accuracy of the final wind 

field, especially in areas of relatively 

modest topographic relief, such as for 

each of the three proposed domains.’’ 

Similarly, the commenter did not 

present any scientific evidence to 

support its claim that the proposed 500 

meter grid resolution will adequately 

capture the terrain influenced wind 

flows (e.g., valley and slope) at its river 

valley location. 

CALMET is a diagnostic 

meteorological model that produces 

non-steady-state hourly meteorological 

data but has limited ability to 

independently capture the full threedimensional structure of complex wind 

flows at the Wenatchee Work’s river 

valley location. Unlike the Otter Tail 

situation where the benefit may be 

limited, the EPA believes a network of 

meteorological monitoring stations (e.g., 

surface and upper air measurements) at 

the river valley location would better 

capture the three-dimensional, nonsteady-state meteorology of this site. 

These data could be used to create a 

more accurate wind field that could 

then be used to more accurately predict 

the visibility impact from the 

Wenatchee Works. 

Comment: A commenter questioned 

the value of revising the PM emission 

limitations that are being required of 

various emission units at the Wenatchee 

Works. The commenter states that the 

potential visibility improvement 

resulting from the reduction in 

allowable emissions is below the 

capability of the model to determine. 

Any potential visibility improvement 

that may accrue from imposing the SO2

limit on Potline 5 would far exceed that 

of the direct PM2.5 being emitted by 

these stacks. However another 

commenter said, ‘‘We support retaining 

the existing particulate matter limit of 

.005 gr/dscf.’’ 

Response: We acknowledge that 

tightening the particulate matter 

emission limits may have little effect on 

visibility improvement because the 

existing fabric filters are high efficiency 

control devices. However, in some 

instances the existing emission limits 

are well above the level that a properly 

operating fabric filter can achieve. 

BART is defined as an emission limit 

based on the degree of reduction 

achievable through the application of 

the best system of continuous emission 

reduction. The existing emission limits 

in some cases are not based on the 

degree of reduction achievable at this 

facility. The BART emission limits we 

are establishing reflect the achievable 

emission reductions for these units, and 

result in tighter limits. 

Comment: A commenter said that 

they have been unable to ascertain the 

source of the emission factor for NOX

emissions from Potline 5. Additionally, 

they wonder about the value of an 

emission limitation based solely on the 

potline aluminum production rate and 

an emission factor. The commenter 

suggests three options; that the NOX

emission limit be removed, the emission 

factor be substantiated, or the emissions 

be based on actual monitoring. 

Response: The EPA understands that 

this emission factor has been used by 

Alcoa to report NOX emissions to the 

Department of Ecology for years. 

However, we recognize the lack of 

substantiation for the emission factor 

and Alcoa has indicated that they 

cannot quickly provide the EPA with a 

basis for the factor. In response to this 

comment, the EPA has revised the NOX

BART emission limit from the proposed 

0.95 tons per calendar month to a ‘‘test 

and set’’ requirement that will require 

Alcoa to conduct source tests and 

develop a unit-specific NOX emission 

factor for Potline 5. That emission factor 

will then be used to establish a monthly 

NOX emission limit for Potline 5. 

Comment: A commenter states that 

the EPA erroneously asserts that there 

are ‘‘no’’ SO2 emissions associated with 

Ingot Furnaces No. 1, 2, and 11. The 

commenter requests that the statement 

be corrected to indicate there are trivial 

amounts of SO2 created during the 

combustion of natural gas. Should the 

EPA elect not to withdraw its proposed 

actions and approve the Washington 

SIP, the commenter asks that the EPA 

determine that BART for SO2 for these 

furnaces be comparable to the BART 

limit proposed for NOX, which is a 

limitation on the type of fuel that may 

be combusted. 

Response: There are trivial amounts of 

SO2 emissions from the Ingot furnaces. 

The total SO2 emitted from the three 

Ingot furnaces is 0.014 t/yr. We consider 

these insignificant, but as requested by 

the commenter, we will establish a 

BART requirement for SO2. We agree 

with the commenter that BART for SO2

would be the continued combustion of 

natural gas in the Ingot Furnaces. Thus, 

we are requiring the combustion of 

natural gas as BART for NOX emissions 

and are adding a provision that requires 

the combustion of natural gas as BART 

for SO2 emissions as well. 

Comment: A commenter suggests that 

the EPA appears to be inconsistent in 

the cost analyses produced for 

limestone scrubbing for SO2. The 

commenter explains that, in what 

appears to be the final cost analysis 

(document #501 in the docket), the EPA 

has included no costs for gypsum 

disposal, but that documents #503 and 

#504 in the docket do contain a disposal 

cost for gypsum. Based on experience 

with similar useable waste materials the 

commenter states that the EPA should 

include a disposal cost for the gypsum 

produced by the limestone scrubbing 

system. The commenter has found that 

even a useful waste like gypsum cannot 

be disposed of or given away at no cost 

to the source. At a minimum, the 

company generating the waste material 

has to cover the cost of storage and 

transport to a user. 

Response: The commenter appears to 

be confusing cost analyses conducted by 

Alcoa (documents #503 and #504) with 

the EPA’s cost analysis (document 

#501). A detailed response to the 

comment with regard to the inclusion of 

gypsum disposal cost in the cost 

analysis has been provided above 

addressing a similar comment regarding 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33449 

the SO2 BART analysis for the Intalco 

facility. 

Comment: A commenter states that 

the EPA Region 10 ignored agency 

precedent and other factual information 

in the development of the Wenatchee 

Works cost of compliance analysis when 

it relied on the cost analysis for a 

similar scrubber at the Intalco facility. 

The commenter states that the EPA 

made the same flaws in the Wenatchee 

analysis that it made in the Intalco 

analysis specifically: Equipment life, 

use of vendor quotes, use of 

unsubstantiated costs, ignoring cost data 

provided by Alcoa, and using data that 

underestimate the cost of LSFO. 

Response: This comment for the 

Wenatchee Works is similar to a 

comment about the Intalco BART 

analysis addressed above. See our 

response regarding the cost of 

compliance calculation for the Intalco 

facility. The same rationale for our 

response to the Intalco BART analysis 

comment applies to this comment 

regarding the Wenatchee Works. 

Comment: A commenter suggests that 

the process description for the anode 

bake furnace at the Wenatchee facility is 

incorrect in the preamble to the 

December 30, 2013 re-proposal. 

Response: The commenter is correct 

in that the carbon anodes are not used 

in an electric arc furnace, rather the 

facility produces aluminum from 

alumina via an electrochemical 

reduction process that occurs in 

‘‘electrolytic reduction cells’’ commonly 

known as (pots) using the Hall-Heroult 

process. 

Comment: A commenter said that 

provisions for alternative fuel use 

should be included, when a change to 

fuel use is permitted or required 

pursuant to governmental dictate. 

Response: We understand that Alcoa 

may change to an alternate fuel in the 

future. However, we cannot ensure that 

the requirement for BART is met by 

simply allowing for the use of an 

alternative fuel that is permitted or 

required by the government. If Alcoa 

choses to change to a fuel other than 

natural gas, the normal process would 

be to request the EPA to revise this rule 

and establish an appropriate BART 

emission limit for the alternative fuel. 

We do, however, believe that we can 

provide for the situation where the use 

of an alternative fuel may be approved 

in a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit. It is the 

EPA’s position that a Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) emission 

limit for a pollutant established in a 

PSD permit will likely be at least as 

stringent as a BART emission limit for 

that pollutant. We have added a 

provision to this rule that would allow 

a federally-enforceable BACT emission 

limit for NOX which is established in a 

PSD permit to supersede the BART 

emission limit for NOX established in 

this rule. 

Comment: A commenter notes there 

appears to be a discrepancy between the 

baseline SO2 emissions and emissions 

reduced through LFSO at Potline 5. The 

proposal states that Potline 5 has a 

baseline emissions rate of 1000.8 tons of 

SO2 per year. However, the supporting 

BART analysis appears to assume that 

an LFSO scrubber could reduce 

emissions by 1955 tons per year which 

would be greater than the annual 

baseline emissions. 

Response: The EPA does not agree 

that there is a discrepancy between the 

SO2 emission values for Potline 5 in the 

proposal and in the BART analysis. The 

1000.8 tons per year value in the 

proposal is the baseline SO2 emission 

rate which represents the actual annual 

emissions from the Potline during the 

baseline period. The 1955 tons per year 

emission reduction in the BART 

analysis represents an estimate of the 

potential emission reduction from the 

maximum potential to emit from the 

Potline that could be expected from the 

application of LFSO. 

Comment: A commenter said that the 

EPA should consider ways to monitor 

and make more easily enforceable the 

proposed BART emissions limits. Most 

of the units at the Wenatchee Works do 

not have continuous emissions 

monitoring systems (‘‘CEMS’’), and for 

many of the units, the EPA is proposing 

limits based on the content of the fuel 

or emissions per unit of production. For 

Potline 5, the EPA proposes a BART 

limit expressed as pounds of SO2 per 

ton of aluminum produced, per calendar 

month. Potline 5 has the highest SO2

emissions of any BART-eligible unit at 

the Wenatchee facility, but it does not 

currently have a CEMS. To gather more 

accurate data on the unit’s actual 

emissions and to ensure compliance 

with any emissions limit, the 

commenter believes that the EPA should 

require installation of a CEMS and 

express the emissions limit in terms of 

SO2 emitted per month, as a rolling 30- 

day average. 

Response: Emissions from primary 

aluminum plants have traditionally 

been regulated with emission standards 

in the form of pounds of emissions per 

ton of aluminum produced (see, e.g., the 

EPA’s New Source Performance 

Standards for aluminum plants at 40 

CFR part 60, subpart S, the EPA’s 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards for aluminum 

plants at 40 CFR part 63, subpart LL, 

and Ecology’s emission limits for 

aluminum plants at WAC 173–415). The 

EPA believes that establishing BART 

emission limits in the same form as the 

limits for other pollutants set under 

other programs will both ensure 

enforceable limits on visibility 

impairing pollutants as well as provide 

a consistent set of requirements for the 

regulated sources. The EPA also 

believes that for SO2 emissions, a mass 

balance approach to demonstrating 

compliance, rather than CEMS, is 

appropriate for Potline 5. SO2 from 

Potline 5 is emitted both from the gas 

treatment centers air pollution control 

units (GTC) and the roof vents. 

Measuring SO2 emissions from the roof 

vents with CEMS is not feasible. In 

addition, a mass balance approach with 

frequent monitoring of the sulfur in the 

anodes adequately accounts for the SO2

emissions from both the GTC and the 

roof vents. Similarly, restricting BARTeligible units to a particular fuel (e.g., 

natural gas) and then monitoring the 

fuel combusted in the units that have no 

other SO2 emission controls also 

adequately accounts for the SO2

emissions from those units. 

Comment: A commenter said that the 

EPA merged monitoring and compliance 

demonstration requirements in 40 CFR 

52.2502(c)(1)(i) and created ambiguity 

that requires further clarification. 

Response: We agree with the 

commenter that the proposed rule 

merged the monitoring and compliance 

demonstration requirements for the 

sulfur limit for incoming coke in a way 

that was confusing. We have 

reformatted the provision to more 

clearly specify how compliance is 

demonstrated for the sulfur limit for 

incoming coke and the required 

monitoring to determine the sulfur 

content of incoming coke. Note that this 

SO2 BART limit for the anode bake 

furnaces does not affect the SO2 BACT 

emission limit in the 1982 EPA PSD 

permit (PSD–X82–04) for Potlines 1 

through 3. 

Comment: A commenter notes that 

the emissions in excess of the various 

BART limits proposed throughout the 

final rule must not be exceeded onehundred twenty days after the final rule 

is published in the Federal Register. 

The commenter claims a more 

appropriate compliance date for these 

emission limits is the requirement to 

comply with the BART limits ‘‘within 

120 days of the final rule becoming 

effective,’’ not when the final rule is 

published in the Federal Register. The 

EPA should restate the compliance date 

for the BART requirements affected by 

this proposed regulation. 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33450 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Response: We have changed the 

compliance dates throughout the rule to 

reflect both the expected effective date 

of this action as well as to tie the 

compliance date to the effective date of 

the final rule. Specifically, the 

compliance date for the Intalco facility’s 

calendar year SO2 BART limit is set at 

January 1, 2015. The compliance date 

for the NOX ‘test and set’ emission limit 

is 180 days after the effective date of the 

final rule. The compliance dates for all 

other BART emission limits are 120 

days after the effective date of this 

action. The compliance date for the 

Tesoro refinery was also revised to 120 

days after the effective date of this 

action. 

IV. Conclusion 

EPA is taking final action to partially 

approve and partially disapprove 

Washington’s SIP for Regional Haze and 

to promulgate a FIP for the disapproved 

elements. The EPA is approving 

portions of the Washington Regional 

Haze SIP as meeting the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.308 for the first planning 

period and disapproving other portions. 

The disapproved portions are corrected 

with today’s promulgation of FIP 

elements. 

As discussed above, promulgation of 

the FIP BART elements for the Tesoro 

refinery, the Intalco facility, and the 

Wenatchee Works does not require the 

purchase or installation new air 

pollution control equipment, but rather 

establishes BART based on existing 

control technology. Thus, the only 

additional costs incurred by the owners 

of these facilities will be minimal 

expenditures for monitoring, reporting, 

and recordkeeping. EPA expects that 

this action will prevent visibility 

degradation in the Class I areas by 

limiting potential future increases in 

emissions from changes at the facilities. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action finalizes approval of 

portions of the Washington SIP and a 

FIP for emission units subject to BART 

at three facilities. This action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 

FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 

FR 3821, January 21, 2011). It is 

therefore not a rule of general 

applicability. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). Because the 

final FIP applies to just three facilities, 

the Paperwork Reduction Act does not 

apply. See 5 CFR 1320(c). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing 

the impacts of today’s final rule on 

small entities, small entity is defined as: 

(1) A small business as defined by the 

Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a 

small governmental jurisdiction that is a 

government of a city, county, town, 

school district or special district with a 

population of less than 50,000; and (3) 

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. After considering 

the economic impacts of today’s final 

rule on small entities, I certify that this 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The FIP that 

the EPA is finalizing for purposes of the 

regional haze program consists of 

imposing Federal controls to meet the 

BART requirements for three 

specifically identified facilities. The net 

result of this FIP action is that the EPA 

is finalizing emission limits on selected 

units at only three sources which are 

not considered small business. The 

sources in question are two aluminum 

smelters and a petroleum refinery. The 

final partial approval of the SIP merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

(UMRA) 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private 

sector. Under section 202 of UMRA, the 

EPA generally must prepare a written 

statement, including a cost-benefit 

analysis, for final rules with ‘‘Federal 

mandates’’ that may result in 

expenditures to State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted for inflation) in any one year. 

Before promulgating an EPA rule for 

which a written statement is needed, 

section 205 of UMRA generally requires 

the EPA to identify and consider a 

reasonable number of regulatory 

alternatives and adopt the least costly, 

most cost-effective, or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule. The provisions of section 

205 of UMRA do not apply when they 

are inconsistent with applicable law. 

Moreover, section 205 of UMRA allows 

the EPA to adopt an alternative other 

than the least costly, most cost-effective, 

or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final 

rule an explanation why that alternative 

was not adopted. Before the EPA 

establishes any regulatory requirements 

that may significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments, including Tribal 

governments, it must have developed 

under section 203 of UMRA a small 

government agency plan. The plan must 

provide for notifying potentially 

affected small governments, enabling 

officials of affected small governments 

to have meaningful and timely input in 

the development of the EPA regulatory 

actions with significant Federal 

intergovernmental mandates, and 

informing, educating, and advising 

small governments on compliance with 

the regulatory requirements. Under title 

II of UMRA, the EPA has determined 

that this final rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures that exceed the inflationadjusted UMRA threshold of $100 

million ($150 in 2013 when adjusted for 

inflation) by State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector in any 

one year. The private sector 

expenditures that will result from the 

FIP, including BART emission limits, 

are insignificant. The BART emission 

limits for the Alcoa Intalco Operations 

and Alcoa Wenatchee Works do not 

involve installation of new control 

technology, but rather establish BART 

emission limits based on the existing 

control technology. The BART 

Alternative for the Tesoro refinery 

involves taking credit for voluntary SO2

emission reductions in-lieu of installing 

BART-level NOX control technology on 

emission units subject to BART. Thus, 

because the annual expenditures 

associated with the FIP are less than the 

inflation-adjusted threshold of $150 

million in any one year, this rule is not 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33451 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 or 205 of UMRA. This rule is also 

not subject to the requirements of 

section 203 of UMRA because it 

contains no regulatory requirements that 

might significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism, 

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes 

and replaces Executive Orders 12612 

(Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 

Intergovernmental Partnership). 

Executive Order 13132 requires the EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies 

that have federalism implications’’ is 

defined in the Executive Order to 

include regulations that have 

‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, the EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has federalism 

implications, that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by state and local 

governments, or the EPA consults with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the final 

regulation. The EPA also may not issue 

a regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts state 

law unless the Agency consults with 

state and local officials early in the 

process of developing the final 

regulation. This rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely addresses the State not fully 

meeting its obligation under the CAA to 

include in its SIP provisions to meet the 

visibility requirements of part C of title 

I of the CAA and to prohibit emissions 

from interfering with other states 

measures to protect visibility. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

Consultation and Coordination With 

Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires the 

EPA to develop an accountable process 

to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input 

by tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This final rule does not 

have Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 because the SIP 

and FIP do not have substantial direct 

effects on Tribal governments. Thus, 

Executive Order 13175 does not apply 

to this rule. The EPA nonetheless 

provided a consultation opportunity to 

Tribes in Idaho, Oregon and Washington 

in letters dated January 14, 2011. The 

EPA received one request for 

consultation. We followed-up with that 

Tribe and the Tribe does not think 

consultation is necessary at this time. 

On September 20, 2012, EPA provided 

an additional consultation opportunity 

to seven Tribes in Washington near the 

facilities that would be regulated under 

the FIP. We received no requests for 

consultation. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it implements 

specific standards established by 

Congress in statutes. However, to the 

extent this final rule will limit 

emissions of NOX and PM, the rule will 

have a beneficial effect on children’s 

health by reducing air pollution. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs the EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards (VCS) in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. VCS are 

technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling 

procedures, and business practices) that 

are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. The EPA believes that 

VCS are inapplicable to the partial 

approval of the SIP that if merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. The FIP portion of this 

rulemaking involves technical 

standards. The EPA is using American 

Society for Testing and Materials 

(ASTM) Methods and generally 

accepted test methods previously 

promulgated by the EPA. Because all of 

these methods are generally accepted 

and are widely used by State and local 

agencies for determining compliance 

with similar rules, the EPA believes it 

would be impracticable and potentially 

confusing to put in place methods that 

vary from what is already accepted. As 

a result, the EPA believes it is 

unnecessary and inappropriate to 

consider alternative technical standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994), establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. We 

have determined that this final action 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority or 

low-income populations because it 

increases the level of environmental 

protection for all affected populations 

without having any disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

population, including any minority or 

low-income population. 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33452 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. Section 804 

exempts from section 801 the following 

types of rules (1) rules of particular 

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency 

management or personnel; and (3) rules 

of agency organization, procedure, or 

practice that do not substantially affect 

the rights or obligations of non-agency 

parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). The EPA is not 

required to submit a rule report 

regarding today’s action under section 

801 because this is a rule of particular 

applicability. 

L. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 11, 2014. Pursuant to 

CAA section 307(d)(1)(B), this action is 

subject to the requirements of CAA 

section 307(d) as it promulgates a FIP 

under CAA section 110(c). Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. See CAA 

section 307(b)(2). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Regional 

haze, Visibility, and Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: May 30, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 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 52.2470 is amended as 

follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (d) by adding footnote 

1 to the table and adding six entries to 

the end of the table. 

■ b. In paragraph (e) by adding in 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, 

MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS 

an entry ‘‘Regional Haze SIP’’ at the end 

of the section with the heading 

‘‘Visibility and Regional Haze Plans.’’ 

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED WASHINGTON SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1

Name of source Order/permit number 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

BP Cherry Point Refinery Administrative Order 

No. 7836.

7/7/2010 6/11/2014 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The following conditions: 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.3, 1.3.2, 

1.3.3, 2.2, 2.2.1,2.2.2,2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.3, 

2,3,1, 2.3.2, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.5.2, 

2.5.2.1, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.1.1., 2.6.1.2, 2.6.2, 

2.6.3, 2.6.4, 2.7, 2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.8, 2.8.1, 

2.8.2, 2.8.3, 2.8.4, 2.9, 2.9.1, 2.9.2, 2.9.3, 

2.9.4, 2.9.5, 2.9.6, 3., 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.3, 

3.3.1, 3.3.1.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 4, 4.1, 4.1.1, 

4.1.1.1, 4.1.1.2, 4.1.1.3, 4.1.1.4, 5., 6, 6.2, 6.3, 

6.4, 7. 

Alcoa Intalco Works ....... Administrative Order 

No. 7837, Revision 1.

11/15/10 6/11/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The following conditions: 1, 2., 2.1, 3., 4., 4.1, 

Attachment A conditions: A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, 

A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13, A14. 

Tesoro Refining and 

Marketing Company.

Administrative Order 

7838.

7/7/10 6/11/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The following conditions: 1., 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 

1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5.1, 1.5.1.1,1.5.1.2, 

1.5.1.3, 1.5.2, 1.5.3, 1.5.4, 1.5.5, 1.5.6, 2., 2.1, 

2.1.1, 2.1.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.2, 2.2.1, 3. 3.1, 

3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3, 3.2, 

3.2.1, 3.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2, 3.2.1.3, 3.2.1.4, 

3.2.1.4.1, 3.2.1.4.2, 3.2.1.4.3, 3.2.1.4.4, 

3.2.1.4.5, 3.3, 3.3.1, 3.4, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 4., 4.1, 

5., 5.1, 6., 6.1, 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.3, 6.1.4, 7., 

7.1, 7.1.1, 7.1.2, 7.1.3, 7.1.4, 7.1.5, 7.2, 7.2.1, 

7.2.2, 7.2.3, 7.2.4, 8. 8.1, 8.1.1, 8.1.2, 8.2, 

8.2.1, 8.2.2, 8.2.3, 8.3, 8.3.1, 8.3.2, 9., 9.1, 

9.1.1, 9.1.2, 9.2, 9.2.1, 9.39.3.1, 9.3.2, 

9.3.3,9.4, 9.4.1, 9.4.2, 9.4.3, 9.4.5, 9.4.6, 9.5, 

10, 11, 12, 13, 13.1, 13.2, 13.3, 13.4, 13.5, 

13.6. 

Port Townsend Paper 

Corporation.

Administrative Order 

No. 7839, Revision 1.

10/20/10 6/11/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The following Conditions:1, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2, 2.1, 

3, 3.1, 4. 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33453 

EPA-APPROVED WASHINGTON SOURCE-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1—Continued 

Name of source Order/permit number 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

Lafarge North America, 

Inc. Seattle, Wa.

Administrative Revised 

Order No. 7841.

7/28/10 6/11/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The following Conditions: 1, 1.1, 1.2, 2, 2.1, 

2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 

3.2, 3.3, 4, 4.1, 5, 5.1, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.3, 6, 

6.1, 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 7.5, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 

8.4, 8.5, 9, 10, 11, 12. 

Weyerhaeuser Corporation, Longview, Wa.Administrative Order 

No. 7840.

7/7/10 6/11/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The following Conditions: 1, 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 

1.1.3, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.3, 1.3.1, 1.4, 2, 

2.1, 3, 3.1, 4, 4.1. 

1The EPA does not have the authority to remove these source-specific requirements in the absence of a demonstration that their removal 

would not interfere with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS, violate any prevention of significant deterioration increment or result in visibility impairment. Washington Department of Ecology may require removal by submitting such a demonstration to the EPA as a SIP revision. 

(e) * * * 

* * * * * 

TABLE 2—ATTAINMENT, MAINTENANCE, AND OTHER PLANS

Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic 

or nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Visibility and Regional Haze Plans 

*******

Regional Haze SIP ......... State-wide ..................... 12/22/10 6/11/14 [Insert page 

number where the 

document begins].

The Regional Haze SIP including those provisions relating to BART incorporated by reference in § 52.2470 ‘Identification of plan’ with 

the exception of the BART provisions that are 

replaced with a BART FIP in § 52.2498 Visibility protection., § 52.2500 Best available retrofit technology requirements for the Intalco 

Aluminum Corporation (Intalco Works) primary 

aluminum plant—Better than BART Alternative., § 52.2501 Best available retrofit technology (BART) requirement for the Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company oil refinery— 

Better than BART Alternative., § 52.2502 Best 

available retrofit technology requirements for 

the Alcoa Inc.—Wenatchee Works primary 

aluminum smelter. 

*******

■ 3. Section 52.2475 is amended by 

revising the heading of paragraph (g) 

and paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2475 Approval of plans. 

* * * * * 

(g) Visibility protection. (1) The EPA 

approves portions of a Regional Haze 

SIP submitted by the Washington 

Department of Ecology on December 22, 

2010, as meeting the requirements of 

Clean Air Act section 169A and 169B 

and 40 CFR 51.308, with the exception 

of certain BART requirements for the 

Alcoa Intalco Works, the Alcoa 

Wenatchee Works, and the Tesoro 

Refining and Marketing Company. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 52.2498 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 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 (§ 51.308(e)). The EPA 

BART requirements are found in 

§§ 52.2500, 52.2501, and 52.2502. 

■ 5. Section 52.2500 is added to subpart 

WW to read as follows: 

§ 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) primary aluminum plant 

located in Ferndale, Washington and to 

its successors and/or assignees. 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33454 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(b) Better than BART Alternative— 

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limit for 

potlines. Starting January 1, 2015, SO2

emissions from all potlines in aggregate 

must not exceed a total of 5,240 tons for 

any calendar year. 

(c) Compliance demonstration. (1) 

Intalco must determine on a calendar 

month basis, SO2 emissions using the 

following formula: 

SO2 emissions in tons per calendar 

month = (carbon consumption ratio) 

× (% sulfur in baked anodes/100) × 

(% sulfur converted to SO2/100) × 

(2 pounds of SO2 per pound of 

sulfur) × (tons of aluminum 

production per calendar month) 

(i) Carbon consumption ratio is the 

calendar month average of tons of baked 

anodes consumed per ton of aluminum 

produced as determined using the baked 

anode consumption and production 

records required in paragraph (e)(2) of 

this section. 

(ii) % sulfur in baked anodes is the 

calendar month average sulfur content 

as determined in paragraph (d) of this 

section. 

(iii) % sulfur converted to SO2 is 

95%. 

(2) Calendar year SO2 emissions shall 

be calculated by summing the 12 

calendar month SO2 emissions for the 

calendar year. 

(d) Emission monitoring. (1) Intalco 

must determine the % sulfur of baked 

anodes using ASTM Method D6376 or 

an alternative method approved by the 

EPA Region 10. 

(2) Intalco must collect at least four 

anode core samples during each 

calendar week. 

(3) Calendar month average sulfur 

content shall be determined by 

averaging the sulfur content of all 

samples collected during the calendar 

month. 

(e) Recordkeeping. (1) Intalco must 

record the calendar month SO2

emissions and the calendar year SO2

emissions determined in paragraphs 

(c)(1) and (c)(2) of this section. 

(2) Intalco must maintain records of 

the baked anode consumption and 

aluminum production data used to 

develop the carbon consumption ratio 

used in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 

section. 

(3) Intalco must retain a copy of all 

calendar month carbon consumption 

ratio and potline SO2 emission 

calculations. 

(4) Intalco must record the calendar 

month net production of aluminum and 

tons of aluminum produced each 

calendar month. Net production of 

aluminum is the total mass of molten 

metal produced from tapping all pots in 

all of the potlines that operated at any 

time in the calendar month, measured at 

the casthouse scales and the rod shop 

scales. 

(5) Intalco must record the calendar 

month average sulfur content of the 

baked anodes. 

(6) Records are to be retained at the 

facility for at least five years and be 

made available to the EPA Region 10 

upon request. 

(f) Reporting. (1) Intalco must report 

the calendar month SO2 emissions and 

the calendar year SO2 emissions to the 

EPA Region 10 at the same time as the 

annual compliance certification 

required by the Part 70 operating permit 

for the Intalco facility is submitted to 

the Title V permitting authority. 

(2) All documents and reports must be 

sent to the EPA Region 10 

electronically, in a format approved by 

the EPA Region 10, to the following 

email address: R10-AirPermitReports@

epa.gov. 

■ 6. Section 52.2501 is added to subpart 

WW to read as follows: 

§ 52.2501 Best available retrofit 

technology (BART) requirement for the 

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company oil 

refinery—Better than BART Alternative. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the Tesoro Refining and Marketing 

Company oil refinery (Tesoro) located in 

Anacortes, Washington and to its 

successors and/or assignees. 

(b) Better than BART Alternative. The 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission limitation 

for non-BART eligible process heaters 

and boilers (Units F–101, F–102, F–201, 

F–301, F–652, F–751, and F–752) 

follows. 

(1) Compliance Date. Starting no later 

November 10, 2014, Units F–101, F– 

102, F–201, F–301, F–652, F–751, and 

F–752 shall only fire refinery gas 

meeting the criteria in paragraph (b)(2) 

of this section or pipeline quality 

natural gas. 

(2) Refinery fuel gas requirements. In 

order to limit SO2 emissions, refinery 

fuel gas used in the units from blend 

drum V–213 must not contain greater 

than 0.10 percent by volume hydrogen 

sulfide (H2S), 365-day rolling average, 

measured according to paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(c) Compliance demonstration. 

Compliance with the H2S emission 

limitation must be demonstrated using a 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system as required in paragraph (d) of 

this section. 

(d) Emission monitoring. (1) A 

continuous emissions monitoring 

system (CEMS) for H2S concentration 

must be installed, calibrated, 

maintained and operated measuring the 

outlet stream of the fuel gas blend drum 

subsequent to all unmonitored incoming 

sources of sulfur compounds to the 

system and prior to any fuel gas 

combustion device. The monitor must 

be certified in accordance with 40 CFR 

part 60 appendix B and operated in 

accordance with 40 CFR part 60 

appendix F. 

(2) Tesoro must record the calendar 

day average H2S concentration of the 

refinery fuel gas as measured by the 

CEMS required in paragraph (d)(1) of 

this section. The daily averages must be 

used to calculate the 365-day rolling 

average. 

(e) Recordkeeping. Records of the 

daily average H2S concentration and 

365-day rolling averages must be 

retained at the facility for at least five 

years and be made available to the EPA 

Region 10 upon request. 

(f) Reporting. (1) Calendar day and 

365-day rolling average refinery fuel gas 

H2S concentrations must be reported to 

the EPA Region 10 at the same time that 

the semi-annual monitoring reports 

required by the Part 70 operating permit 

for the Tesoro oil refinery are submitted 

to the Title V permitting authority. 

(2) All documents and reports must be 

sent to the EPA Region 10 

electronically, in a format approved by 

the EPA Region 10, to the following 

email address: R10-AirPermitReports@

epa.gov. 

■ 7. Section 52.2502 is added to subpart 

WW to read as follows: 

§ 52.2502 Best available retrofit 

technology requirements for the Alcoa 

Inc.—Wenatchee Works primary aluminum 

smelter. 

(a) Applicability. This section applies 

to the Alcoa Inc.—Wenatchee Works 

primary aluminum smelter (Wenatchee 

Works) located near Wenatchee, 

Washington and to its successors and/or 

assignees. 

(b) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) emission limitations for Potline 

5—(1) Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission 

limit. Starting November 10, 2014, SO2

emissions from Potline 5 must not 

exceed 46 pounds per ton of aluminum 

produced during any calendar month as 

calculated in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this 

section. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. Alcoa 

must determine SO2 emissions, on a 

calendar month basis using the 

following formulas: 

SO2 emissions in pounds = (carbon 

ratio) × (tons of aluminum 

produced during the calendar 

month) × (% sulfur in baked 

anodes/100) × (% sulfur converted 

to SO2/100) × (2 pounds of SO2 per 

pound of sulfur) 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 33455 

SO2 emissions in pounds per ton of 

aluminum produced = (SO2

emissions in pounds during the 

calendar month)/(tons of aluminum 

produced during the calendar 

month) 

(A) The carbon ratio is the calendar 

month average of tons of baked anodes 

consumed per ton of aluminum 

produced as determined using the baked 

anode consumption and aluminum 

production records required in 

paragraph (h)(2) of this section. 

(B) The % sulfur in baked anodes is 

the calendar month average sulfur 

content as determined in paragraph 

(b)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(C) The % sulfur converted to SO2 is 

90%. 

(ii) Emission monitoring. The % 

sulfur of baked anodes must be 

determined using ASTM Method D6376 

or an alternative method approved by 

the EPA Region 10. 

(A) At a minimum, Alcoa must collect 

no less than four baked anode core 

samples during each calendar week. 

(B) Calendar month average sulfur 

content must be determined by 

averaging the sulfur content of all 

samples collected during the calendar 

month. 

(2) Particulate matter (PM) emission 

limit. Starting November 10, 2014, PM 

emissions from the Potline 5 Gas 

Treatment Center stack must not exceed 

0.005 grains per dry standard cubic foot 

of exhaust gas. 

(3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

limit. Starting January 7, 2015, NOX

emissions from Potline 5 must not 

exceed, in tons per calendar month, the 

emission limit determined under 

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of this section. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. Alcoa 

must determine NOX emissions, on a 

calendar month basis using the 

following formula: 

NOX emissions in tons per calendar 

month = (the emission factor 

determined under paragraph 

(b)(3)(ii) of this section, in pounds 

of NOX per ton of aluminum 

produced) × (number of tons of 

aluminum produced in the calendar 

month)/(2000 pounds per ton). 

(ii) NOX emission factor development. 

By September 9, 2014, Alcoa must 

submit to the EPA a plan for testing 

NOX emissions from Potline 5 and 

developing an emission factor in terms 

of pounds of NOX per ton of aluminum 

produced. This plan must include 

testing NOX emissions from both the 

Gas Treatment Center stack and the 

potline roof vents along with 

measurements of volumetric flow and 

aluminum production such that mass 

emissions can be determined and 

correlated with aluminum production. 

Within 90 days after the EPA approval 

of the plan, Alcoa shall conduct the 

testing and submit the resultant 

emission factor to the EPA at the 

address listed in paragraph (i)(5) of this 

section. 

(iii) NOX emission limit. NOX

emission limit in tons per calendar 

month = (the emission factor 

determined under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of 

this section, in pounds of NOX per ton 

of aluminum produced) × (5546.2 tons 

of aluminum per month)/(2000 pounds 

per ton). 

(c) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) emission limitations for Anode 

Bake Furnace #62—(1) Sulfur dioxide 

(SO2) emission limit. Starting November 

10, 2014, the sulfur content of the coke 

used in anode manufacturing must not 

exceed a weighted average of 3.0 

percent during any calendar month as 

calculated in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this 

section. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. The 

weighted monthly average sulfur 

content of coke used in manufacturing 

shall be calculated as follows: 

Weighted average percent sulfur = 

è(C1-n×SC1-n/100)/èC1-n*100 

Where: 

Cn is the quantity of coke in shipment n in 

tons 

SCn is the percent sulfur content by weight 

of the coke in shipment n 

n is the number of shipments of coke in the 

calendar month 

(ii) Emission monitoring. Alcoa must 

test each shipment of coke for sulfur 

content using ASTM Method D6376 or 

an alternative method approved by the 

EPA Region 10. Written documentation 

from the coke supplier certifying the 

sulfur content is an approved alternative 

method. 

(2) Particulate matter (PM) emission 

limit. Starting November 10, 2014, the 

PM emissions from the anode bake 

furnaces stack must not exceed 0.01 

grains per dry standard cubic foot of 

exhaust gas. 

(3) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

limit. Starting November 10, 2014, the 

anode bake furnaces must only combust 

natural gas. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. 

Compliance shall be demonstrated 

through fuel purchase records. 

(ii) Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

limit for an approved alternative fuel. 

Compliance with a Best Available 

Control Technology (BACT) emission 

limit for NOX for the anode bake 

furnaces, established in a Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 

issued pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or 

pursuant to an EPA-approved PSD 

program that meets the requirements of 

40 CFR 51.166, shall be deemed to be 

compliance with BART for a fuel other 

than natural gas. 

(d) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) emission limitations for Ingot 

Furnace 1 (IP–1), Ingot Furnace 2 (IP–2), 

and Ingot Furnace 11 (IP–11)—(1) 

Particulate matter (PM) emission limits. 

Starting November 10, 2014, the PM 

emissions from each of ingot furnaces 

IP–1, IP–2, and IP–11 must not exceed 

0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot of 

exhaust gas. 

(2) Nitrogen oxides (NOX) emission 

limit. Starting November 10, 2014, each 

of the ingot furnaces IP–1, IP–2, and IP– 

11 must only combust natural gas. 

(3) Sulfur dioxide (SOX) emission 

limit. Starting November 10, 2014, each 

of the ingot furnaces IP–1, IP–2, and IP– 

11 must only combust natural gas. 

(i) Compliance demonstration. Alcoa 

must demonstrate compliance through 

fuel purchase records. 

(ii) [Reserved] 

(e) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) particulate matter (PM) 

emission limitations for the Green Mill. 

(1) Starting November 10, 2014, the PM 

emissions from the Green Mill Dry Coke 

Scrubber must not exceed 0.005 grains 

per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust 

gas. 

(2) Starting November 10, 2014, the 

PM emissions from the Green Mill Dust 

Collector 2 must not exceed 0.01 grains 

per dry standard cubic foot of exhaust 

gas. 

(f) Best available retrofit technology 

(BART) particulate matter (PM) 

emission limitations for alumina 

handling operations. (1) Starting 

November 10, 2014, the opacity from 

the alumina handling fabric filters (21M 

and 19C) must not exceed 20 percent. 

(2) Starting November 10, 2014, the 

PM emissions from the alumina rail car 

unloading baghouse (43E) must not 

exceed 0.005 grains per dry standard 

cubic foot of exhaust gas. 

(g) Source testing. (1) Alcoa must 

perform source testing to demonstrate 

compliance with emission limits 

established in this section upon request 

by the EPA Region 10 Administrator. 

(2) The reference test method for 

measuring PM emissions is EPA Method 

5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). 

(3) The reference test method for 

measuring opacity from the alumina 

handling fabric filters (21M and 19C) is 

EPA Method 9 (40 CFR part 60, 

appendix A). 

(4) The EPA Region 10 may approve 

the use of an alternative to a reference 

test method upon an adequate 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES
33456 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 112 / Wednesday, June 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1 If there are any existing SSI units located in 

Indian Nation Land these existing SSI units will be 

subject to the Federal plan. 

2On February 28, 2014, New York provided 

clarifying information concerning its State plan. To 

view this information see EPA’s electronic docket 

at www.regulations.gov. 

demonstration by Alcoa that such 

alternative provides results equivalent 

to that of the reference method. 

(h) Recordkeeping. Except as 

provided in paragraph (h)(6) of this 

section, starting November 10, 2014, 

Alcoa must keep the following records: 

(1) Alcoa must retain a copy of all 

calendar month Potline 5 SO2 emissions 

calculations. 

(2) Alcoa must maintain records of the 

baked anode consumption and 

aluminum production data used to 

develop the carbon ratio. 

(3) Alcoa must retain a copy of all 

calendar month carbon ratio and potline 

SO2 emission calculations. 

(4) Alcoa must record the calendar 

day and calendar month production of 

aluminum. 

(5) Alcoa must record the calendar 

month average sulfur content of the 

baked anodes. 

(6) Starting January 7, 2015, Alcoa 

must retain a copy of all calendar month 

potline NOX emission calculations. 

(7) Alcoa must record the sulfur 

content of each shipment of coke and 

the quantity of each shipment of coke. 

(8) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase 

records showing the type(s) of fuel 

combusted in the anode bake furnaces. 

(9) Alcoa must keep fuel purchase 

records showing the type(s) of fuel 

combusted in the ingot furnaces. 

(10) Records must be retained at the 

facility for at least five years and be 

made available to the EPA Region 10 

upon request. 

(i) Reporting. (1) Alcoa must report 

SO2 emissions by calendar month to the 

EPA Region 10 on an annual basis at the 

same time as the annual compliance 

certification required by the Part 70 

operating permit for the Wenatchee 

Works is submitted to the Title V 

permitting authority. 

(2) Alcoa must report NOX emissions 

by calendar month to the EPA Region 10 

on an annual basis at the same time as 

the annual compliance certification 

required by the Part 70 operating permit 

for the Wenatchee Works is submitted to 

the Title V permitting authority. 

(3) Alcoa must report the monthly 

weighted average sulfur content of coke 

received at the facility for each calendar 

month during the compliance period to 

the EPA Region 10 at the same time as 

the annual compliance certification 

required by the Part 70 operating permit 

for the Wenatchee Works is submitted to 

the Title V permitting authority. 

(4) Alcoa must report the fuel 

purchase records for the anode bake 

furnaces and the ingot furnaces during 

the compliance period to the EPA 

Region 10 at the same time as the 

annual compliance certification 

required by the Part 70 operating permit 

for the Wenatchee Works is submitted to 

the Title V permitting authority. 

(5) All documents and reports must be 

sent to the EPA Region 10 

electronically, in a format approved by 

the EPA Region 10, to the following 

email address: R10-AirPermitReports@

epa.gov. 

[FR Doc. 2014–13491 Filed 6–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 62 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2014–0127; FRL–9912–05– 

Region 2] 

Approval and Promulgation of State 

Plans for Designated Facilities; New 

York; Control of Emissions From 

Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration 

Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the section 

111(d)/129 plan submitted by New York 

State for the purpose of implementing 

and enforcing the emission guidelines 

for existing sewage sludge incineration 

(SSI) units. The intended effect of this 

action is to approve a plan required by 

the Clean Air Act (CAA) which 

establishes emission limits and other 

requirements for existing sewage sludge 

incineration units and provides for the 

implementation and enforcement of 

those limits and other requirements. 

New York submitted its plan to fulfill 

the requirements of sections 111 and 

129 of the CAA. 

DATES: This rule is effective on July 11, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R02–OAR–2014–0127. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., CBI or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. This Docket 

Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The Docket telephone 

number is 212–637–4249. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony (Ted) Gardella 

(Gardella.Anthony@EPA.Gov), Air 

Programs Branch, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3892. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA taking today? 

EPA is approving New York’s plan, 

and the elements therein, as submitted 

on July 1, 2013, for the control of air 

emissions from existing sewage sludge 

incineration (SSI) units throughout the 

State, except for any existing SSI units 

located in Indian Nation Land.1 When 

EPA developed the New Source 

Performance Standards (NSPS) (subpart 

LLLL) for SSI units on March 21, 2011, 

it concurrently promulgated Emission 

Guidelines (subpart MMMM) to control 

air emissions from existing SSI units. 

The New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) 

developed a plan, as required by 

sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA), to adopt the Emission 

Guidelines (EG) into its body of 

regulations, and EPA is acting today to 

approve New York’s plan. 

II. What are the details of EPA’s action? 

On March 21, 2011, in accordance 

with sections 111(d) and 129 of the 

CAA, EPA promulgated the SSI EG and 

compliance times for the control of 

emissions from existing SSI units. See 

76 FR 15371. EPA codified these 

guidelines at 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

MMMM. They include a model rule at 

40 CFR 60.5085 through 62.5250 that 

States may use to develop their own 

plans. Under that rule, EPA has defined 

an ‘‘SSI unit,’’ in part, as any device that 

combusts sewage sludge for the purpose 

of reducing the volume of the sewage 

sludge by removing combustible matter. 

40 CFR 60.5250. 

On July 1, 2013,2 New York submitted 

a plan for implementing and enforcing 

EPA’s EG for existing SSI units. Section 

60.5015 of the EG describes all of the 

required elements that must be included 

in a state’s plan for existing SSI units. 

New York’s State plan includes all of 

the required elements described in 

section 60.5015 of the EG. For further 


wreier-aviles on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with RULES